Saddam Hussein Hanged

[agwiii]

Then, I discovered weblogs. It's good because they seem like small windows in to how people are living and thinking in the outside world. Also, it seems like a nice way of communicating with people.

Yes, but blogs are very yesterday. They peaked a few years ago, and they are fading. Check the metrics being reported in Wired.

[airshifter]

I agree with you, cossie, that there are some who join the US armed forces because they cannot get jobs anywhere else. This is becoming more the case today than it was five years ago, because recruitment standards are dropping. The pressure to keep manning this badly conceived and dreadfully executed war are taking their toll on the quality of the force, I will agree. But this does not shake my conviction that, on the whole, the US forces are made up of decent people.

Lynndie England was, of course, a disgrace, but I do not put all the blame on her shoulders. I think the leadership must share responsibility for the disgusting way she and her partner in crime behaved. They say a fish stinks from the head, so it is instructive to see what the head of this particular fish, the army, was doing.



Actually recent studies have shown that the trend of recruiting is much more indicative of avearge demographics than most claim. When viewed based on education, family income, race, and origin, the military is in some cases reversing the trends claimed.

More people from average to above average income and education levels are joining the military now as opposed to those doing so in past years.

Here's a good link.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm


I agree with your view that most in the military join for honorable reasons. As a percentage of those serving the people involved in wrongful acts is very small.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Agwiii, I disagree on the role of Blogs. Little Green Footballs and others like it are legitimate in many eyes, for they break stories the Mainstream Media wont touch. The fraudulent claims 60 Minutes made about Bush's National Guard record weeks before the 2004 election illustrate what happens in the hands of the mainstream media if left without someone doing the dirty work.

Blogs and "alternative" media are great sources of information that is often raw and unfiltered. The down side is it is sometimes biased one way or the other, but the plus side is it is that raw quality.

The Blogster in Baghdad must be taken for who she is. She is well educated, speaks English well and is a Sunni. Gee....who would she be VERY close to to have those qualities and not be in jail or being tortured when Saddam was around?? Just a thought....I am not saying what she is describing on the ground isn't happening, as Gannex has stated, it is happening.

Of course this mitigates nothing. Eki crying they should'nt be there is too late. What happens now is always been the contention for me, and it seems like the Americans are still trying to put things right. How successful they may be remains to be seen, but at least there is an effort there.

As for Lynnie England, well as I said before, don't condemn the whole army on the actions of a few hot heads. I bet the victims of the atrocities in that prison 10 years ago would have been happy for the guards to only make them play naked twister. For her actions, England was charged and punished. Gannex is not inaccurate in his criticisms of how things were handled in the upper brass, but again, it wasn't necessarily a open policy that prisoners were to be treated with torture and inhuman conditions. That said, Rumsfeld's attitude seemed to set a tone that gave some officers license to condone this.

Again, show me an army anywhere that doesn't have a few people that will embarass it if given enough rope. Every nation has its thugs and loose cannons, there isn't one in the world that doesn't have a prision of some form. Ergo, odds are some make it into the military. It is the actions that the nation takes after the rules of civility are broken that give you cause for judgement. On this score, I give the Americans a C. That said, a lot of nations on this planet wouldn't get a passing grade, and many wouldn't get a grade because their military hasn't been under the stress that the US Army has felt since this has begun....

[agwiii]

While blogging has only reached prominence in the last few years, it was actually invented by the ancient Romans who built a majestic blog in 200 BC from marble, granite and links they stole from the Greeks.

"Blog" itself is short for "weblog," which is short for "we blog because we weren't very popular in high school and we're trying to gain respect and admiration without actually having to be around people."

Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it. One popular technique for building readership is to send e-mail to more well-trafficked blogs offering to exchange links with them. One popular response from those blogs is to laugh derisively and hit the Delete button.

Excerpt from: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,71720-0.html

:s mokin:

[agwiii]

Again, show me an army anywhere that doesn't have a few people that will embarass it if given enough rope.

I can think of the sacking of Rome in 387 BC by the Gauls. There were a few other sackings for the next thousand odd years. There are many other examples of the army doing things that upset delicate sensibilities.

[donKey jote]

I remember reading riverbend and salam pax (where's Raed?) right at the beginning, as the bombs were about to start falling on Baghdad. It was the same eary feeling as watching CNN during the first Iraq war.
Just because they're obviously at least as educated as anyone else on the web doesn't mean they're necessarily "Sunni = pro-Saddam".
Do skim through some of their earlier stuff, and see how they evolved as the liberation dragged on.

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

[donKey jote]

did I say eary?
what a donkey big-eers :p :
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jote, no doubt some of them do have something to say. I didn't dismiss the blog in question as out of hand, but a lot of her anger was pretty much trying to elicit sympathy almost for Saddam. While I think Maliki's government has botched this entirely, alas it seems pretty much the way a lot of governments in the middle east seem to be run like, that is, full of old scores and sectarian intolerance waiting to be settled.

Until Maliki starts governing Iraq as the President of all the groups that make up Iraq, the problems will continue. That isn't the US's fault, except maybe they should just put the US army in the North with the Kurd's, protect a few key instillations, and let the Shiites and Sunni's work out some issues. It is obvious to me they don't need the US Army to shoot at, they are quite content to kill each other....

[Camelopard]

........
"Blog" itself is short for "weblog," which is short for "we blog because we weren't very popular in high school and we're trying to gain respect and admiration without actually having to be around people."

Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it. One popular technique for building readership is to send e-mail to more well-trafficked blogs offering to exchange links with them. One popular response from those blogs is to laugh derisively and hit the Delete button.

