Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zhivvy

US pastor to burn copies of the Koran on 11th September

Recommended Posts

[quote name='petermullen wrote:


barbara1 wrote:

petermullen']The Taliban believe in the strictest interpretation of islamic law (sharia), and they believe it is the only law that is valid (i think). Saudi Arabia and Iran are like this to a lesser extent. Some would argue that the Taliban actually helped society in some ways in Afganistan( for example, the opium trade was kept down while they were in power).

 

For sure, it is a very complicated situation over there....very very different than western culture. That's why i"m of the opinion that, unless we are threatened, we should not interfere. And listening to their President,and the protests of the population over there, it doesn't seem like they are very happy with our presence there. So why are we there?

so unless they start hurt and attack us, we just leave them terrorising minotities in their own country, and let them violate human-rights? isnt that the same as knowing about abuse in the house next door, but minding your own business......

 

This is their culture....there are less strict versions of this in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are sovereign nations. If there are abuses being put upon the population, it is up to that population to fight back.....not another country. In my opinion....

i see what you mean, peter. but what if the population isnt strong enough to fight back? even more, what if the one part of population thats been a victim isnt strong enough just because of these attacks? cause when you keep women inside, and forbid them to take part of social/political life, how are they gonna change this?

to get back to the home-abuse anology, isnt that the same as saying; well its his/their way to raise the kids or treat their wifes. they're head of the household.....besides if they are abusing their kid/wife, its up to them to fight back. i don know, i don wanna attack your point of view, please don get me wrong... but i think its not alright. cause we took a stand against apartheid, against the berlin wall, against the arrest of aung san suu kyi . why not against this injustice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't kept up with this whole conversation completely, but one point re: Peter and Barbara's discussion... it might be important to consider if the abused neighbor WANTS help and is ready to accept help and to step up and do their part.......... just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't kept up with this whole conversation completely, but one point re: Peter and Barbara's discussion... it might be important to consider if the abused neighbor WANTS help and is ready to accept help and to step up and do their part.......... just a thought.
hi nikki! don know if you read back yet, but i was using the next-door-abuse as an analogy to the oppression of women by the taliban. they were asking for help before the wtc-attacks even happened. but its hard for them to get a voice, when you cant leave the house without a male chaperon and with being watched every single moment... and without proper education or being able to earn your own income, its not that easy to stand up for yourself and against your oppressor.. especially if its your father, husband and every male family member in your life. 
i was saying i read some interviews, but even during the interview, these women were in danger as were the journalists for talking to them. their stories were heartbreaking. bright women, having to quit school, university, professions all at once, cause the taliban took over the power. ofcourse this governement was chosen by male population, so what could they do? they were unimportant, owned by their father or husband ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='barbara1 wrote:


petermullen wrote:

barbara1 wrote:

petermullen']The Taliban believe in the strictest interpretation of islamic law (sharia), and they believe it is the only law that is valid (i think). Saudi Arabia and Iran are like this to a lesser extent. Some would argue that the Taliban actually helped society in some ways in Afganistan( for example, the opium trade was kept down while they were in power).

 

For sure, it is a very complicated situation over there....very very different than western culture. That's why i"m of the opinion that, unless we are threatened, we should not interfere. And listening to their President,and the protests of the population over there, it doesn't seem like they are very happy with our presence there. So why are we there?

so unless they start hurt and attack us, we just leave them terrorising minotities in their own country, and let them violate human-rights? isnt that the same as knowing about abuse in the house next door, but minding your own business......

 

This is their culture....there are less strict versions of this in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are sovereign nations. If there are abuses being put upon the population, it is up to that population to fight back.....not another country. In my opinion....

i see what you mean, peter. but what if the population isnt strong enough to fight back? even more, what if the one part of population thats been a victim isnt strong enough just because of these attacks? cause when you keep women inside, and forbid them to take part of social/political life, how are they gonna change this?
to get back to the home-abuse anology, isnt that the same as saying; well its his/their way to raise the kids or treat their wifes. they're head of the household.....besides if they are abusing their kid/wife, its up to them to fight back. i don know, i don wanna attack your point of view, please don get me wrong... but i think its not alright. cause we took a stand against apartheid, against the berlin wall, against the arrest of aung san suu kyi . why not against this injustice?

