We're at war

haha mo0chan - I wondered what that meant
- Deker I hear ya about the cable update - even tho I'm in Europe the only station featuring ANYHING else besides the same image with the (I suppose) bombed buildings is HBO - and they only do reruns these days...
What I don't get is this - with all that great technical advancements the military get...howcome they're not able to post a pic with a decent resolution - mind you I'm not after picture perfect Holywood quality stuff. But if I took a pic like that to my clients they would show me the door instantly I mean all you see on TV is a blurred greenish image that's supposed to be news... HA! Most displeasing....

I agree about the media coverage, too, Deker.

You know how people watch NASCAR? They watch 5 zillion laps of cars driving in circles in hopes that they might see a 29 car pileup? That's sick and wrong - but somewhat entertaining. THIS WAR COVERAGE IS 100 TIMES WORSE. I'm utterly appalled and disgusted at our nation's media. At times, I find myself hoping Geraldo and his cohorts goes up in a cloud of scud dust. Get over your self-importance, you reporter a$$holes. "YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!"

I wonder if the TV audience knows the difference between this "War" and "Survivor" - honestly. Our sick country needs to be reminded that there are *innocent people* being EVAPORATED at the end of each of those "oohs" and "aahhhs"-- This isn't the 4th of July. puke. Last night, at a bar, I witnessed 5 drunk idiots cheer on these explosions. I guess ol' George gets his way. Or else... I guess I'm down with it, since I have buddies over in Kuwait in the military - but - If GW thinks he's going to put peace in the middle east - I want some of what he's smoking. Dude, Jesus Christ couldn't put peace in the middle east - I seriously doubt some spoiled rich kid from Texas can, either.

this article says everything I wish I could.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20HERB.html

Did you see Sadaam's look-alikes!? Freaky..

Nice sentiment in the article GGuy... too bad there's no substance.

Is it a good idea to liberate the people of Iraq from the clutches of a degenerate like Saddam Hussein? Sure. But there were better, less dangerous, ways to go about it.

The only problem is... that's basically the end of the article. If this opinionist is so bright; where are the frikkin' answers? 12 years of rhetoric and diplomacy didn't do it. Appeasing Saddam, hoping he'd play nice didn't work. Howabout a nice humanitarian appeal from the UN, or maybe a little hand-slap from Wild Bill Clinton? Didn't work!

I had a rousing verbal bashing / debate running with a niave college student. Went on for days. Know how I finally shut him up? Not by arguing about soveriegnity or propaganda... I asked him to simply give me an alternative that would decisively and quickly work. Stumped him. He didn't have one. He had a conviction that war was wrong, yet he had no other answer for the threat.

Here's some interesting reading...

Iraq's Children
Terrorist Training

Oh, forget it... WHO BROUGHT UP POLITICS ANYWAYS?

Don't get the media wrong, they're not doing it for pure entertainment purposes. If anything, blame the military for allowing civilians -- specifically journalists -- on the front line. We can't overlook the fact that the viewers are the ones that want to see it, the media can stop broadcasting the war if they want to, but the majority wants to know what's happening; being left in the dark until the war is over is far worse than watching it in semi-realtime.

Mihai, the video is green because they are using nightvision. They are shooting those videos in the middle of the night. So it's either green and grainy, or just pitch black.

That PBS interview is pretty eye-opening. I'm printing that out and making copies.

ooh, some companies in the US may win contracts after the war. anyone have a ballpark figure on the current FRENCH oil contracts in Iraq? try about $40 billion...

and hans blix on weapons inspections:

On the other hand, he said, Iraqi officials did not provide much new information until February, after a massive U.S. and British military buildup was under way.

"They sort of showered us with letters trying to explain this or that," Blix said.

But even then, he said, "When we examine it, we find relatively little new material in it."

btw, anyone notice that some of the missles iraq has launched at coalition forces are ones they said they didn't have?

*read like morpheus in matrix* hmmp...

chris

I hate the fact how people are always pointing at people who are JUST as wrong.

Now it are the french that are all wrong... c'mon man. They don't agree with you, that is what politics are for! So yeah, they've got a veto... they might as well use it.

And why mad at the french because they disagree with you, if you don't seem to listen to them at all and just bomb iraq anyway.
Nobody is wrong or right.

But I personally believe it is America's way of taking the attention away from other, perhaps even more important stuff. And I think it isn't going to work, how the hell can you make peace with people that you've just bombed the crap out?

Do you honestly believe that with killing sadam ( and his 7 look alikes ) you solve this? Hell no, you will piss even more people off because they are brainwashed by this dictator. They basically love the guy, well the ones that aren't being tortured that is...

And malibu, ofcourse it is hard to find another solution then going to war, because that is the easiest solution. But if you go to war, because someone is a dictator and not listening... you should bomb half the planet. Why just Iraq? Because there will be benefits afterwards.

i'm not mad at the french, they're entitled to their own opinion just like anyone else. its just interesting that people are upset with the US about oil money when the same thing is probably influencing the french decision. the only reason? no, i don't think it is, but it certainly had some influence. besides, what do people think the US is going to do? just take all of it after the war. is there ANY way the international community would allow that to happen, and its already been said that the oil will be used in the iraqi economy to help rebuild the nation (both the US and Britain have signed that already). so what are we really gaining?

do the french have the right to use their veto? they absolutely do. however, they did a whole lot of damage to diplomacy by threatening it. why? they said they'd veto ANYTHING, even a resolution simply reinforcing 1441 (which they've already agreed to). their only solution was "give more time for inspections". what good does that do if there's no consequences and no deadline?

as far as the iraqi people, some are brainwashed, but there's prob a lot more than you think that are starving and suffering and want nothing more than to have a new start. saddam has killed hundreds of thousands in different ways, those people's families probably aren't real big fans. and he's not "just a dictator", he's one with illegal weapons, terrorist training links, one who's killed scores of his own people, has invaded other countries in recent history, is trying to destory his own countries resources (oil wells) to stay in power...need i go on? i mean, the worst thing he could do is invade other countries, gain more power, and then become something we really have to worry about...

chris