Excerpt from: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,71720-0.html

:s mokin:


How many blogs have been published worldwide as books, been nominated for and won prizes in literary competitions?


Baghdad Burning
Girl Blog from Iraq
Riverbend (http://feministpress.org/book/?GCOI=55861100869560&fa=author&person_id=370&publishergcoicode=55861)

Note: To all of Riverbend's fans, thank you for your concern about her periodic absence from her blog. As far as we know, she is still in Iraq and writing when she can. If we hear otherwise, we will post it here.

Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Literary Reportage

THIRD PRIZE WINNER OF THE LETTRE ULYSSES AWARD FOR THE ART OF REPORTAGE
LONGLISTED FOR 2006 SAMUEL JOHNSON PRIZE FOR NONFICTION
In her riveting weblog, a remarkable young Iraqi woman gives a human face to war and occupation.
In August 2003, the world gained access to a remarkable new voice: a blog written by a 25-year-old Iraqi woman living in Baghdad, whose identity remained concealed for her own protection. Calling herself Riverbend, she offered searing eyewitness accounts of the everyday realities on the ground, punctuated by astute analysis on the politics behind these events.
Riverbend recounts stories of life in an occupied city - of neighbors whose home are raided by U.S. troops, whose relatives disappear into prisons, and whose children are kidnapped by money-hungry militias. The only Iraqi blogger writing from a woman's perspective, she also describes a once-secular city where women are now afraid to leave their homes without head covering and a male escort.
Interspersedwith these vivid snapshots from daily life are Riverbend's analyses of everything from the elusive workings of the Iraqi Governing Council to the torture in Abu Gharib, from the coverage provided by American media and by Al-Jazeera to Bush's State of the Union Speech. Here again, she focuses especially on the fate of women, whose rights and freedoms have fallen victim to rising fundamentalisms in a chaotic post-war society.
With thousands of loyal readers worldwide, the Riverbend blog is recognized around the world as a crucial source of information not available through the mainstream media.

ISBN-10 1-55861-489-3
ISBN-13 978-1-55861-489-5
Publication Date 2005 List Price $14.95

From http://www.feministpress.org/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=55861100869560

Some more stuff from http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20individual%20book%20info/Baghdad%20Burning.html
'FOR SALE: IRAQ
For Sale: A fertile, wealthy country with a population of around 25 million…plus around 150,000 foreign troops, and a handful of puppets. Conditions of sale: should be either an American or British corporation. Please contact one of the members of the Governing Council in Baghdad, Iraq, for more information.
In her riveting weblog, a remarkable young Iraqi woman gives a human face to war and occupation. On the 24th of September, 2003, the above entry was posted onto a weblog by an anonymous 25 year old female using the pseudonym ‘Riverbend’. In this hard-hitting journal, she describes the day-to-day realities of life in post-war Iraq, which for her family and neighbours means regular power-cuts, bombings, kidnappings and night-time raids by US soldiers. Including diary entries covering the release of the torture pictures of Abu Ghraib and Bush’s State of the Union Speech as well as a more critical analysis of key players during the war and in its aftermath, Baghdad Burning offers a highly personal narrative on life since the US occupation that is at once disturbing and insightful.
With thousands of loyal readers worldwide, the Riverbend blog is recognized around the world as a crucial source of information not available through the mainstream media.
Riverbend was educated at Baghdad University and worked for a large computer company in Baghdad before the war. She continues to update her journal, found at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/). She prefers to remain anonymous.
'Feisty and learned: first rate reading for any American who suspects that Fox News may not be telling the whole story.' Kirkus Reviews, 2 May 2005

'passionate, frustrated, sarcastic and sometimes hopeful ...it offers quick takes on events ...from a perspective too often overlooked, ignored or surpressed.' Publishers Weekly, 7 February 2005

'a cross between an underground manifesto and a polished cultural history... With its blend of first-person mouthing off and spirited documentary style, Baghdad Burning offers fair and balanced coverage from inside one of the most rapidly changing - and poorly understood - regions in the world.' Time Out New York, 28 April 2005

'Highly recommended to anyone following the conflict' Library Journal (starred review), 1 April 2005

Baghdad Burning Volume 2 (http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20individual%20book%20info/Baghdad%20Burning%20Volume%202.html) will be published by Marion Boyars in Autumn 2006

Price: £7.99
Format: Paperback, 310 pp
ISBN: 0-7145-3130-8
Publication date: 27 March 2006

One more interesting link on a retired US military man and republican party honcho who tried to hijack Riverbend's blog.

http://www.blogscanada.ca/blog/PermaLink,guid,ea9da390-daee-4f65-8e44-b933fe64d70b.aspx

A small segment:

Over the past few weeks, an odd campaign has been mounted in the blogosphere. An Iraqi blog, Baghdad Burning (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/), was spoofed (http://www.google.ca/search?q=define+spoof&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=) by a blogger with opposing political views. Yesterday, the real Baghdad Burning author returned fire. Her first shot against the dirty trickster brought him down.
In a delicious bit of irony, the real Baghdad Burning author is a young Iraqi woman and the fake Baghdad Burning author is a retired US military man and Republican party "Team Leader." (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#106745404608 231600)

[agwiii]

http://www.yellowribbongreetings.us/farewellmarine.htmlhttp://www.yellowribbongreetings.us/farewellmarine.html

[EuroTroll]

I can think of the sacking of Rome in 387 BC by the Gauls. There were a few other sackings for the next thousand odd years. There are many other examples of the army doing things that upset delicate sensibilities.

