japanese hostages return

[ZIM]

I don't expect this to become a popular thread, mind you- but I was a little amazed at the cultural differences in viewpoint...

Apparently the Japanese hostages were greeted in a much different way than you would expect. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/international/asia/23JAPA.html?pagewanted=all&position=)

"You got what you deserve!" read one hand-written sign at the airport where they landed. "You are Japan's shame," another wrote on the Web site of one of the former hostages. They had "caused trouble" for everybody. The government, not to be outdone, announced it would bill the former hostages $6,000 for air fare.

Beneath the surface of Japan's ultra-sophisticated cities lie the hierarchical ties that have governed this island nation for centuries and that, at moments of crises, invariably reassert themselves. The former hostages' transgression was to ignore a government advisory against traveling to Iraq. But their sin, in a vertical society that likes to think of itself as classless, was to defy what people call here "okami," or, literally, "what is higher."


Wow. There was also an article about the cultural reasons behind defying the hostage-takers at Asia Times Online, if you're curious...

ON EDIT: Then again, if it was Canada and Kung Lek were at the airport, I wouldn't be surprised... :rolleyes: :D

[WanderingMonk]

I saw this story on NY Times when it came out. It was really crazy. My bro was telling me that the Japanese was even mistreating those people who were victims of Japanese subway gas attack.

[oasis]

the reactions of the japanese public is indeed lamentable. i can somewhat expect the government to criticize people for taking risks, but to make the former hostages accept blame and pubicly apologize with a bow is not called for, especially after these people just experienced the trauma of being threatened under captivity.

And ZIM, who are you addressing with "6 days you dog" (the arabic in your sig). are you referring to 1967 by any chance?

[Ryu]

really? That's funny..... all the Japanese people I know here and in Japan feel nothing but empathy for the people gassed in the subway.

The article talks about how these three people directly violated the government's orders to go to Iraq because of this very possibility. They went anyway, got kidnapped, and were used as a threat to the Japanese troops there. They put the lives of many people in danger, and that's why some of the Japanese (not all, that article is very misleading) are angry with these people when they got back.

I was discussing this very story with my girlfriend from Tokyo not more than two days ago.
Apparently a lot of the Japanese have different opinions regarding this.
Not simply blind anger or warped sense of justice.

Sad.

Ryu

[oasis]

i wasn't trying to generalize about the entire japanese public. i was just referring to the many that did condemn the former hostages. you're right that the article does seem to imply a more ****genous view of the public though.

as for breaking the law, as i understood the article, the government only advised against travelling to iraq. it is b/c of this incident that the politicians are considering making a law to forbid its citizens from travelling to dangerous spots.

[YinYangDagger]

from what I've read from this and many other stories regarding today's Japan, it seems like the Japanese people are turning to a bunch of weak-kneed cowards...

so much for the strong Samurai nation of yesteryear

just my opinion...

[David Jamieson]

ON EDIT: Then again, if it was Canada and Kung Lek were at the airport, I wouldn't be surprised...

You know, comments of this nature are just indicative of an intolerant and unaccepting mindset zim.

You are just joining in with a group of apparently right wing neo con ditto heads who frequent these boards and talk all sorts of crap about honour and greatness and what not.

Yet another Bushie? Is that you? It is unfortunate :D
Your man is the "wrong" man i am afraid, but that will come to light eventually.

I am amused that you and those who are like minded and make these attacks on my position are unable to seriously answer to any of the questions I have posed and instead rely on shouting "conspiracy" or "that's not true". And cannot give one answer or one road to where an answer may be.

As for the japanese, I don't have a clue as to how or why their culture works the way it does, but I can tell you this much, Bushes war on Iraq is unsupported by the majority of the people on the planet. THat is quite clear by the lack of resources extended and the fact that none of us are going to support the US current presidential administrations current aggression towards that country no matter how much cnn attempts to explain it away.

I am sorry that Mr.Bush has no value for the lives of his own people. That is his shame and that will be his mark on history. He is an aggressor and a war monger, he is a neo-conservative war monger and he pays for his acts with the american taxpayers dollar.

people who wave flags and spout nonsense are not activists, they are just buying into the aggressive acts of the president and his henchmen.

I don't know how many more times I'm gonna need to repeat that, but I will repeat it as many times as is necessary I guess. I am not trying to silence you guys at all, I am just attempting to help you understand that the world does NOT support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and unilateral war making.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by YinYangDagger
from what I've read from this and many other stories regarding today's Japan, it seems like the Japanese people are turning to a bunch of weak-kneed cowards...

so much for the strong Samurai nation of yesteryear

just my opinion...

How so? Because they oppose war?

[unkokusai]

What is not so widely reported in the western press is just what a-holes these people were. First, the 'dramatic' footage of them being held at knife point was staged. They later said that they knew they were in no danger at that point. Second, when they were released, one local religious leader who had worked hard on securing their release wanted to embrace them (he was so happy they had returned unharmed). The woman wouldn't even stand up to hug the guy, she sat there chewing gum, one of the men couldn't be bothered to put down his smoke and just gave the guy a half a shoulder hug, being careful not to drop his cig., the other guy sat there looking indifferent. This was widely shown on tv in Japan. Then when they did return home, they gave interviews that were very heavy on criticizing the international effort in Iraq (and Japan's role in particular) and very very short on gratitude. At least two of them vowed to return to Iraq (and presumably get in the way again) as soon as possible. All of the above contributed to a public perception of these folks. There are 400-something SDF troops in Iraq trying to do some serious large-scale infrastructure work for the people of that land, and three selfish yahoos put their interests (however well intentioned) ahead of everyone else and jeopardized the work being done there. They are lucky if they are only charged for airfare.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by oasis

And ZIM, who are you addressing with "6 days you dog" (the arabic in your sig). are you referring to 1967 by any chance? Nobody in particular. It does refer to 1967 in fact, but there's no 'bizzatch' in Arabic, so "dog" had to do. That Israeli Air force is phenomenal! You know, I wanted to do it in Hebrew, but I couldn't work it out....
---------------------
Back to the topic:

Hey, I'll agree that I'd rather pay 6 thou than get killed any day. I didn't think it was true that all Japanese had this kind of reaction, which was part of the reason I brought it up here, of all places- if anybody knew better, they'd be here.

KL- Its a joke, man. Its alright for you to be offended by the dig, but it was a joke. I'm not offended by your remarks. I tend to go my own way on things political, though obviously right of you.

Everybody: KL would not have been at the airport. Got it? Good.

[David Jamieson]

dude-

it's (Iraq/terrorists/the middle east situation/ et al) a sensitive subject.

Don't expect people to just think of it as a joke. I certainly don't.

anyway, just sayin

[ZIM]

Ok, fair enough. I've been away for awhile, don't know how it's been around here.

I just remember a lot of the posting wars between you guys, same playas, same subjects.

My thinking over the thing has evolved over the period of my away-ness. I still don't agree with the entry into the 'smaller war' [iraq] but I do agree with the necessity of it, so that's a hard one.

the 'larger war' [that on terror] is tougher: Its not settled precisely what that is, or when it will be declared fini. I agree wholeheartedly with that one, but I see the problems, not the least of which is the temptation to label all middle eastern ppl 'terrorist' or to label all islamic ppl 'terrorist'.

But i'll say this: I'm sick and tired of having to roll back my culture to accommodate those who are 'offended' by it [meaning: vocal arabic minorities in USA] when in fact their culture offends me. And its not racism- i'm offended by their screwed up justice systems, their policies towards women, their defense of terrorists, their equivocations in the face of open sedition. And i'm sick of politicians who let it happen, defending them in the name of some PC or partisan BS. Jeebus, you come to america to escape the old world, folks- or you don't come here. The Lady says: "Yearning to breathe FREE", not 'to keep on keeping on'.

If a person is middle eastern and islamic *and a terrorist*, then thats enough for me, get it? I don't have to know what his beliefs are, because they count for nothing. The key is the terrorism part.

And like all of the other threads on religion or anything else, it won't be solved here on a kung fu board, so I see little point in playing the elder statesmen- or the younger one.