I think it is one thing to stand up against what you see as an injustice by using trade embargos, boycotts, etc. Invading a country is an entirely different matter, though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looks like america is really gunning for more war agains the so called "terrorists"

 

there is no such thing as a "terrorist"

 

bush, new what he was doing all along. people acutually think he is very stupid and dumb, but not at all. he is one of the most cleverest war criminals of all time. his similarity with hitler is all there to see.

I think it was more the people surrounding him ( Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) who were the real criminals.....Bush was a puppet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.

Although I cannot bring myself to comment directly on the whole "9/11 Truth" theme, I did find an article from Time Magazine that speaks to this conspiracy.  The article was written in 2006--almost 5 years ago--and was already asking at that point why these 9/11 conspiracies will not go away.  If you are one of those who buys into the whole "the US government is behind 9/11," then you will probably reject this analysis from TIME as just one more publication-from-the-machine doing its part to protect the government and keep the public in the dark.  But for the rest of you....

Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='petermullen wrote:


barbara1 wrote:

petermullen wrote:

barbara1 wrote:

petermullen']The Taliban believe in the strictest interpretation of islamic law (sharia), and they believe it is the only law that is valid (i think). Saudi Arabia and Iran are like this to a lesser extent. Some would argue that the Taliban actually helped society in some ways in Afganistan( for example, the opium trade was kept down while they were in power).

 

For sure, it is a very complicated situation over there....very very different than western culture. That's why i"m of the opinion that, unless we are threatened, we should not interfere. And listening to their President,and the protests of the population over there, it doesn't seem like they are very happy with our presence there. So why are we there?

so unless they start hurt and attack us, we just leave them terrorising minotities in their own country, and let them violate human-rights? isnt that the same as knowing about abuse in the house next door, but minding your own business......

 

This is their culture....there are less strict versions of this in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are sovereign nations. If there are abuses being put upon the population, it is up to that population to fight back.....not another country. In my opinion....

i see what you mean, peter. but what if the population isnt strong enough to fight back? even more, what if the one part of population thats been a victim isnt strong enough just because of these attacks? cause when you keep women inside, and forbid them to take part of social/political life, how are they gonna change this?
to get back to the home-abuse anology, isnt that the same as saying; well its his/their way to raise the kids or treat their wifes. they're head of the household.....besides if they are abusing their kid/wife, its up to them to fight back. i don know, i don wanna attack your point of view, please don get me wrong... but i think its not alright. cause we took a stand against apartheid, against the berlin wall, against the arrest of aung san suu kyi . why not against this injustice?

I think it is one thing to stand up against what you see as an injustice by using trade embargos, boycotts, etc. Invading a country is an entirely different matter, though....

but i agree on that, peter. sorry if i didnt express myself clearly! i'm anti-war in any case! i was just talking about the duty to do something to help these women. invading the country wasnt the action i was pleading for. and i don know what would have been helpfull, but just taking a stand would have been a start. instead america reacted with war-threats when it got attacked on his own ground. so you see, we do agree here: war is never the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@naz, dont you worry Im gonna get to your videos eventually, and thanks for posting the links!

@security, your posts are very very well written articles , that i greatly admire. i wish i could think and reason that well.

 

overall, this thread is very respectful, interesting, informative, and thought provoking.

 

well done everyone, with getting along and being so wise and intelligent about this difficult issuse

 

@barb-the women and the taliban issues are really powerfully presented here by you, and i feel so moved by their suffering. its just terrible! its an outrage that this is the norm in 2010!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.

Although I cannot bring myself to comment directly on the whole "9/11 Truth" theme, I did find an article from Time Magazine that speaks to this conspiracy.  The article was written in 2006--almost 5 years ago--and was already asking at that point why these 9/11 conspiracies will not go away.  If you are one of those who buys into the whole "the US government is behind 9/11," then you will probably reject this analysis from TIME as just one more publication-from-the-machine doing its part to protect the government and keep the public in the dark.  But for the rest of you....

Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away

http://www.time.com/time/...e/0,9171,1531304,00.html

security-this is a fascinating article and it need to be printed out so peeps can take a long look at it. It makes some powerful points. so im going to cut and paste it here...and then people can read and reflect thoughts and ideas about what it is presenting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look, if you can stand it, at video footage of the World Trade Center collapsing. Your eye will naturally jump to the top of the screen, where huge fountains of dark debris erupt out of the falling towers. But fight your natural instincts. Look farther down, at the stories that haven't collapsed yet.