:laugh: :laugh:

Yes, the Gallic army of Brennus that spent 7 months killing and plundering in Rome certainly tarnished the good name of the noble Gallic army... of Brennus that spent 7 months killing and plundering in Rome. :laugh:

And you're absolutely right that after seeing the coverage of CNN Ancient of the events of Brennus's siege, there was very little appetite for war in the ancient world for a very long time. Which of course made the subsequent Roman conquest of Italy and, later, the Mediterranean coast so much easier. "Hey, you wanna join our Republic/Empire?" - "Yeah, alright." :D And how surprised was Alexander when he marched into Persia, ready for glorious battle, only to hear the Great King's envoy say "Take what you want. We don't much fancy a conflict, after what happened in Rome" :laugh:

[agwiii]

How many blogs have been published worldwide as books, been nominated for and won prizes in literary competitions?

How many people have posted SPAM on this forum and not been sanctioned by the Moderators?

[agwiii]

Ah, the cowards are at it again. This time with the inarticulate comment of "git." It must be painful to be so ignorant and have such a limited vocabulary. However it is amusing to read what this particular twit thinks is an anonymous comment.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Studiose, your knowledge of that era is to be commended!!!

I think....maybe you are pulling my leg....I am going to have a nap now, I think this thread just deralied itself...

[agwiii]

Yes, but blogs are very yesterday. They peaked a few years ago, and they are fading. Check the metrics being reported in Wired.

Another negative REP for this post. I wonder who could have done it?

[agwiii]

To all of the F.F.L.s, Antis, Flamers, those attacking Mark, Gannex, etc, Will Rogers said, "Actions speak louder than word, just not very often."

In the 2004 Presidential Election, I was the ninth busiest grass roots worker supporting the re-election of President Bush. Check out the archives on www.gop.org (http://www.gop.org) -- I use the same id as here. I held more parties and fund raisers than all but eight other people in the United States. My parties and fund raisers brought in more than $10,000,000.

In the off-year 2006 Election, I hosted functions and events to support the reelection of State Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff. Thanks in part to our efforts, she defeated her challenger 55% to 45%.

To all of the F.F.L.s, Antis, Flamers, those attacking Mark, Gannex, etc, match me.

[agwiii]

Studiose, your knowledge of that era is to be commended!!!

I think....maybe you are pulling my leg....I am going to have a nap now, I think this thread just deralied itself...

Thanks goodness for Google and Wickedpoedia. :laugh:

[Hondo]

My parties and fund raisers brought in more than $10,000,000.[/QUOTE]



Wow! How about throwing a party for me? I'm easy, I'd settle for a couple of hundred thousand.

[agwiii]

My parties and fund raisers brought in more than $10,000,000.

Wow! How about throwing a party for me? I'm easy, I'd settle for a couple of hundred thousand.[/quote]

Contact me offline with the details of the office you're planning to run for, and have your Party Chairman talk to me. We're already working on the 2009 Mayoral election, when term limits bounce Jim Naugle out of office. Will it be Christine Teel, Tim Smith, or ????

[Mark in Oshawa]

That tears it, Agwiii, you can adopt me, if you can raise that sort of money to get someone elected!!

[agwiii]

I can think of the sacking of Rome in 387 BC by the Gauls. There were a few other sackings for the next thousand odd years. There are many other examples of the army doing things that upset delicate sensibilities.

Clearly, this response to my pal Studiose warranted negative feedback. It just goes to show the character of some people from the land of snowcones.

[BDunnell]

They didn't see anything Saddam didn't want them to see. Do you not remember the constant controversay about the "palaces" being off limits? You mean to say in a nation that is as large as France that something couldn't have been hid? If Saddam had no WMD's, and we know he had them once upon a time, (it wasn't fiction that he gassed the Kurd's with years ago)then why was he constantly putting restrictions on the inspectors and monitoring their movements? They rarely were able to get free of Baghdad. Iraq is a huge nation, and Saddam's efforts to interfere with their movements only heightened the suspicions that the West had about his motives. If you want to be open and honest with the UN, as Libya was in giving up their WMD's, you have no issue. Saddam didn't get this UN treatment because he is a swell guy you know, he invaded a nation for plunder and to steal its resources. The sanctions came out of that invasion. He was not to be trusted with good reason. By acting the way he did, he made things worse.

And when the coalition forces got to look for themselves, what did they find? Nothing.

And will you please stop stating that those of us who are against the conflict in Iraq are in some way pro-Saddam. This is generalising of the highest order, and actually quite offensive. I find it very hard to take your arguments seriously when you persist with this idea, which suggests that you have not read the substance of many of the things I've posted, for a start.

(Oh, and I find it difficult to be lectured on foreign affairs by a native speaker of English who can't use apostrophes properly.)

[agwiii]

That tears it, Agwiii, you can adopt me, if you can raise that sort of money to get someone elected!!

Mark, I gave it serious consideration, but after one of Saddam's supporters pointed out that you "can't use apostrophes properly," I had to pass. :laugh: OMG, now we must deal with apostrophobes, as well as Saddamites and Fascists! You have opened Pandora's Box, my friend. :s mokin:

Can you steer this thread it toward Cambodia? I want to see the supporters of the killing fields try to spin their tales here.

[Knock-on]

Mark, I gave it serious consideration, but after one of Saddam's supporters pointed out that you "can't use apostrophes properly," I had to pass. :laugh: OMG, now we must deal with apostrophobes, as well as Saddamites and Fascists! You have opened Pandora's Box, my friend. :s mokin:

Can you steer this thread it toward Cambodia? I want to see the supporters of the killing fields try to spin their tales here.

Why persist in childish accusation against people that are trying to make a reasoned point? Ben said that he finds it insulting to be referred to as a Saddam supporter and you choose to reiterate it in the very next post :(

How sad and childish.

Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.