Ah whatever. this has gone on longer than i wanted it to. Pfft.

[WanderingMonk]

I can't find a link to the info about condemnation of those Japanese victims in the subway attack, so I'll take that back.

I find unkokusai's descriptions of these hostage a bit suspect, so I went to Asahi Shimbun and track this down. I flip thru a couple articles and can't find much info on how much jerks these hostages were.

http://www.asahi.com/english/world/TKY200404200161.html

Freed pair say they were held as spies, not hostages

The Asahi Shimbun
Junpei Yasuda, left, and Nobutaka Watanabe talk to reporters at a hotel in Amman, Jordan, on Sunday, the day after their release.

Their captors threatened them with death if they were working with the Americans.

AMMAN, Jordan-Human rights activist Nobutaka Watanabe, 36, and freelance journalist Junpei Yasuda, 30, said Sunday they were held hostage in Iraq last week because their captors thought they were spies.

The two met reporters at a hotel here after flying in from Baghdad, where they were released Saturday. They had been missing since Wednesday.

Their news conference followed questioning at the Japanese Embassy here.

Yasuda said that after their capture the two were moved three times, meeting with armed men he described as Mujahedeen group members. At one place, there were as many as 20 of them, Yasuda said.

``I felt fear whenever they pointed a Kalashnikov with its safety catch released at me,'' Yasuda said.

The two also said they felt they were held not as hostages but as spies who had entered a war zone.

At one point, the armed men told them in English that they would be killed if they were working with the Americans.

``I was saved because I was not carrying a gun,'' Yasuda said. ``Others taken hostage and killed in Iraq seemed to have been carrying firearms.''

The two were heading toward Fallujah when they were stopped by five men who stepped out of a passenger car. They asked Watanabe and Yasuda if they wanted to see a downed U.S. military helicopter.

The pair followed and were captured by an armed group of about 15 men.

On the third day of their captivity, the two were asked by the group if ``the Japanese prime minister would take responsibility if we kill you.''

They replied that ``that would not be likely.''

Watanabe and Yasuda told their captors they had gone to Iraq to report on Iraqi deaths as a result of U.S. military operations.

Both are scheduled to arrive back in Japan today.(IHT/Asahi: April 20,2004) (04/20)

[red5angel]

LOL! Only Kung Lek could turn a thread about the Japanese hostages into a bush thing. Get off it you idiot.


I think Ryu has it correct. Your always going to run into that extremeist type of personality, much like the terrorist they are to obusy with their own beliefs to look much at the greater picture. So they protest what they really don't understand, and try to put a spin on it that makes sense to them. They feel anger, they just can't identify it exactly so they turn it on anyone who is convenient. Much like the hippies in the 60's who took their anger out on the soldier.


It's fortunate that unlike spain, Japan has stuck to its guns.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
It's fortunate that unlike spain, Japan has stuck to its guns. Unlike Japan, Spain is not dependent on the American military for protection or married to the American economy.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by WanderingMonk
I can't find a link to the info about condemnation of those Japanese victims in the subway attack, so I'll take that back.

I find unkokusai's descriptions of these hostage a bit suspect, so I went to Asahi Shimbun and track this down. I flip thru a couple articles and can't find much info on how much jerks these hostages were.


It's good you took that first one back, because it was false.

As for my info...doubt not. I'm talking original source material here. Newspapers, TV news. I saw the video of the 'hug incident'.

[red5angel]

Unlike Japan, Spain is not dependent on the American military for protection or married to the American economy.


You'd be surprised. but hey, any excuse to fold at the first sign of trouble right?

[ZIM]

Don't know if anyone will find this interesting: An article about the Confucian influences (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FD20Dh03.html) on the choice to defy the hostage takers.

At the same site, there is a lot of good coverage (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/War_and_Terror.html) to be found.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
You'd be surprised. but hey, any excuse to fold at the first sign of trouble right? Don't be obtuse. The previous administration jumped to pit the blame for the Spanish attacks on the separatists and lost a lot of face with the public. Add to that 3+ years of anti-Bush sentiment in Spain, and it's easy to see there are many factors at play.

Your pro-American agenda is just as one-sided as Kung Lek's anti-Bush agenda. You guys are like Yin and Yang. Or Chang and Eng.

[YinYangDagger]

<--- Pro-American, Pro-War, Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-SexWithAsianLadies, Pro-CMA...

dang, labels are fun :D

[red5angel]

MK - what spain did was kowtowed to terrorist threats, plain and simple. After those attacks, it didn't matter what the political feeling was in that country, Spain should have stood up and helped to present a united front against terrorism, period. The fact that the new regimes short sighted attempt to gain votes by promising to do what the terrorists ask is just sickening and I hope to god that if anymore terrorist attacks are carried out in spain, those people are the targets instead of innocent civilians or others who have the guts and the fortitude to stick with it.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
MK - what spain did was kowtowed to terrorist threats, plain and simple. After those attacks, it didn't matter what the political feeling was in that country, Spain should have stood up and helped to present a united front against terrorism, period. The fact that the new regimes short sighted attempt to gain votes by promising to do what the terrorists ask is just sickening and I hope to god that if anymore terrorist attacks are carried out in spain, those people are the targets instead of innocent civilians or others who have the guts and the fortitude to stick with it. How is Iraq related to Al-Queda, again?

[Christopher M]

Al-Qaeda demanded Spain withdraw from Iraq. That said, I'm not sure it's accurate to say Spain is kowtowing to the terrorists, as they are sending more troops to Afghanistan, and officially denounced the Al-Qaeda offer to European nations.

[red5angel]

How is Iraq related to Al-Queda, again?

LOL! Been listening to KL to much here MK. I'm going to let you put that one together for yourself. To provide a little hint check out my last post or two on the tillman thread ;) There's another small hint in my reply to Chris M below.


Chris M - The way I understand it, threats were made that there would be more terrorist attacks if Spain did not pull out of Iraq. The competing regime used the fear that request and the terror attacks evoked, along with spains discontent to help get them into office. My feeling is that regardless of what the feeling is before the attack, terrorist attacked Spain, made a request, and Spain promised to comply - while trying to save face by denouncing the request (while following through with it anyway) "officially".

[Shaolinlueb]

so, were any of these hostages hot chicks?:o :p

[Christopher M]

There's no doubt that the Spain attacks dramatically influenced public opinion, which was capitalized on by the incoming politicans. It's also certain that they were warned further attacks would continue - but I believe the warning regarded Moslem lands generally and not Iraq specifically. In this case, their commitment to forces in Afghanistan is meaningfull.

[MasterKiller]

Spanish sentiment was already against keeping troops in Iraq because Spain opposed the war, and Bush's false pretenses for war, in the first place. The guy who was elected campaigned on the platform of pulling troops out. Even without the attacks, he probably would have been elected and Spain still would have removed their troops.

[red5angel]

but in my opinion half a$$ed. You don't get anything by doing what they ask, no matter the reasons. Terrorist will take that capitulation to heart and utilize it for propoganda to incite more individuals to "jihad" and to encourage other groups to commit acts of terrorism on other o****ries to get what they want.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
but in my opinion half a$$ed. You don't get anything by doing what they ask, no matter the reasons. Terrorist will take that capitulation to heart and utilize it for propoganda to incite more individuals to "jihad" and to encourage other groups to commit acts of terrorism on other o****ries to get what they want. And what does that have to do with invading Iraq, again?

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by unkokusai

As for my info...doubt not. I'm talking original source material here. Newspapers, TV news. I saw the video of the 'hug incident'.

Well, if it was in the newspaper, would you mind post a link to one because I didn't see it from the articles I was browsing through in Asahi Shimbun.

[red5angel]

keep plugging along at it MK, you'll figure it out ;)

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
keep plugging along at it MK, you'll figure it out ;) Actually, I already know the answer. To quote Robby the Robot:

"Does not compute. Does not compute."