In almost every clip you'll see little puffs of dust spurting out from the sides of the towers. There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition. The dust puffs you see on film are the detonations of explosives planted there before the attacks.

People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.

The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.

Although the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, it is flourishing on the Internet. One of the most popular conspiracy videos online is Loose Change, a 90-min. blizzard of statistics, photographs, documents, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony set to a trippy hip-hop backbeat. It's designed to pick apart, point by point, the conventional narrative of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

For all its amateur production values--it was created by a pair of industrious twentysomethings using a laptop, pizza money and footage scavenged from the Internet--Loose Change is a compelling experience. Take the section about the attack on the Pentagon. As the film points out--and this is a tent-pole issue among 9/11 conspiracists--the crash site doesn't look right. There's not enough damage. The hole smashed in the Pentagon's outer wall was 75 ft. wide, but a Boeing 757 has a 124-ft. wingspan. Why wasn't the hole wider? Why does it look so neat?



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html#ixzz0zfbF1BaD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experts will tell you that the hole was punched by the plane's fuselage, not its wings, which sheared off on impact. But then what happened to the wings? And the tail and the engines? Images of the crash site show hardly any of the wreckage you would expect from a building that's been rammed by a commercial jet. The lawn, where the plane supposedly dragged a wing on approach, is practically pristine. The plane supposedly clipped five lampposts on its way in, but the lampposts in question show surprisingly little damage. And could Hani Hanjour, the man supposedly at the controls, have executed the maneuvers that the plane performed? He failed a flight test just weeks before the attack. And Pentagon employees reported smelling cordite after the hit, the kind of high explosive a cruise missile carries.

There's something empowering about just exploring such questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the government line "sheeple.") "The goal of the movie was just really to get out there and show that there are alternate stories to what the mainstream media and the government will tell you," says Korey Rowe, 23, who produced the movie. "That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory."

It's also not much of a story line. As a narrative, the official story that the government--echoed by the media--is trying to sell shows an almost embarrassing lack of novelistic flair, whereas the story the conspiracy theorists tell about what happened on Sept. 11 is positively Dan Brownesque in its rich, exciting complexity. Rowe and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22, actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that 9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was overwhelming. The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-2,00.html#ixzz0zfbakHms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. (For what it's worth, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published a fact sheet responding to some of the conspiracy theorists' ideas on its website, www.nist.gov. The theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow. Granted, the Pentagon crash site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is.

There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.

You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories might have declined with the rise of digital media. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together.

But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it. And as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're an American form of national mourning. They'll be with us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-3,00.html#ixzz0zfbySTaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pasting the article here is very thoughtful and enterprising of you Xtra.  Thank you. 


Yeah.....this "issue" goes on and on and on..... Compared to a few years ago, I am much more selective with how and, more important, where I engage with such topics (note my screenname). 


It is not that I do not think the engagement is worthwhile.  It is. 
I just don't know if I am willing to get trapped in a  "40"-style "how long...." loop with this and its related themes--If you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

america, the land of conspiracy.....

president dies: conspiracy-theory
famous actress dies (presidents mistress maybe?) conspiracy-theory
national disaster takes place: conspiracy-theory

..........
i've said it before, and will say it again boy, am i glad to live in europe, even more: in lil' belgium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

america, the land of conspiracy.....
president dies: conspiracy-theory
famous actress dies (presidents mistress maybe?) conspiracy-theory
national disaster takes place: conspiracy-theory

..........
i've said it before, and will say it again boy, am i glad to live in europe, even more: in lil' belgium.

Every big disaster has a conspiracy theory behind it - I like to read them and I have to admit that some theories are quite well researched etc... and valid points are made.

I believe that Al quaeda did fly the planes into the twin towers - although I do think the government had an idea that this would happen - through terror alerts and either through ignorance or arrogance ignored the threats believing that this wasn't possible. Something like this could not be planned without high up officials having some knowledge of it, but I am not saying that they were involved with the plans - just ignored them etc...

As for the Pentagon I know for certain that it happened - a plane crashed into it. my cousin who is a construction worker was working on top of a building nearby the Pentagon and watched the plane fly into it.