However, the way the "War" has been conducted, the systematic failure by the US and UK Governments to successfully resolve the issues, the absence of a suitable exit strategy and the jovial manner that Saddam was killed all add to exacerbate the conflict. It has lead Iraq to the brink, if not past the point of no return that ends in bloody civil war.

Where is there any just cause or defensible action in this conflict? What are we trying to achieve?

It seems that Bush and Blair cannot make their minds up on the reason we went in, the reason we are still there and the reason to stay. Is it WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror? All of these arguments ring false.

Was it, and is it still the need of Oil and to have a geographical staging post in the middle east? Seems more likely.

I was in favour of going into Iraq and removing the Dictator. I believed that he should have been tried for his War Crimes in the Hague and sentences appropriately although under Iraqi rule, I recognise that they have the death penalty and that they imposed it. The manner this execution was conducted was disgraceful and added weight to the cause of the insurgents in Iraq.

Can you not see this?

[ArrowsFA1]

And will you please stop stating that those of us who are against the conflict in Iraq are in some way pro-Saddam.
:up:

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-04.htm)

[Eki]

:up:

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/'With%20Us%20or%20Against%20Us'%20is%20a%20False%2 0Dichotomy)

I'd like to add to that: "With you but not under you".

I'm sure most of the world will stand with the US if they feel the cause and the means are just, but they don't like to be told by the US president what to do or how to think. If you want help, ask don't demand.

[agwiii]

Why persist in childish accusation against people that are trying to make a reasoned point? Ben said that he finds it insulting to be referred to as a Saddam supporter and you choose to reiterate it in the very next post :(



I have read the reasoned points have been made by Mark in Oshawa and Gannex. I've never accused either of them of anything other than logic and intelligence. In fact, I have often joined with them in support of some aspects of the arguments they presented. Some others do not fall into that category of making reasoned arguments. Some people even vandalize the original works of published authors and then try to justify their behavior. How sad and childish.




Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.



Knock-on, that is an assumption. Making assumptions can be risky. Assumptions are either warranted or not. Reading the pro-Saddam posts here suggests that your assumption is not warranted.

I agree with you that I cannot see why anyone would defend him, but there are many that continue to support the Butcher of Bagdad.

During most, if not all wars in history, there have been Monday morning quarterbacks who -- despite not having enough information to make an assessment -- persisted in making public policy statements. War cannot be conducted by committee, or with 100% public disclosure. That would be handing the enemy a copy of your battle plan.

Can you not see this?

You list no flag on your profile, yet you criticize the conduct of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. If you are American or British, then I suggest that you get involved in your government and work to advance your position. If you are somewhere else and live under some form of self-determination government, then I make the same suggestion. Get involved and make a difference. If this is a salient issue to you, do something. I do! This forum is read by very few people and ranting about foreign policy here has no effect upon policy.

[agwiii]

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-04.htm)

Arrows! That was silly, but typical leftist Colorado talk when it was published six-years ago, and it is even more-so today.

:laughs:

[Gannex]

I agree with your post, BDunnell. Being against the war does not mean being pro-Saddam, and it is simplistic to suggest otherwise.

I also agree with you, Knockie, except for the following:

It seems that Bush and Blair cannot make their minds up on the reason we went in, the reason we are still there and the reason to stay. Is it WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror? All of these arguments ring false.

Was it, and is it still the need of Oil and to have a geographical staging post in the middle east? Seems more likely.
As I have argued before in this thread, I think the primary motivation for the war was not WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror, or even oil. The primary motivation, I believe, was the neo-conservative doctrine that can be called the "Reverse Domino Theory". This is the notion that if a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous nation could be achieved in the heart of the Arab world, other Arab peoples might see that there is a better alternative for them than living under brutal dictatorships with warlike tendencies. Freedom and democracy might spread.

It was overly optimistic, as we all now see so tragically proved, but well-intentioned and not anywhere near as reprehensible a war aim as getting cheap oil would have been. BDunnell and you, Knockie, are fed up with posters who over-simplify the arguments of those outraged by the US, but I think there is insulting over-simplification also (not from you two, but from some others) on the other side when critics claim that all Bush was after was cheap oil, money for Halliburton, revenge for the attempt on his father's life, and so on. There's enough caricaturing of the other side's views on both sides, is what I'm saying.

[Eki]

I agree with you that I cannot see why anyone would defend him, but there are many that continue to support the Butcher of Bagdad.

Nobody here supports or defends Saddam personally. We are defending international law and order. No government of any single country should have the right to try and depose the government of another sovereign country, no matter how bad they think it is. If you think they have that right, you must also admit that then the governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China also have the right to try and depose the government of the US.

[BDunnell]

...one of Saddam's supporters...

You seem desperate to reinforce one of the worst stereotypes of the Bush cheerleader — that everyone is 'either with us or against us'.

Do you seriously think that I support Saddam Hussein, and that I thought his actions when he was President of Iraq were a good thing?

[agwiii]

You seem desperate to reinforce one of the worst stereotypes of the Bush cheerleader — that everyone is 'either with us or against us'.

Do you seriously think that I support Saddam Hussein, and that I thought his actions when he was President of Iraq were a good thing?

I don't know you. There are many who still support Saddam, and you could be one of them.

[agwiii]

Nobody here supports or defends Saddam personally. We are defending international law and order. No government of any single country should have the right to try and depose the government of another sovereign country, no matter how bad they think it is. If you think they have that right, you must also admit that then the governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China also have the right to try and depose the government of the US.

Since you claim to be Finnish, of what possible impact is the US Patriot Act to you? Why don't you focus upon Finland's foreign policy -- tell us about that?