[ZIM]

OT, but interesting on its own (http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_01_iraqataglance_archive.html#108308626329 222919)

Thank God, Saddam has gone forever, I hope someday we Iraqis, Americans, British and all the brave people who liberated us make parties and celebrate, cooperate and live in peace and build a prosperous world for our children and for us...
Its Saddam's birthday today, folks!

Happy Birthday, you S.O.B.! Here's a photo album for you! (http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/)

[red5angel]

"Does not compute. Does not compute."


actually, it does.

[David Jamieson]

steal a candy bar or steal a dollar, you are still stealing.

zim, your photo album doesn't do anything but obfuscate the point. If your point is that saddam was a bad man, we get it. But that is not why teh uS attacked now is it?

After all, it was the US that was still supporting this "bad and evil" person while he was gassing the kurds in the north with American supplied ordinance.

so, yes, saddam was a horrible person, but you are getting away from the truth of the matter and that is the reality of why is Bush pushing into Iraq? Was it because saddam wa bad? No! It was because he believed that he had wmds. Are there wmds? no.

anyway, as far as the first statement i made above in reference to the candy bar, i submit this for your perusal and offer a "nice try" with your photo album which only serves to obfuscate the truth.

here ya go, remeber this people? it's from before that election fell off the truck and Bush snagged it, dusted off the cap of presidency and put it on his head, which apparently completely lacks a conscience!


GEORGE W. BUSH'S dogged denial of factory defects in the death machinery of Texas invites memories of Lyndon Johnson telling us how we were defoliating the North Vietnamese into target range. In the beginning, one could charitably concede that the two men were merely bullheaded souls, filled with false pride and false missions, trying to persuade us we needed to slaughter some criminals or a whole nation into submission.

Johnson's stubbornness became massacres and suicide battles abroad and dead students at home. Bush's pathological denials have exploded into a time line that makes it easy to depict him, in the political sense, as a serial killer, indiscriminately dispensing with the despised and chuckling over their bodies.


Bush, remember, has gloated about the death penalty in more than just the presidential debates. He is the same Bush who last year ridiculed death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, whining in mock exaggeration in an interview that Tucker begged, ''Please don't kill me.'' Bush, who has made his Christianity part of his resume, mocked Tucker even though she said she had found Christ.


In Texas, 232 people have been executed since 1973, and more than 450 are on death row. If Texas were a nation, it would rank fifth in the world in executions. Studies, reports, and exhaustive newspaper stories have shown that Texas is so careless in executing its executions that it, like Illinois, should call a moratorium on capital punishment.


In May, The Washington Post wrote how death penalty defendants receive lawyers who are chronically inexperienced, incompetent, and indifferent to the point of sleeping at trials. No matter. Bush said, ''I'm absolutely confident that everybody that has been put to death ... are guilty of the crime charged, and, secondly, they had full access to our courts.''


In June, the Chicago Tribune found that of 131 Texas executions done under Bush, there were 40 cases of the defense presenting no evidence during sentencing, 29 uses of psychiatric practices that have been condemned by the American Psychiatric Association, and 43 where a defendant was represented by a lawyer who was later disbarred or disciplined.


To that investigation, Bush said, ''I've said once and I've said a lot that in every case, we've adequately answered innocence or guilt.'' Bush said all defendents have ''had full access to the courts. They've had full access to a fair trial.''


In June, a Scripps Howard poll found that while 73 percent of Texans supported the death penalty, 57 percent believed that the state has executed innocent defendants. To that poll, Bush said, ''I analyze each case when it comes across my desk, looking at innocence or guilt.... As far as I'm concerned, there has not been one innocent person executed since I've been governor.''


Also in June, a Columbia University study found that two-thirds of death sentences in the United States and 52 percent of those in Texas from 1973 through 1995 were overturned because of bad or suppressed evidence. Bush again was unmoved. ''We have never put an innocent person to death,'' Bush said.


Last week the Fort Worth Star Telegram published a yearlong investigation that found legal services so lacking for low-income death penalty defendants that Texas ''appears to provide a different standard of justice for the poor.'' Also last week, the Texas Defender Service, which tries to defend the poor on death row, said it had found 84 cases where state officials or police presented false, misleading, or highly unreliable testimony. It found 121 cases of psychiatrist testimony based on no or extremely brief examinations of the defendant.


The Defenders Service report found rampant racial disparities. African-Americans make up 23 percent of the murder victims in Texas, but fewer than 1 percent of executions result from the murder of African-Americans. White women are only 1 percent of murder victims, but 34 percent of executions result from killings of white women. Asked if Texas should call a moratorium as Illinois has done, Bush said no. Asked why, he said, ''The reason why is I'm confident that every person that has been put to death under our state has been guilty of the crime charged.''


Such confidence in the face of the evidence borders on the deranged. Three decades ago, a president refused to change course, and it cost thousands of American lives. In two weeks, the nation may elect a president with a similar hubris. If Bush will not change course on the death penalty, there is no telling what he will not change course on if elected president.


Remember to do the right thing when it comes to casting your vote this november and actually get off your arse and vote america. The rest of the world can't afford to have someone such as Bush with his finger on the button.

cheers

[red5angel]

keep trying kung lek. that one was probably the weakest of them all so far.

[David Jamieson]

whatever red5

when you grow up and the air actually touches your still wet skin, you may not be so limited in your scope in regards to the value of human life.

you have expressed again and again on thes forums what little respect for others you have.

It is my hope that you do not have to experience the kind of crap you wish upon others in your life. Because I know you don't need to experience it to know that it is evil at the core.

I am sorry that you are unable at this time to see that hatred is not the way. I can only hope that you will grow to become someone who seeks peace instead of spreading hate and lies.

I would say the same about your president. But I think he has made his choice and is fixated on death. Afterall, that is the premise and focus of his secret society membership.

I'll side with no one who thinks that killing is a reasonable answer to solving a political problem.

Otherwise, I wish you the best.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Remember to do the right thing when it comes to casting your vote this november and actually get off your arse and vote america. The rest of the world can't afford to have someone such as Bush with his finger on the button.

cheers Yes, I agree. Do the Right thing.

>The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
>the editor.:
>
> Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
>complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed
>Bush was the worst president in U.S history. Let's clear up one point:
>We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by
>terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and
>mismanagement claims.
>
> FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
> >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
> >year.
>
> Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea
>never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
>of 18,333 per year.
>
> John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
>attacked us.
>
> Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000
>lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
>
> Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
>never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
>three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
>multiple occasions.
>
> In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
>liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
>nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
>shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
>people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all
>this abroad while not
> allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in
>history? Come on!
>
> The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
>but...
>
> It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
>Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
>
> We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for
>less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm
>billing records.
>
> It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
>destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call
>the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquid****.
>
> It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
>Florida!!!!

Long as I'm on a linking tear today... (http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000331.php)

[red5angel]

anything is reasonable within context kung lek. I don't buy into universal good and evil. There's no reason for anything that happens, anything. But it does anyway, and to survive in a world where those types of things hapopen you have to fight back. You can't just lay down and hope things will go away or just fix themselves. I'd love to see a world where we could all just get along but it ain't happening bro, and I'm not going to try to fool myself into thinking it is. I also, can see on both sides of the coin, and know that the politicians we have, all of us, including even you crazy canadians, will do what they have to do for their own. Just look at spain as a perfect example. But someone has to get he job done and it's idealism to sit around and think it's just going to go away, like you seem to believe it will if we all just hole up and close our eyes.
There are things worth fighting for and while I might not agree that making people rich is one of them, the worlds resources certainly are, the worlds freedoms certainly are, and the ability to walk the streets without having to worry about some idiot blowing me up cause I don't believe what he believes. It's you that are naive Kung Lek, and it's you that is apparently too wet behind the ears to understand that there is more going on then you will ever know, and that sometimes you have to do for yours. Sucks, but that's natures way and we human's are no different.

[red5angel]

lol@ zim - it's easy to ignoe all that when you have your own agenda, right kl?

[David Jamieson]

it's funny if you think I am a liberal. lol

It's just as funny that you would view the left wingers with clearly the equal educational standards of the neo con ditto heads as being the hallmark of people who are against the war in the Iraq.