 

The article is very interesting Spicy - I'm glad you posted them up on here for us all to read and it does give us things to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly, the failure to "connect the dots" ahead of the attacks came down to defective bureaucratic systems and, as the 9/11 Commission stated, ["a profound lack of imagination]" rather than ignorance or arrogance.

People and systems simply failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly, the failure to "connect the dots" ahead of the attacks came down to defective bureaucratic systems and, as the 9/11 Commission stated, ["a profound lack of imagination]" rather than ignorance or arrogance.

People and systems simply failed.

i believe you are right there, security. cause this even happens in our lil' country. governments are always quite confident of their security-measures.... till something big goes wrong and then they will anxiously check out and revise the procedures.... but sadly, its too late by then and we can only learn lessons for the future.

it happened with the 'heizel'-tragedy over here and it will happen due to the 'love-parade'-tragedy in germany. its what lead to the 'amber-alert' in usa, and to reformation of police and justice after the 'dutroux-debacle' in belgium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
america, the land of conspiracy.....
president dies: conspiracy-theory
famous actress dies (presidents mistress maybe?) conspiracy-theory
national disaster takes place: conspiracy-theory

..........
i've said it before, and will say it again boy, am i glad to live in europe, even more: in lil' belgium.
So do they not come up with these theories in other countries as well? The article, which makes alot of sense, seems to be saying that these theories are a function of the human mind (in conjunction with the fact that systems are prone to fail).....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara - thanks for clarifying... and I agree with you very strongly about what you are saying re: the conditions for women in Iraq... I think being here in the US and having lived with the shame and embarrassment of Bush and his cronies in the White House, I (we) are a little sensitive about the fact that we went into this war, and continue there, without feeling we are accomplishing anything, and on many fronts are making it worse. It seemed over the years, Bush tried to make us believe that the Iraqi people wanted us there fighting that war. But it never feels true, through the actions of their government, etc. But your point is excellent, we are seeing the actions of the male dominated government, not hearing the voices of the women. Altho I have no idea if conditions are truly any better for women now than before.

 

It has been such an awful situation for too many years. And the guilt of knowing that our tax dollars are going to support this war is with me. And yet I have no suggestions for our new administration re: pulling out of it. It is true we have created a new and chaotic situation in this country, and in some ethical way we shouldn't leave until we "fix" it , but....... in Iraq, what exactly would "fixed" look like??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara - thanks for clarifying... and I agree with you very strongly about what you are saying re: the conditions for women in Iraq... I think being here in the US and having lived with the shame and embarrassment of Bush and his cronies in the White House, I (we) are a little sensitive about the fact that we went into this war, and continue there, without feeling we are accomplishing anything, and on many fronts are making it worse. It seemed over the years, Bush tried to make us believe that the Iraqi people wanted us there fighting that war. But it never feels true, through the actions of their government, etc. But your point is excellent, we are seeing the actions of the male dominated government, not hearing the voices of the women. Altho I have no idea if conditions are truly any better for women now than before.

 

It has been such an awful situation for too many years. And the guilt of knowing that our tax dollars are going to support this war is with me. And yet I have no suggestions for our new administration re: pulling out of it. It is true we have created a new and chaotic situation in this country, and in some ethical way we shouldn't leave until we "fix" it , but....... in Iraq, what exactly would "fixed" look like??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has truly inspired a fascinating conversation... I wish I had time to read back thro everything... but work calls! But I especially am impressed with the continuing respectful tone........ keep it up everyone :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara - thanks for clarifying... and I agree with you very strongly about what you are saying re: the conditions for women in Iraq... I think being here in the US and having lived with the shame and embarrassment of Bush and his cronies in the White House, I (we) are a little sensitive about the fact that we went into this war, and continue there, without feeling we are accomplishing anything, and on many fronts are making it worse. It seemed over the years, Bush tried to make us believe that the Iraqi people wanted us there fighting that war. But it never feels true, through the actions of their government, etc. But your point is excellent, we are seeing the actions of the male dominated government, not hearing the voices of the women. Altho I have no idea if conditions are truly any better for women now than before.

 

It has been such an awful situation for too many years. And the guilt of knowing that our tax dollars are going to support this war is with me. And yet I have no suggestions for our new administration re: pulling out of it. It is true we have created a new and chaotic situation in this country, and in some ethical way we shouldn't leave until we "fix" it , but....... in Iraq, what exactly would "fixed" look like??