[ArrowsFA1]

Arrows! That was silly, but typical leftist Colorado talk when it was published six-years ago, and it is even more-so today.
In your opinion.

agwiii, as someone who clearly supports the Bush administration, IMHO you are providing a very poor advert for what it stands for. Democracy and freedom allow us to discuss, debate and exchange opinions, and yet many of your posts appear to be attempting to prevent discussion, debate and the exchange of opinions.

As you rightly say, this forum has no effect on foreign policy. It does, however, offer a window to the world where the opinions expressed here do exist.

As you also rightly say making assumptions can be risky, and yet you appear to be making the assumption that we should accept your opinion as the definitive one. It is not. It is just one of many.

[Eki]

Since you claim to be Finnish, of what possible impact is the US Patriot Act to you? Why don't you focus upon Finland's foreign policy -- tell us about that?
Well, for one the US has demanded the Finnish airline Finnair to gather and pass personal information of Finns traveling to the US on Finnair. And the procedures Finnish passengers have to go through when entering the US are demeaning and time consuming, I don't think Finland puts American visitors to Finland through the same kind of procedures.

Furthermore, I liked the Titus's TV series and think he's funny.

[agwiii]

In your opinion.

Arrows, Newspapers are not obligated to write the truth, or to publish both sides to a story. You chose to quote an ancient article in a leftist paper.


agwiii, as someone who clearly supports the Bush administration ...

As Will Rogers said, "actions speak louder than words, just not very often." I have worked in a number of campaigns, and I'm happy to say, my candidates have won. If someone actually disagrees, then I challenge them to get involved, raise their issues, and do something to make a difference.

I sometimes agree with you, other times I disagree. Do I want to squelch your opinion? Absolutely not. My country's constitution would guarantee you freedom of speech, and while you're not here, that is my philosophy too. Do I want you to be my political clone? No, I just hope that whatever you believe, you put into action.

[agwiii]

Well, for one the US has demanded the Finnish airline Finnair to gather and pass personal information of Finns traveling to the US on Finnair. And the procedures Finnish passengers have to go through when entering the US are demeaning and time consuming, I don't think Finland puts American visitors to Finland through the same kind of procedures.

You are arguing that a sovereign nation does not have the right to protect its borders and establish policies for entry to that country. Nobody put a gun to the head of those on Finnair to enter the United States. If they don not want to accept our laws, the solution is simple -- do not travel to the United States.

Does Finland have the right to establish entry policies for Finland? Of course, they do!

Finland's entry laws with respect to citizens of the United States are irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever they are, we would obey the law, or not go to Finland.

[donKey jote]

How sad and childish.

Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.


:up:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Eki]

You are arguing that a sovereign nation does not have the right to protect its borders and establish policies for entry to that country.
Of course they do. And I think I have the right to criticize it verbally, not violently. In return, I don't have that much problem with the US criticizing other countries verbally as long as they are open to dialogue and keep their military inside their own borders.

[agwiii]

Of course they do. And I think I have the right to criticize it verbally, not violently. In return, I don't have that much problem with the US criticizing other countries verbally as long as they are open to dialogue and keep their military inside their own borders.

War is simply the continuation of politics using other means, and it will be probably remain a part of human civilization.

[donKey jote]

so said a certain Charlie from Clausejoke, amongst other things, some 200 years ago :up:

(yes I googled it :p : )

[Eki]

so said a certain Charlie from Clausejoke, amongst other things, some 200 years ago :up:

(yes I googled it :p : )
"Only" 200 years ago? Here's what Jefferson Davis said about slavery some 150 years ago (yes I googled it :p :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

[agwiii]

so said a certain Charlie from Clausejoke, amongst other things, some 200 years ago :up: (yes I googled it :p : )

But you forgot to make a point! :laugh:

[agwiii]

"Only" 200 years ago? Here's what Jefferson Davis said about slavery some 150 years ago (yes I googled it :p :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

Perhaps you do not realize this, but the Confederate States Of America are no longer in existence. :p : (except in Talledega)

[luvracin]

And the procedures Finnish passengers have to go through when entering the US are demeaning and time consuming

I am Australian and live in the US. I have to go through the same entrance procedures as every other non-US citizen/permanent resident. In fact, because I am on a work visa I have to endure sometimes more. The fingerprinting and digital photo are fast and painless. I do not find these procedures to be invasive or demeaning.

I would like to know if you have a personal experience that differs? And does this personal experience apply to ALL Fins just because they are Finnish? Because I in my many experiences of this procedure over the years have not witnessed any form of singling out of certain people.

[Gannex]

"Only" 200 years ago? Here's what Jefferson Davis said about slavery some 150 years ago (yes I googled it :p :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
See, Eki, that's why the Confederacy lost. That Davis fellow never knew when to keep his mouth shut. He needed a spin-doctor.

[Eki]

I am Australian and live in the US. I have to go through the same entrance procedures as every other non-US citizen/permanent resident. In fact, because I am on a work visa I have to endure sometimes more. The fingerprinting and digital photo are fast and painless. I do not find these procedures to be invasive or demeaning.

I would like to know if you have a personal experience that differs? And does this personal experience apply to ALL Fins just because they are Finnish? Because I in my many experiences of this procedure over the years have not witnessed any form of singling out of certain people.
The last time I was in the US was in the year 2000, that was before the 9/11 attacks. Even then I had to first fill out some forms with stupid questions in the plane that anyone could lie to. Then I had to wait for ages in a line in the middle of the night (Finnish time) in the customs until I had to explain a customs official why I had dared to enter their precious country and where I will be staying during my visit. In the other countries I have visited, I have just walked through the customs, maybe had my luggage X-rayed or my passport stamped if asked to. Nowhere else have I gone through that kind of 3rd degree interigation.