Need I remind you that the majority of planet Earth is against Bush and his war in iraq and not just some groups of commie hippies in parks across the US?

The entire Planet pretty much wants Bush out of office.
And it is gonna take some time for the US to normalize it's diplomatic relations with the rest of the planet because of his outrageous actions.

[red5angel]

you'd want him out of office too if he was making you look like an ass buy doing things that should have bene done by the UN, or other less responsible nations. ;)

[ZIM]

Point of Order: The "entire planet" does NOT have a say in OUR elections, thank you and thank God.

[red5angel]

“Forget the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found,” the diplomat says. “That is understandable. Everyone, including the U.N., thought they were there. But the other mistakes compounded each other.”


;)

[diego]

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/235.jpg

sad!.

[diego]

Originally posted by ZIM
Point of Order: The "entire planet" does NOT have a say in OUR elections, thank you and thank God.

i'd just like to send god the big middle i extension being that your elections sets up chumps who have way to much say on the planet!.

uno we canucks almost had legal weed but you gayyanks started crying so now we don't!...how is this freedom...1

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by WanderingMonk


Well, if it was in the newspaper, would you mind post a link to one because I didn't see it from the articles I was browsing through in Asahi Shimbun.

You should be aware that the English version of the Japanese Newspapers are not 'translations' of the original, but a different compilation altogether. You are not going to get an accurate representation of all the popular media that way unfortunately.

I don't know if you can search archives at MSNJapan, but be warned, it's all in Japanese.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by diego


uno we canucks almost had legal weed but you gayyanks started crying so now we don't!...how is this freedom...1

If you don't like your government, get rid of it. Quit *****ing about ours!

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
If your point is that saddam was a bad man, we get it. But that is not why teh uS attacked now is it?

Depends who you ask. It's the only motivation I've been interested in, personally. It also seems to have been the one Bush was trying to offer, as demonstrated by his remarks to the UN general assembly (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html). Admittedly, it's not the motivation which the media popularized, and not the one you advocate.


After all, it was the US that was still supporting this bad and evil person while he was gassing the kurds in the north with American supplied ordinance.

It was civilian helicopters which Iraq purchased from America, not the chemical weapons. In any case, this seems like a moot point: there's no reason to expect that past alliances make future conflict impossible - and certainly no reason to believe that pressing humanitarian problems should be ignored because someone is implicated in their past (if anything: quite the opposite).

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
you'd want him out of office too if he was making you look like an ass buy doing things that should have bene done by the UN, or other less responsible nations. ;)

so you guys think bush is doing a good job?

as far as i know he is just ****ing off the terrorists even more...they calling him a liar for going into iraq wheras before they were just calling him an azzhole...so now not only do they despise him they think he prolly a criminal-gangsta

he sure was happy when he got that ******* saddam talking about how he honoured his father taking out that eviul *******...lol bush is such a geek

anyway

i don't have all the facts and all i want is peace...can someone tell me with factbased links preferrabbly why the terrorists are attacking the west and it's system?.

is it cuz we let osama down in afghanistan orsomething i heard about that, or do they just hate mcdonalds and disneyland?.

[diego]

Originally posted by unkokusai


If you don't like your government, get rid of it. Quit *****ing about ours! ???

our government hates the freaking yanks but they too shook to stand up agianst the crakkka

the canadian people wanted legal marijuana and our guvment said aight we can do that but before they could do that the stupid yanks started crying and forced them not to do that...it's not our fault you yanks are such a screwed up rascist nation and yall just wanna walk around all drunk and obese..if we wanna smoke weed we should be able to but no some cracka cowboy likes his whiskey and beating on his wife so i can't get onsome cheech and chong isht without worrying about going to a jail that i freaking pay taxes for...:mad:

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by diego


so you guys think bush is doing a good job?

as far as i know he is just ****ing off the terrorists even more....

Oh no! Let's not "**** off" terrorists! Do Canadian police coddle criminals in the hope they will love everyone so much they give up crime? Do you really think terrorists will respond better to weakness than strength? We tried that. It was called two terms of B.J. Boy.

Of course it's easy for Canada to have such an attitude. Kinda secure up there, ain't ya? Why would that be?

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by diego
???

our government hates the freaking yanks but they too shook to stand up agianst the crakkka

:

If your country is a big frozen *****, that's your own fault!

[diego]

Originally posted by unkokusai


If your country is a big frozen *****, that's your own fault!

whatever all i'm saying is you lameo patriots are mad corny touting how great this system is when it ain't all that free and i find it hilarious we trying to get the middleeast to follow our system...i mean don't most those guys smoke opium after a hard day of work lol

good luck with your manifest destiny goergie boy...

[diego]

Originally posted by unkokusai


Oh no! Let's not "**** off" terrorists! Do Canadian police coddle criminals in the hope they will love everyone so much they give up crime? Do you really think terrorists will respond better to weakness than strength? We tried that. It was called two terms of B.J. Boy.

Of course it's easy for Canada to have such an attitude. Kinda secure up there, ain't ya? Why would that be?

read red5s posts and you will see why i thought of that...he saying spains actions gave terrorists faith...and i'm thinking is it really even relevant they gonna blow up isht anyway!!?.

[diego]

so why do they hate us?...i don't beleive killing them will work...maybe for a few minutes but as soon as buddys kids get older then the saga will continue...does bush even know why they hate us

i don't in full!!?

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by diego
???
the canadian people wanted legal marijuana and our guvment said aight we can do that but before they could do that the stupid yanks started crying and forced them not to do that..

Canadian wanted legal weed? by what percentage?

If you guys really want legal weed that's your business, but coming from a country which had "legal opium" and it is the direct cause of 100 years + of humiliation, I don't think legalizing addictive drug is a good idea.

I am sure people can debate the effect of weed has on the human brain, but unless there's a medical reason for it, I don't think it is really necessary for people to be smoking it.

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by unkokusai


You should be aware that the English version of the Japanese Newspapers are not 'translations' of the original, but a different compilation altogether. You are not going to get an accurate representation of all the popular media that way unfortunately.

I don't know if you can search archives at MSNJapan, but be warned, it's all in Japanese.

so, you are saying the Japanese papers prepare a "sanitized" version for western consumption? b/c the way you presented the story, every Japanese who watch tv and read newspaper know about it, so I find it strange an English version of Japanese paper won't at least mention it in passing.

No, I can't read Japanese, so trying Msn Japan will not work for me. but, if you give me a link, I can use babel fish from av to translate it. I do read chinese, so if there's enough kanji, I might be able to make out half of the story on my own.

come on, just one link.

[diego]

Originally posted by WanderingMonk


Canadian wanted legal weed? by what percentage?

If you guys really want legal weed that's your business, but coming from a country which had "legal opium" and it is the direct cause of 100 years + of humiliation, I don't think legalizing addictive drug is a good idea.

I am sure people can debate the effect of weed has on the human brain, but unless there's a medical reason for it, I don't think it is really necessary for people to be smoking it.

well that's great...and i'm allowwed to get cancer from cigs and beat on my wife while drunk agian why???

you ever heard of a pothead going home pulling out the bong and beating on his wife...or you ever heard of a bunch of hippys at a love in step on another hippies toes and start busting off shots in the club????

i bet you drink alot don't you??

i know doctors that function fine and smoke...my dad got kicked out by the feds when i was five cuz he was a drunk and loved to slam my moms head into the linoleum...our culture is insane for how just and enlightened we act!.
peace

oh and yeah as far as i heard we had it set they were going to pass the law but america chimed in and stalled them...i think they may find the nutts to go through with it tho cuz they still in negotiations...america doesn't want us smoking cuz they scared it will come up from our borders

how lame is that..we can't smoke but i can get drunk out of my skull just cuz you don't want to smell it in your american yard...:)lameass white male christian system this socalled enlightened north american system is...i'm not saying other places have better systems i just think it's a freaking joke we trying to tell commies and terrorists how to be free when we have no freaking idea

why can't we get the guns off the streets, why can't we get the youth to not even want to be high or drunk and just go play sports

cuz america was never equal and now we just fronting

anyway enough ranting i hope i didn't offend anyone i'm just bored at the moment.:)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by WanderingMonk
I am sure people can debate the effect of weed has on the human brain, but unless there's a medical reason for it, I don't think it is really necessary for people to be smoking it.