Well seeing that it was said to be 'fixed' from March when the elections were held - but no government has yet been formed 6 months later - I'm guessing we can safely say that it isn't quite fixed yet. UK forces are beginning to pull out too but i get the feeling that a lot of troops believe that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And where troops should have been or not is a different argument. But I do believe that even the people who were/are pro-invasion of Iraq will have to admit that a lot of money (our tax paying money, which could have helped to wipe out our debts from a huge cock-up of the banks) has been spent on this war with no real results to be seen.

I know some things have improved - i am not denying that, but was invasion, war, and charging in gung-ho on the back of the US attacks the right thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zhivvy wrote:


nikki1120']
Barbara
- thanks for clarifying... and I agree with you very strongly about what you are saying re: the conditions for women in Iraq... I think being here in the US and having lived with the shame and embarrassment of Bush and his cronies in the White House, I (we) are a little sensitive about the fact that we went into this war, and continue there, without feeling we are accomplishing anything, and on many fronts are making it worse. It seemed over the years, Bush tried to make us believe that the Iraqi people wanted us there fighting that war. But it never feels true, through the actions of their government, etc. But your point is excellent, we are seeing the actions of the male dominated government, not hearing the voices of the women. Altho I have no idea if conditions are truly any better for women now than before.

 

It has been such an awful situation for too many years. And the guilt of knowing that our tax dollars are going to support this war is with me. And yet I have no suggestions for our new administration re: pulling out of it. It is true we have created a new and chaotic situation in this country, and in some ethical way we shouldn't leave until we "fix" it , but....... in Iraq, what exactly would "fixed" look like??

Well seeing that it was said to be 'fixed' from March when the elections were held - but no government has yet been formed 6 months later - I'm guessing we can safely say that it isn't quite fixed yet. UK forces are beginning to pull out too but i get the feeling that a lot of troops believe that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And where troops should have been or not is a different argument. But I do believe that even the people who were/are pro-invasion of Iraq will have to admit that a lot of money (our tax paying money, which could have helped to wipe out our debts from a huge cock-up of the banks) has been spent on this war with no real results to be seen.

I know some things have improved - i am not denying that, but was invasion, war, and charging in gung-ho on the back of the US attacks the right thing to do?

 

alot of money and alot of lives....on every side of this...and how much is a life worth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='petermullen wrote:


Zhivvy wrote:

nikki1120']
Barbara
- thanks for clarifying... and I agree with you very strongly about what you are saying re: the conditions for women in Iraq... I think being here in the US and having lived with the shame and embarrassment of Bush and his cronies in the White House, I (we) are a little sensitive about the fact that we went into this war, and continue there, without feeling we are accomplishing anything, and on many fronts are making it worse. It seemed over the years, Bush tried to make us believe that the Iraqi people wanted us there fighting that war. But it never feels true, through the actions of their government, etc. But your point is excellent, we are seeing the actions of the male dominated government, not hearing the voices of the women. Altho I have no idea if conditions are truly any better for women now than before.

 

It has been such an awful situation for too many years. And the guilt of knowing that our tax dollars are going to support this war is with me. And yet I have no suggestions for our new administration re: pulling out of it. It is true we have created a new and chaotic situation in this country, and in some ethical way we shouldn't leave until we "fix" it , but....... in Iraq, what exactly would "fixed" look like??

Well seeing that it was said to be 'fixed' from March when the elections were held - but no government has yet been formed 6 months later - I'm guessing we can safely say that it isn't quite fixed yet. UK forces are beginning to pull out too but i get the feeling that a lot of troops believe that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And where troops should have been or not is a different argument. But I do believe that even the people who were/are pro-invasion of Iraq will have to admit that a lot of money (our tax paying money, which could have helped to wipe out our debts from a huge cock-up of the banks) has been spent on this war with no real results to be seen.

I know some things have improved - i am not denying that, but was invasion, war, and charging in gung-ho on the back of the US attacks the right thing to do?

 

alot of money and alot of lives....on every side of this...and how much is a life worth?

By the looks of things and the lack of funding for UK troops for decent armour (don't know if the same in the US) a life is worth nothing! the only thing worth anything is winning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.