[Eki]

Perhaps you do not realize this, but the Confederate States Of America are no longer in existence. :p : (except in Talledega)
My point was: If an idea is 200 years old, maybe it's about time to reconsider it?

[Eki]

Double post

[jim mcglinchey]

The last time I was in the US was in the year 2000, that was before the 9/11 attacks. Even then I had to first fill out some forms with stupid questions in the plane that anyone could lie to. Then I had to wait for ages in a line in the middle of the night (Finnish time) in the customs until I had to explain a customs official why I had dared to enter their precious country and where I will be staying during my visit. In the other countries I have visited, I have just walked through the customs, maybe had my luggage X-rayed or my passport stamped if asked to. Nowhere else have I gone through that kind of 3rd degree interigation.


Yep, thats how I feel and thats why they can stick their Disneyland Forida, and their Universal Stoodios and their other important contributions to world culture up their collective butt......though Im also banned after outstaying my welcome.

[Eki]

Even then I had to first fill out some forms with stupid questions in the plane that anyone could lie to.
The forms even kindly reminded that answering "yes" to any of the questions may prevent you from entering the US. Doh!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ah yes, Eki discovers that getting into the US is tough. Actually Eki, it is like this, if they ask you a lot of questions to get into the country, once you are in there, you wont be watched, interrogated, hassled, spied on, or anything else by anyone in authority. The US is so free that people disappear there all the time into the air. Millions of illegal immigrants sneak in across the Mexican border and some across the Canadian border. Yet there is no police state. Most of the places in the world that you seem to give a free pass I can GUARNTEE you will treat you with similar discourtesy getting in, and then when you are in the country, you cant be sure you ARE NOT being watched.

Hell, in some nations, you just wont get in if they don't like the looks of you.

I don't think the US has an special lineup for Finns Eki. Heck, I crossed that border every day for 5 years, and likely will be in the future, and I know how US Customs are. They are bureaucratic no minds the same way every other democratic nation has bureaucratic no minds with no sense of humour at Customs. That just is the way it is.....

[Eki]

They are bureaucratic no minds the same way every other democratic nation has bureaucratic no minds with no sense of humour at Customs. That just is the way it is.....
I went through the London Heathrow day after the bombings in July 2005. I had to pass two security checks before getting in to the plane. The customs officials there we thorough but at least they were polite and friendly. Little politeness and friendliness wouldn't hurt the US customs officials either.

[Bebee]

BDunnell, Knockie, Gannex and Arrows: :up:

[Knock-on]

I went through the London Heathrow day after the bombings in July 2005. I had to pass two security checks before getting in to the plane. The customs officials there we thorough but at least they were polite and friendly. Little politeness and friendliness wouldn't hurt the US customs officials either.


US Customs officials are famous for their attitude :laugh: I've even had one fingering his gun when I was trying to reason with him. Big mistake :laugh:

Sure, the US has tightened up it's borders but it's just a minor inconvenience really and not the major trial you make it out to be.

Sure, questions such as "Are you a fanatical terrorist that wishes to destroy all infidels" seems a bit silly but by ticking "no", are you really suffering?

It's no big deal.

[tinchote]

Ah yes, Eki discovers that getting into the US is tough. Actually Eki, it is like this, if they ask you a lot of questions to get into the country, once you are in there, you wont be watched, interrogated, hassled, spied on, or anything else by anyone in authority. The US is so free that people disappear there all the time into the air. Millions of illegal immigrants sneak in across the Mexican border and some across the Canadian border. Yet there is no police state. Most of the places in the world that you seem to give a free pass I can GUARNTEE you will treat you with similar discourtesy getting in, and then when you are in the country, you cant be sure you ARE NOT being watched.

Hell, in some nations, you just wont get in if they don't like the looks of you.

I don't think the US has an special lineup for Finns Eki. Heck, I crossed that border every day for 5 years, and likely will be in the future, and I know how US Customs are. They are bureaucratic no minds the same way every other democratic nation has bureaucratic no minds with no sense of humour at Customs. That just is the way it is.....

My personal experience: in the last four years I've gone through customs and immigration in USA (5 times), Canada (12 times), UK (2), Ireland, France (2), Germany (3), Denmark, Romania, China (2), Argentina (5), Uruguay, Brazil. While I agree that immigration officers are not particularly friendly anywhere, they are clearly less friendly at US and Canada, and they ask you a lot more questions than at other places. Canada, where I am a landed immigrant, is the place where I get questioned the most. I was even asked "what's the purpose of your visit?" "Well, going to my house to keep living with my wife, keep doing my job, and keep raising my daughters", I had to answer. At the Canadian and US borders I'm systematically asked about my job, my trip, my house, etc. At the other borders the most I've been asked is "what's the purpose of your visit?", and that only about 50% of the time.

[Knock-on]

I have read the reasoned points have been made by Mark in Oshawa and Gannex. I've never accused either of them of anything other than logic and intelligence. In fact, I have often joined with them in support of some aspects of the arguments they presented. Some others do not fall into that category of making reasoned arguments. Some people even vandalize the original works of published authors and then try to justify their behavior. How sad and childish.

Everybody has points to make Agwiii and just because you believe a point is unreasoned, does not necessarily make it wrong. Just a different view.

I was pointing out that Ben found it insulting to be accused of supported Saddam and in the very next post, you did it again.

On this forum, we try (not always successfully, I grant you) to respect others views.

Where you lost me was in the last two sentences? Has anyone plagiarised something that I don’t know about and tried to justify it? :laugh:




Knock-on, that is an assumption.