The issue is less 'should people be smoking marijuana?' and more 'what role should the government have in what people do?' In particular, the government sanctions and profits from the sales of drugs (eg. alcohol) whose medical and sociological effects far outweigh some of those which it prohibits (eg. marijuana).

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by WanderingMonk


so, you are saying the Japanese papers prepare a "sanitized" version for western consumption?

I don't think so. I think there is just not as much staff and whatnot dedicated to the English version, so it is thin and simplified.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by WanderingMonk



No, I can't read Japanese, so trying Msn Japan will not work for me. but, if you give me a link, I can use babel fish from av to translate it. I do read chinese, so if there's enough kanji, I might be able to make out half of the story on my own.

come on, just one link.

Can't help ya, champ. It was an internet thing from msnJapan to bbs messages to a link someone posted to this that and the other thing. I'm not sharp enough with the lingo to retrace it myself again if I wanted to. I was sort of a passenger on the internet news ride when I first read the stuff (Had a little help with the reading too!)

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by diego
so why do they hate us?...i don't beleive killing them will work...maybe for a few minutes but as soon as buddys kids get older then the saga will continue...does bush even know why they hate us


1. Don't care
2. Yes, it will have the immediate effect desired
3. We aren't going to stop manufacturing bullets after the first batch.
4. See above

[diego]

Originally posted by unkokusai


1. Don't care
2. Yes, it will have the immediate effect desired
3. We aren't going to stop manufacturing bullets after the first batch.
4. See above

see this would be kinda funny if you even knew who you were fighting

so have fun in the future when you a old man and some little ten year old walks up during the winter while kids are chucking snowballs at cars and the kid throws a grenade at you...f bush we should put you in charge so you can just hit the button and we can dead this whole isht real quick...;)

[red5angel]

...it's not our fault you yanks are such a screwed up rascist nation

how is not wanting maryjane legalised equate to racism again? You canadians have some funny logic, but atleast it's consistant. Of course when you want to be us, I guess you start to do what we say huh? ;)

as for terrorist attacking the west - it's a deep hatred some people hold for those who are not like themselves. Add a few religious beliefes horribly twisted and there you go. We shook the beehive so of course they're going to go nuts. When you see the hand of doom coming do you just stand there or do you take action. America declared war, decided they'd had enough, not the terrorist are trying to fight back in the only way they know how, killing innocents.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
iit's a deep hatred some people hold for those who are not like themselves. Add a few religious beliefes horribly twisted and there you go. They're Republicans? :confused:

[ZIM]

Ahahahaha. :rolleyes:

Let's ask them:

"... as the Saudi Sheikh Wajdi Hamza Al-Ghazawi put it in a sermon: "The meaning of the term ‘terror’ used by the media . . . is Jihad for the sake of Allah." Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia, Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza in England, Mullah Krekar in Norway, and other radical Muslims around the world have been unanimous in declaring that they are not indiscriminate purveyors of mayhem — terrorists — but mujahedin: jihad warriors. They have declared again and again that they are fighting to unify the Islamic people under a restored caliphate, and to establish the hegemony of Islamic law over the reunified umma, as well as over the non-Muslim world. In doing this, they say, they are acting in complete accord with the commandments of their religion, which mandates warfare against non-Muslims in order to establish Islamic rule. And they have declared that in this struggle, the United States is their principal foe."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12245

[old jong]

Point of Order: The "entire planet" does NOT have a say in OUR elections, thank you and thank God.

This would be nice if YOUR election had not the potential to cause major trouble all around the world. (BTW how many other countries had their elections ,How could I say?... influenced :rolleyes: for YOUR interests?....)


you'd want him out of office too if he was making you look like an ass buy doing things that should have bene done by the UN, or other less responsible nations.

The UN and the vast majority of the world never believed Bush's lies so,the UN and the vast majority of the world are no good...Naturally! (Makes sense):rolleyes:

[red5angel]

thanks Zim, I was trying to challenge MK to use his mind on this one. I guess it wasn't working.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by old jong



The UN and the vast majority of the world never believed Bush's lies

Or they were just too busy taking kick-backs on the oil-for-food program to want to do anything about sh

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by old jong
The UN and the vast majority of the world never believed Bush's lies

If "Bush's lies" is a reference to WMD in Iraq, the UN and the vast majority of the world most certainly and explicitly believed them, as demonstrated by UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by diego
can someone tell me with factbased links preferrabbly why the terrorists are attacking the west and it's system?

It's important to remember that the terrorists are targetting "the west" and not simply 'America': the list of top 5 targets spread by Al-Qaeda included Canada and France. Whatever your theory is on why Islamic terrorism occurs, it will have to account for this fact, keeping in mind that these countries were among the most vocal denouncing Bush and the American agenda.

[ZIM]

Fine. You guys CAN take part in our elections. All you have to do is lobby for inclusion to our Great Republic and obey our laws and Constitution. We're flexible, guys.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
thanks Zim, I was trying to challenge MK to use his mind on this one. I guess it wasn't working. Why do you have to resort to personal attacks when someone disagrees with your politics? I read the news. I watch CNN. I follow this stuff as much as anyone. I can think for myself, and I certainly don't have to jump on the pity-us-bandwagon because someone attacked us. I'm glad we kicked the **** out of Afghanistan, but really, Iraq had nothing to do with that and everyone knows. More Saudi money is used to train terrorists than from any place else in the world. Why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia to protect ourselves against terrorism?:rolleyes:

Bush's approval rating was 53% last time I checked. That means 47% of the people in the US think like me, statistically. Are we all stupid?

FWIW, I think the blind, jingoistic diatribes you parrot make you sound like an idiot, but I don't say it out-loud because it doesn't add anything to the argument.

[red5angel]

no MK, you asked how Iraq and Al Quaeda were tied in together. You either don't know, and in which case you aren't qualified to ask the question in a sarcastic and caustic manner, or you were playing devils advocate, in which case you and I both know and I didn't feel like wasting the time to go through it all again. Either way, the question is easily answered for those who are reading the news, checking their sources and understanding what all the underlying issues are.
I'm irritated you even had to ask the fukking question in the first place, especially since it's been discussed several times on several different threads you've participated in. I've moved past the little idiotic and basic shots that you guys are taking on the whole war on terror and the war in Iraq. Iraq, believe it or not, is full of muslim extremist, unless of course your dumb enough to believe that they all just crossed the border the minute the war started. They've supported terror in the past, and Saddam's Regime was a focal point for terror, period, if you don't believe, asl the Iraqis. Sure we supported him in the past, bug fukking deal, as Chris M put it, relations in the past doesn't mean things don't go wrong in the future. You don't stay buddy-buddy with every girlfreind you drop like a bad habit. Sh!t happens. Sure Iraq has a lot of oil, and I bet we do profit from it, but a war is fukking expensive and the west needs some sort of a foothold in the middle east other wise the population of the middle east continues to be put under oppressive regimes who keep the masses dumb to encourage extremism against the west. Get the fukk over it already. Violence never solved anything? Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein? Or maybe the 19 gentlemen who flew plains into american civilian targets and stop blaiming the fukking US for pushing back when it get's pushed. Bush may not be the best guy, most politicinas aren't that's right, not even in Canada for fukk sake, so get over that too, Atleast he's doing something about 9/11, period.

and fukk you very much MK for pushing and pushing and pushing for a an answer to a dumb question you already know the answers for, and getting ****y about it cause you're not ready to let others play the game. don't take your fukking holier then thou attitude with me aight cause it ain't flyin'. you can't handle the heat, you know what to get the hell out of.

[ZIM]

WRT WMD's:


New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein’s missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president’s critics continue to insist that “no weapons” have been found.

per Insight (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml)

Additionally, it turns out that Iran has not one, but TWO nuclear programs, one civilian, one military. Guess which one the UN gets to inspect? Face it, the UN is cr@pperz.