That’s why I preceded my statement with the line “I would suggest” to signify it was my opinion. As an opinion, I think it is valid and I would suggest it is also correct.


Making assumptions can be risky. Assumptions are either warranted or not. Reading the pro-Saddam posts here suggests that your assumption is not warranted.

Making unsubstantiated claims as facts is not just risky but wrong. You seem to believe that most people that do not hold your views are pro Saddam and have made those claims on this thread. I fail to see the logic in this. It’s a bit like me saying that I hate Fosters and you claiming I’m against Alcohol. How about a bit of tolerance and understanding, eh? We can debate and even criticise some aspects of the Iraq situation without being a Saddam Lover. Please point out anything to the contrary to substantiate your views.

It is not all Black and White.


I agree with you that I cannot see why anyone would defend him, but there are many that continue to support the Butcher of Bagdad.

Is that another assumption or do you have proof?


During most, if not all wars in history, there have been Monday morning quarterbacks who -- despite not having enough information to make an assessment -- persisted in making public policy statements. War cannot be conducted by committee, or with 100% public disclosure. That would be handing the enemy a copy of your battle plan.

Can you not see this?

Totally agree. However, what has this to do with this thread? Are you claiming you have 100% access to your Governments information or are you, the same as the rest of us, a Monday morning Quarterback.

So, shall we shut up shop and blindly accept whatever our Governments decide or shall we discuss the current situation in this forum?

Can you not see this?


You list no flag on your profile, yet you criticize the conduct of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.

I am British, English and proud of my country. Yet I am also a realist and can recognise its strengths and weaknesses. I have free will, free speech and a desire to exercise these privileges. If you’re worried about my flag, then it’s because when the forum changed software, it didn’t carry over and I haven’t got round to doing it yet.


If you are American or British, then I suggest that you get involved in your government and work to advance your position. If you are somewhere else and live under some form of self-determination government, then I make the same suggestion. Get involved and make a difference. If this is a salient issue to you, do something. I do! This forum is read by very few people and ranting about foreign policy here has no effect upon policy.

Again, it is your assumptions that let you down. You have no idea what I apply myself to and what advancement I seek. Your priorities and desires are not necessarily the same as mine but I do operate at a level where I influence policy to a small degree ;) However, even if I didn’t, it would not preclude me from discussing and educating myself to the current situation. Surely, self knowledge is advancement in itself and helps dispel pre-conceptions and ignorance. Well, if you open your mind, remove the blinkers, debate, discuss and evaluate it is ;)

[Eki]

While I agree that immigration officers are not particularly friendly anywhere, they are clearly less friendly at US and Canada, and they ask you a lot more questions than at other places.
I have only limited experience on Canadian customs officials, just met one and he seemed friendly enough. We were visiting the US side of Niagara Falls, when we decided to go and have lunch on the Canadian side. We were five Finns, one Malesian and one Chinese. The customs would have let us Finns and the Malesian through (Malesia is part of the British Commonwealth like Canada) but the Chinese would have needed a visa. She could have bought a visa for about $200, but we thought it was too much for a lunch and decided to go back to the US side. The customs official stamped our passports anyway and gave us pins depicting the Canadian flag, which was nice.

[BDunnell]

I don't know you. There are many who still support Saddam, and you could be one of them.

But you know my views. Again, do you seriously think I support him, or are you just using it as a piece of lazy right-wing rhetoric?

[BDunnell]

I went through the London Heathrow day after the bombings in July 2005. I had to pass two security checks before getting in to the plane. The customs officials there we thorough but at least they were polite and friendly. Little politeness and friendliness wouldn't hurt the US customs officials either.

Or Qantas, the Australian airline which has banned someone from boarding one of its flights because he was wearing a T-shirt bearing an anti-Bush slogan — http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6285971.stm

The slogan is pretty juvenile, but I wouldn't have thought it so offensive as to be a problem for anyone in their right mind.

[BDunnell]

You list no flag on your profile, yet you criticize the conduct of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. If you are American or British, then I suggest that you get involved in your government and work to advance your position. If you are somewhere else and live under some form of self-determination government, then I make the same suggestion. Get involved and make a difference. If this is a salient issue to you, do something. I do! This forum is read by very few people and ranting about foreign policy here has no effect upon policy.

I have been involved in politics, and was delighted during that time to have been part of the only mainstream British party to have adopted a stance against the Iraq war, a stance which has been shown to have been extremely wise.

Your statement above is pointless for two reasons. Firstly, why does it matter whether someone doesn't display a flag alongside their name while making comments? Everyone is entitled to criticise (and praise) when they feel it is necessary, and whether or not they display one relatively meaningless symbol of nationality has not the slightest effect on this. Secondly, you say that people should get involved in 'government', which is not something that can be done by everyone. Politics yes, government no. The difference is significant.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Meaningless symbol of one's country? All under one flag? Oh boy....that will be like pouring gas on Agwiii's fire....*Mark ducks*

[Mark in Oshawa]

My personal experience: in the last four years I've gone through customs and immigration in USA (5 times), Canada (12 times), UK (2), Ireland, France (2), Germany (3), Denmark, Romania, China (2), Argentina (5), Uruguay, Brazil. While I agree that immigration officers are not particularly friendly anywhere, they are clearly less friendly at US and Canada, and they ask you a lot more questions than at other places. Canada, where I am a landed immigrant, is the place where I get questioned the most. I was even asked "what's the purpose of your visit?" "Well, going to my house to keep living with my wife, keep doing my job, and keep raising my daughters", I had to answer. At the Canadian and US borders I'm systematically asked about my job, my trip, my house, etc. At the other borders the most I've been asked is "what's the purpose of your visit?", and that only about 50% of the time.

I think Customs at the US/Canadian border are a bit ridiculous at times, and since I have crossed that border every day for about 4 years, I have seen more of customs than most of you. YES they can be rude, stupid and ignorant. You know what though? The freedom that anyone is allowed once passing through that border though is a freedom that is seen as worth protecting, hence the awkward and stupid questions at times.

The job of customs is to protect a nation from people arriving who would either do it harm, or smuggle something in, or to keep out people who would either stay illegally or work illegally. It isn't to make nice with people. It should be as a human courtesy, but in the end, it isn't their job. You give that sort of purpose to a bureaucrat, and he will make a mess of it on occasion. That said, you guys want rude, go to Mexico and have a customs agent at Cancun airport not like your documents and tell you quietly a 100 pesos will make the problem go away.....and then be hit up for bribes by two separate incidents with cops.

The free world is full of crappy cops, customs agents and faceless bureaucrats that give their nations at times bad names, but I will take it in a heart beat over living in a society where the only way out is to either be up a Dictators butt so far that you are as bad as he is, or floating out on a raft hoping to land in Florida!

[Eki]

The job of customs is to protect a nation from people arriving who would either do it harm, or smuggle something in, or to keep out people who would either stay illegally or work illegally.
The tourists and business people visiting a country probably make more good to any country than smugglers and terrorists do harm, so it wouldn't hurt to treat them like human beings. Besides, I'm quite sure being smart would be way more efficient in catching the terrorists and the smugglers than being rude. You can even kill someone while smiling and saying "sorry" if you really try, you know.

[ArrowsFA1]

The courtesy of immigration officials is probably little different to the courtesy of people the world over. You get good 'uns and bad 'uns.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, you and I agree on this, kindness would go a long way, but again, the world isn't as we would like it, it is what it is......

[race aficionado]

Eki, you and I agree on this, kindness would go a long way, but again, the world isn't as we would like it, it is what it is......

yes, and it is up to us to make it better.


peace,

:s mokin:

[agwiii]

I have been involved in politics, and was delighted during that time to have been part of the only mainstream British party to have adopted a stance against the Iraq war, a stance which has been shown to have been extremely wise.


Mainstream and yet not in power. That is a creative oxymoron.



Why does it matter whether someone doesn't display a flag alongside their name while making comments?


Indeed, patriotism and pride in one's home is be dead for some.

[agwiii]

My point was: If an idea is 200 years old, maybe it's about time to reconsider it?

I suppose the 2,000 year old story of Jesus Christ is another story you want to reconsider.

[agwiii]

I agree with your post, BDunnell. Being against the war does not mean being pro-Saddam, and it is simplistic to suggest otherwise.

I disagree. Being anti-war means that someone has nothing original to say. I am Pro-Peace, for I doubt many are pro-war. OTOH, there are many who are pro-Saddam.

[Gannex]

agwiii, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your post is a mystery.

[agwiii]

agwiii, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your post is a mystery.

Gannex: I have to say the same thing. Since you did not quote something I wrote, I have no idea what you are talking about. Were you talking about Jesus Christ, or about my being Pro-Peace?

[agwiii]

I suppose the 2,000 year old story of Jesus Christ is another story you want to reconsider.

The cowards are at it again. This particular coward has displayed both cowardice and ignorance, for it wrote in the negative REP comment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!"

Of course, as all can see, nobody on this forum has taken the name of the Lord in vain.

REP is a failure. Kill it or change it so that it is not the tool of vengeful cowards.

[Mark in Oshawa]

*scratching my head*....I am ...speechless...ok stick a fork in this thread, it is DEAD...lol....

[donKey jote]

:up:
:z
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[VresiBerba]

Mainstream and yet not in power. That is a creative oxymoron.
Gore and Kerry was extremely mainstream yet none of them was ever in power. How do you define oxymoron?

[VresiBerba]

I disagree. Being anti-war means that someone has nothing original to say. I am Pro-Peace...
Please, present some original pro-peace argument about the war in Iraq, though keep in mind it has to be more original than a anti-war argument. Can you really do that, thethird?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I can make a statement, the world cannot be analyzed in 5 day sound bites or intervals. IT may take 10 years for Iraq to get through this process of making the change into a nation that is more in line with a more peaceful world. Judge history based on THAT, and one can say whether this was a failure or not. Right now, it sucks, but understand the idiots doing the killing Iraq would be doing this if Saddam had died naturally and the idiot sons didn't have the power to run things. It is not going to be an easy solution, and the press seems to villify anyone who doesn't provide that easy solution.

You want peace, get rid of people that would enslave and starve their own to retain power, and THAT will not change in this world, or our kids world. The Americans tried to clean up on mess, and made another. Well, last time I looked, screwing up was human...so live with it...whinging here sounds good but most people were quiet when it was quiet in the first 5 months or so after the war...

[agwiii]

Gore and Kerry was extremely mainstream yet none of them was ever in power. How do you define oxymoron?

To be mainstream is not to be a loser. Can you define Swedish mainstream?

[agwiii]

Please, present some original pro-peace argument about the war in Iraq, though keep in mind it has to be more original than a anti-war argument. Can you really do that, thethird?

Yes, can you? :laugh:

[agwiii]

*scratching my head*....I am ... speechless ... ok stick a fork in this thread, it is DEAD ... lol ...

You've been to Texas. Get the chainsaw and kill this puppy.

[VresiBerba]

Yes, can you? :laugh:
Don't play stupid with me. Can you present this argument or not, if so, please do.


To be mainstream is not to be a loser. Can you define Swedish mainstream?
Sorry buster, but you won't get away that easy. Explain what oxymoron is, and I might explain what mainstream is.