[Christopher M]

Yeah, the 'no WMDs' thing has always been a canard. Firstly, it results from a vast confusion over the nature of the UN weapons inspectors - who were verifying known and admitted quantities of WMD, not trying to find hidden ones. Secondly, there have been reports consistently, from both before and during the war, of disarmament of chemical agents, outlawed missiles and so on - all available via a quick search on yahoo news for those interested. It's always shocking how small the proportion of people is who are willing to do such a search.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
[B] Iraq, believe it or not, is full of muslim extremist, unless of course your dumb enough to believe that they all just crossed the border the minute the war started. They've supported terror in the past, and Saddam's Regime was a focal point for terror, period, if you don't believe, asl the Iraqis. When did Iraq ever attack us? What's the ratio of Saudi money being used to sponsor terrorists as compared to Iraqi money?

If you think Iraq wasn't on Bush's agenda BEFORE 9/11, you are wearing blinders.


Bush may not be the best guy, most politicinas aren't that's right, not even in Canada for fukk sake, so get over that too, Atleast he's doing something about 9/11, period.Iraq had no ties to Al Queda. That's already been admitted by our own government. You're buying into the propoganda machine.


and fukk you very much MK for pushing and pushing and pushing for a an answer to a dumb question you already know the answers for, and getting ****y about it cause you're not ready to let others play the game. don't take your fukking holier then thou attitude with me aight cause it ain't flyin'. you can't handle the heat, you know what to get the hell out of. I know the answer to it. It's just not the answer you keep trying to shove down everyone's throat. Holier than thou? Look in a ****ing mirror sometime.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by ZIM
New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein’s missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president’s critics continue to insist that “no weapons” have been found. If it were true, the BUsh media machine would have already jumped on it and broadcast it to the world as evidence. If they'll make up fake news reports about the medicare changes and send it out as real news, they sure as hell would jump on this.

[YinYangDagger]

So what happens if they eventually do find WMD? Everyone will praise Bush in open arms? Nope.

This is ALL about elections. Not WMD. Not military backgrounds. Not US vs Iraq. It's about Demos vs. Repubs. Period.

MK - you're whole deal seams to be the WMD. Would you vote for Bush if weapons were found?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
If it were true...

Why do we ask "If it were true..."? Why don't we just go look? This (http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/02/12/story87983.asp) took me three seconds to find.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by YinYangDagger
MK - you're whole deal seams to be the WMD. Would you vote for Bush if weapons were found? My whole deal is WMDs? Hardly. I would never vote for Bush because I find his administration secretive and suspect on a lot of fronts.

I would vote for John McCain over John Kerry.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Why do we ask "If it were true..."? Why don't we just go look? This (http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/02/12/story87983.asp) took me three seconds to find. Show me the same story on CNN.

[Chang Style Novice]

10 leftover shells of mustard gas are WMDs? I mean sure, that's gonna be awefully unpleasant for whoever gets hit by 'em, but you're not going to be starting a worldwide campaign of terror with that kind of arsenal.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by MasterKiller

I would vote for John McCain over John Kerry.

I would vote for a fresh, steaming pile of dog crap over John Kerry.

[YinYangDagger]

Yeah, I think McCain would have brought a helluva lot more to the table than Kerry, that's for sure.

Unfortunately, that's not an option.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Show me the same story on CNN.

That story was on cnn many weeks ago. Can't you at least keep up with your own side?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by unkokusai


I would vote for a fresh, steaming pile of dog crap over John Kerry. You'll get your chance in November.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
10 leftover shells of mustard gas are WMDs? .

Mustard gas is not a chemical weapon?

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
You'll get your chance in November.

You are running for office? Good luck!

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by unkokusai
That story was on cnn many weeks ago. Can't you at least keep up with your own side? Link?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
10 leftover shells of mustard gas are WMDs?

That wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Link?


Look



Lazy?

[Chang Style Novice]

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Show me the same story on CNN.

The same story on CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.irq.inspections/index.html)

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by unkokusai



Look



Lazy? If you're gonna reference obscure news sites as proof, you might as well provide the links to the same info on more reputable sites that corroborates.


That wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list.Unfortunately, it probably is.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Unfortunately, it probably is [a comprehensive list].

Again, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/404896.stm) took three seconds to find.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Christopher M


The same story on CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.irq.inspections/index.html) They were found in 2002. :rolleyes:


After inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002, a chemical team went to al-Muthanna in early December, found the artillery shells and secured them.

[Chang Style Novice]

From the article, emphasis mine:

"The team of independent experts last week discovered seven vials of diluted samples of VX, three of them opened. Each vial contained less than 0.1 milligrams of concentrated VX. "

[MasterKiller]

Again, this took three seconds to find.
Wednesday, July 28, 1999 Published at 17:05 GMT 18:05 UK

Where are the WMDs that we invaded for?

[ZIM]

Yes, I know all this sniping is fun.

So it's time for another! :D

Let's poke anozzer hole in the lefty argumentarium: That the Iraqis support the insurgency. (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=482652004)

Goota say, this restores some of my faith in the iraqis....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
They were found in 2002.

Yes indeed. I direct you to my previous remark: "Firstly, [the claim regarding WMD] results from a vast confusion over the nature of the UN weapons inspectors - who were verifying known and admitted quantities of WMD, not trying to find hidden ones."

There are more recent findings if you like, as well as less recent ones; again, all available on CNN too.

It seems like I'm following your demands for 'burden of proof' and you simply change them once I have accomodated you, though.

[YinYangDagger]

Guys - Nothing wrong with the debate with MK. Let's not get ugly.

MK is an American, and has his opinions.

It's the Canadians and Aussies that really pi$$ me off when they want to try and get in on this. Thney have nothing to lose, they just look for a chance to bad mouth America.

[old jong]

MK is an American, and has his opinions.

It's the Canadians and Aussies that really pi$$ me off when they want to try and get in on this. Thney have nothing to lose, they just look for a chance to bad mouth America.

You must be american to have the right to have an opinion?...:rolleyes:

[YinYangDagger]

No, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

The difference lies in the fact that Kung Lek and JoeDoe come here to do only one thing, and that's to badmouth America and it's policies.

WE, America, is the one in survival mode right now. Eventually, it will be other countries.

You ever been trained in multiple attacker scenarios? The way I've always been taught is to take out the BIG guy first, then concentrate on fighting the smaller guys. That's what is happening here. Do you think the Muslim Fundamentalist would stop if they defeated America?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Where are the WMDs that we invaded for?

It may be germane here to refresh (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) your memory as to motivations for the invasion.

[red5angel]

When did Iraq ever attack us? What's the ratio of Saudi money being used to sponsor terrorists as compared to Iraqi money?

oh, I guess your under the impression this stops with Iraq? how about the pressure the saudis have just recently come under to stop giving that money out. ever watch the news? Big story on the Saudi Prince talking about how that money is no longer going to be allowed to go where it has been going. Guess atleast some people are getting the message.



If you think Iraq wasn't on Bush's agenda BEFORE 9/11, you are wearing blinders.

It sure as hell better have been.



Iraq had no ties to Al Queda. That's already been admitted by our own government. You're buying into the propoganda machine.

That's right, cause if CNN didn't say it was so...You must have your pulse on the US and it's military intelligence programs right? I can officially confirm for you that there were indeed terrorist training camps on Iraqi soil.


I know the answer to it.

Then stop asking the fukking same dried up questions and ignoring what we're trying to show you. alot of you guys are getting to be a lot more like Kung Lek, ignore the isuses being presented and come up with your own trains of thought. If that doesn't work, ask the same question sover and over and over again.


If it were true, the BUsh media machine would have already jumped on it and broadcast it to the world as evidence.

You know what I think is really ironic about your argument MK, and several others who share your views. You guys are so willing to throw up these conspiracy theories about how things aren't being said or shown to us, but then you don't seem to get that that is really the truth. There's a lot of things going on you don't get to see, and CNN doesn't get to hear or pass on. Fukk, there are some things the President doesn't get to see or hear, much less you.


10 leftover shells of mustard gas are WMDs?

technically, yes, but as Christopher was so kind to point out, not a comprehensive list.


They were found in 2002.

And we invaded in 2003. what's your point?



Do you think the Muslim Fundamentalist would stop if they defeated America?


shhhhh, yinyangdagger, your spilling the extremist agenda ;)

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel oh, I guess your under the impression this stops with Iraq? how about the pressure the saudis have just recently come under to stop giving that money out. ever watch the news? Big story on the Saudi Prince talking about how that money is no longer going to be allowed to go where it has been going. Guess atleast some people are getting the message.Oh, that's getting tough on them! We really let those Saudis, WHO HELPED FUND 9/11, have it.


It sure as hell better have been. Why, when Al-Queda was not related, AT ALL, to Iraq, and they were perceived as the #1 threat when he took office?


That's right, cause if CNN didn't say it was so...You must have your pulse on the US and it's military intelligence programs right? I can officially confirm for you that there were indeed terrorist training camps on Iraqi soil. They're in N. Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Indonesia, China, and India, too. Why haven't we invaded them? Oh yeah, because they didn't attack us....oh wait, neither did Iraq.


Then stop asking the fukking same dried up questions and ignoring what we're trying to show you. alot of you guys are getting to be a lot more like Kung Lek, ignore the isuses being presented and come up with your own trains of thought. If that doesn't work, ask the same question sover and over and over again.I'll quit asking when you quit spouting your lame and tired love-it-or-leave-it nonsense. Gee, we came up with OUR OWN trains of thought? Imagine that? It must be a free country.


You know what I think is really ironic about your argument MK, and several others who share your views. You guys are so willing to throw up these conspiracy theories about how things aren't being said or shown to us, but then you don't seem to get that that is really the truth. There's a lot of things going on you don't get to see, and CNN doesn't get to hear or pass on.Yet you continually ignore factual information about Bush lying in his State of the Union address; about the CIA forging documents and exaggerating the threat; etc.... you buy into the government sponsored propganda machine about how Iraq was about security and terrorism, when it was absoltuley NOT RELATED to the Al-Queda threat AT ALL.

Or do you want us to believe it was about "liberation"? That's a revisionist pile of crap for an excuse if I ever saw one.

[red5angel]

Oh, that's getting tough on them! We really let those Saudis, WHO HELPED FUND 9/11, have it.

better to make freinds then war I thougt MK? Wanna get tough on em now? is that it? since you started with one just go in and wipe them all out?


Why, when Al-Queda was not related, AT ALL, to Iraq, and they were perceived as the #1 threat when he took office?

go through my post again.


They're in N. Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Indonesia, China, and India, too. Why haven't we invaded them? Oh yeah, because they didn't attack us....oh wait, neither did Iraq.

That's right MK, smart move. Let's just go our and hit all the countries that have terrorist in them. We do, why not attack ourselves while we're at it?
If your going to try to make a point, try to make some sense as well please. Got any good reason why any of those should have been chosen over Iraq? Maybe just put up a dart board and first one hit get's it? Or how about one we pick that has a history already with us and abroad, is strongly anti-us, and oculd help us to pay for the war when it's all over? Or wait! I'm I making too much sense again?! :eek:


Gee, we came up with OUR OWN trains of thought? Imagine that?

Well, let me try to be a little bit more clear - stop making up stuff to evade the questions and challenges that have been put forward. Look at this entire thread, Christopher M and ZIM posting all sorts of links, where are all MK's links?


Yet you continually ignore factual information about Bush lying in his State of the Union address;

Spin, your just buying into spin. Lying? Is that how we're going to define lying now? By acting on information that is fed to you and having that informaiton turn out to be less accurate then at first thought - by UN inspectors I might add ;)


Iraq was about security and terrorism, when it was absoltuley NOT RELATED to the Al-Queda threat AT ALL.

Oh right, I forgot, it's all about the oil. :rolleyes: I can't believe you guys are still rolling wiith that crap. Atleast I've been able to admit that oil has something to do with it and moved on. You guys still can't believe that terrorism has nothing to do with it - now who's being extreme and single minded?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Or do you want us to believe it was about "liberation"? That's a revisionist pile of crap for an excuse if I ever saw one.

In what way is this revisionist? I'll cite Bush's UN address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) a third time; here is his conclusion:

"Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."

This is September 12th, 2002 - so hardly revisionist. Do you take him to be arguing for liberation here, or for WMD? If you mean this account is revisionist insofar as it differs from the account you've heard all along in the media - that's quite true.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
better to make freinds then war I thougt MK? Wanna get tough on em now? is that it? since you started with one just go in and wipe them all out? Where did I say it was better to make friends? I said kick the **** our of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia when it first happened, and I still say Saudi is more to blame than Iraq could ever be.


go through my post again.I tried. They're nonsensical rants.


That's right MK, smart move. Let's just go our and hit all the countries that have terrorist in them. We do, why not attack ourselves while we're at it? So what good does it do to NOT go after terrorists in all these countries if we are fighting ALL terror?


If your going to try to make a point, try to make some sense as well please. Got any good reason why any of those should have been chosen over Iraq? Nope. In fact, I don't think Iraq should have chosen at all. The guilty parties were Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We handled Afghanistan, sort of, but left Saudi alone because we're tied a little too close to them.


Maybe just put up a dart board and first one hit get's it? Or how about one we pick that has a history already with us and abroad, is strongly anti-us, and oculd help us to pay for the war when it's all over? Or wait! I'm I making too much sense again?! :eek: So you're saying Iraq wasn't any more of a threat than the others, but it made more MONETARY and POLITICAL sense to invade them...... Why, that's what we've been saying all along! Welcome aboard!


Well, let me try to be a little bit more clear - stop making up stuff to evade the questions and challenges that have been put forward. Look at this entire thread, Christopher M and ZIM posting all sorts of links, where are all MK's links? Who is making stuff up? Can yoiu refute it? Besides, how does a 5 year old story about a few milligrams of agent justify an 800 billion dollar war?


Spin, your just buying into spin. Lying? Is that how we're going to define lying now? By acting on information that is fed to you and having that informaiton turn out to be less accurate then at first thought - by UN inspectors I might add ;) Less accurate? That's an understatement. How about completely false. Again, why isn't Tenet working at Burger King if the CIA screwed up so badly? I would think if you were going to say something in the State of the Union address, you would make sure the documents supporting it weren't forged, first.

[red5angel]

Where did I say it was better to make friends? I said kick the **** our of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia when it first happened, and I still say Saudi is more to blame than Iraq could ever be.

check on afghanistan. Now if Saudi Arabia doens't get in line, I'm sure they can't be too far down the list.


So what good does it do to NOT go after terrorists in all these countries if we are fighting ALL terror?

One day this truck driver got pulled over by the local sheriff. As the cop was writing him a ticket, he said to the guy "How come you pulled me over? I was in a convoy with a bunch of other turcks and they were all speeding too!" The cop handed the truck driver the ticket and said "Son, you ever gone fishing?" The truck driver answered yes to which the cop promptly asked "Did you catch all the fish in the pond?"



sort of, but left Saudi alone because we're tied a little too close to them.

That's the way the world works. I don't know why you guys can't get that into your head, everyone is doing something wrong. So you hit the guys you arent' co-operating with and you talk to the guys you are. Sometimes things go bad, and sometimes things go good. We didn't go after Iraq, we went after saddam. What's the difference? The Saudis won't hand over nuclear materials or chemical weapons. Not a whole lot of difference but enough to make up the minds that count.
Of course, if it were all about the oil, I have to wonder why we didn't go after Saudi Arabia again?


So you're saying Iraq wasn't any more of a threat than the others, but it made more MONETARY and POLITICAL sense to invade them...... Why, that's what we've been saying all along! Welcome aboard!


No, you haven't, you've been claiming it was monetarily and politically motivated, not that it made sense.


Who is making stuff up? Can yoiu refute it?

I challange you to go back and take a look at this thread and see who is posting evidence to back up what they are saying and who isn't. Credible or not atleast Chris M and ZIM have something, anything to back up what they are saying.


Besides, how does a 5 year old story about a few milligrams of agent justify an 800 billion dollar war?

Let me ask you this MK, how are we trying to say that it does?

[WanderingMonk]

okay, since this thread has already deviated from the original topic, allow me to pour some oil on the flame.

what type of country will Iraq be 10 years from now?. because it don't really matter why we went to war, we are knee deep in Iraq right now.

scenario which require large amount of US investment (blood and money)
1. a democratic iraq akin to Japan, one party rule via ****es.

2. a democratic iraq akin to US with multiple political parties.

possible natural evolution outcome
3. a loose confederation - three states solution which nominally make up Iraq.

4. autocratic regime akin to Iran with ****e as the dominate player.

which one do you think is the most likley outcome and how much money do you think US is ready to invest (blood/money) in Iraq in order to make choice 1 or 2 come true.

Does US have the patience to stay in Iraq for the next fifty years to make solution 1 and 2 into reality?

Also will a democratic iraq really stablize the Arab world?

[ZIM]

Maybe someone with more say on the matter of the election? (http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/archive/2004_04_01_roadofanation_archive.html#108254238320 416594)

I don't know. Its a good read, though. I can see how he's struggling with the ideas of democracy, looking around at the world, maybe for the first time in his life. It's inspiring, really.


One year later a big “change” you can strongly feel it …where ever you go ,completely another atmosphere ,people now have some kind of sense towards the events and they are developing with it ,maybe it’s the deflection of been kept away , but I like it ,and I’m happy for it ,the Iraqis are speaking on human rights ,democracy ,economies ,foreign policy ---- that’s one good steep forward ,yes it’s the right way to begin and time will be the beast tool to improve it .
The most thing that I interested of, was… how people are recognizing and releasing that
“elections “ is the only and the beast way to solve all problems ,and they look forward to the American’s election’s as there “good” sample of democracy ,and with all things happens in your elections and the reassign towards the “Whitehouse” am not gone to speak in behalf of you ,you knows this more than any one ,but for shore, we will get a lot of use from your experiment ,and as I see most of the Iraqis wish to have the same way of elections .

He might also have some answers for your questions, WM.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
check on afghanistan. Now if Saudi Arabia doens't get in line, I'm sure they can't be too far down the list.Wrong. Saudi Arabia is rich, very rich, and very powerful in the Middle-East. We would never, ever, no matter what, ever, invade them because it would set the whole region on fire.


One day this truck driver got pulled over by the local sheriff. As the cop was writing him a ticket, he said to the guy "How come you pulled me over? I was in a convoy with a bunch of other turcks and they were all speeding too!" The cop handed the truck driver the ticket and said "Son, you ever gone fishing?" The truck driver answered yes to which the cop promptly asked "Did you catch all the fish in the pond?" Yeah, that plan seems to be working.


That's the way the world works. I don't know why you guys can't get that into your head, everyone is doing something wrong. So you hit the guys you arent' co-operating with and you talk to the guys you are. Sometimes things go bad, and sometimes things go good. We didn't go after Iraq, we went after saddam. What's the difference? The Saudis won't hand over nuclear materials or chemical weapons. Not a whole lot of difference but enough to make up the minds that count.
Of course, if it were all about the oil, I have to wonder why we didn't go after Saudi Arabia again? See above.



No, you haven't, you've been claiming it was monetarily and politically motivated, not that it made sense. It makes senses from a politcal and finanical stand-point; not from a moral one.


I challange you to go back and take a look at this thread and see who is posting evidence to back up what they are saying and who isn't. Credible or not atleast Chris M and ZIM have something, anything to back up what they are saying.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00117.htm

I can post links, too!


Let me ask you this MK, how are we trying to say that it does? Then what did justify this 800 billion dollar, and rising, war?

Terrorism? Nope. Iraq cannot be linked to AlQ.

WMDs? Nope. Not enough of them to cause us any real problems. North Korea and Iran are a bigger threat that Iraq in that regard. But you mess with Iran, and all **** breaks loose. And if you mess with Korea, you have China breathing down your back.

Ousting the Evil Dictator? Who cares. There are 100s of these guys all over the place. Why settle on him?

Liberating Iraq? Nope. Not in my books. Plenty of other people all over the world in that same situation.

Bringing Democracy to the middle east? Nope. Let them decide how they want to rule themselves. That's not our business.

Oil? Maybe. At least we could see the tangible benefits. But if so, cop to it instead of trying to make this a moral crusade for freedom.

[ZIM]

WMDs? Nope. Not enough of them to cause us any real problems. North Korea and Iran are a bigger threat that Iraq in that regard. But you mess with Iran, and all **** breaks loose. And if you mess with Korea, you have China breathing down your back. Seriously, I'm thinking Iran will be next- and we won't be starting it, either- no matter who wins the WH.

Look, the ME has been a headache for as long as I can remember. It was bound to blow up sooner or later. It just reached that critical mass, I guess..:(

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Ousting the Evil Dictator? Who cares. There are 100s of these guys all over the place. Why settle on him?

Liberating Iraq? Nope. Not in my books. Plenty of other people all over the world in that same situation.

Are you advocating American invasion of the majority of the world? If not, then what is your complaint?

[red5angel]

Also will a democratic iraq really stablize the Arab world?

No but it gives democracy a foot hold in that region, an example that a country can be muslim and have a democracy.


Saudi Arabia is rich, very rich, and very powerful in the Middle-East.

thanks, and it only took what? 3 pages to get you to admit that?


Yeah, that plan seems to be working.

yeah you're right, it's been what? almost a whole year? keeerist if Iraq hasn't come around and turned itself into a stable country with a stable and fair government by now, what's the use? If all the terrorist in the world haven't given up by now, why bother?


See above.

plan seems to be working just fine, gotta have growing pains. Also gotta be realistic, expecting things to happen overnight is delusional at best. You and Kung Lek seem to be under this misunderstanding that if we all just left well enough alone, things would sort themselves out. Is that just like if we pulled all the policemen off the streets in the US crime would just sort of stop?


It makes senses from a politcal and finanical stand-point; not from a moral one.

I'm betting all those people in those mass graves would probably disagree. I could be worng though.


I can post links, too!

There's one, that's a start, now just follow that trend.


Terrorism? Nope. Iraq cannot be linked to AlQ.

according to you.


But you mess with Iran, and all **** breaks loose. And if you mess with Korea, you have China breathing down your back.

Imagine that, there's that crazy politics thing again. But wait! President Kerry will make that all just go away!


Ousting the Evil Dictator? Who cares. There are 100s of these guys all over the place. Why settle on him?

my bet is some Iraqis do. Probably the relatives of all those people in those mass graves I mentioned earlier? You have to start somewhere right? Plenty more motivation here then elsewhere. that's how it works, you just dont' arbitrarily pick someone.


Liberating Iraq? Nope. Not in my books. Plenty of other people all over the world in that same situation

Still trying to catch all the fish are we?


Oil? Maybe. At least we could see the tangible benefits. But if so, cop to it instead of trying to make this a moral crusade for freedom.

They've got oil, e have to spend money on libberating them, why shouldn't we benefit. What's even more ironic is I've seen more then a couple of interviews and one address by teh president, where those people involved have outright said, of course the US will benefit from the oil reserves of Iraq. The only people under any illusions are those to busy screaming too loudly to hear it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think

I am not where ever I am the play thing of my thought!

[ZIM]

Out of all the possible replies to that, I think the best one might be: "Hunh? Sorry, I was somewhere else..." :D

[Christopher M]

I was trying to be your little object a (http://gnosia.tripod.com/graph.html).

But I suppose I'm not where I am the play thing of your thought either. ****; where am I?

[rubthebuddha]

jebus. i go through moving offices for one day, and you children give us five pages of crap. if you want to discuss something, fine. until then, go whine like babies somewhere else.