khunsanuk Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hi, Guys, unless we bring this back to the main issue, I will be forced to close this. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 America is not bring 'democracy' to the world, it is bringing fundamental Christianity with a few added twists which include monsters that have to be destroyed, religions that have to be destroyed because they are bad, and an ideaology that 'might is right'. Did anybody notice that the US just tested a laser from a 747 in hopes of being able to destroy an in-coming missile? Now use your imagination, if a list is made of cell phone users how easy would it be to say' who is naughty and who is nice' and be able to distinguish the 'naughty ones' from the 'good ones' when they turn their cell phones on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 I have seen no court decisions to remove people from the no-fly list. ------------------------ there was a docu on channel 9 a month ago. the ACLU (american civil liberties Union for those who don't know) brought cases to the courts, and judge pronouced as i said. I agree with you, it's a disgrace that expressing oneself (the case I remember was 2 old ladies printing a anti-war pamphlet in their neighborood) brings censoring of many rights for one's ideas. A more troubling case, in terms of americans vs americans, was that of the guy who was training at Gold Gym's and was overheard railing against the war. The FBI came to his door many times, and took him for questionning. For fucking crissakes, just idle talk, sweating off in a gym!!! These people who denounced him belong in Saddam's Irak, not here! OR DO THEY???? :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 The whole atmoshphere in the US post 9/11 smacks of a throw back to the McCarthism of the fifties. This time the enemy is not the communists but terrorists. Anyone who dissents from the populist view is seen as a traitor or supporter of terrorism. They are publicly villified and privately harassed by various arms of the govts security forces. You are against the war in Iraq ergo you are unpatriotic and probably have terrorist leanings and sympathies. We really have entered a dark age when we can no longer get any objective info from our news stations and papers. The sanitised version of news that is most commonly seen around the world is very careful to not offend the viewer and to pump the US govt line. Unfortunately free thinkers are thin on the ground these days as many people in western countries do not have the analytical capacities to disseminate the information they get. A decline in the number of people studying liberal arts courses is partly to blame.These courses are no funded very well these days and obvioulsy in an increasingly materialistic society lead to the sort of jobs that do not give high salaries. However people from these backgrounds have traditionally been a strong voice against extremists from both the far right and the far left. Many westerners brought up in culture of Rambo and Terminator see the world in the simplistic version of their heroes and do not really understand the realities of war. Europeans are as a result of their recent history are more cautious and less gung ho when it comes to war. The message will eventually get to the American people but probably it will be the more the mounting economic cost rather than the cost of human lives that will create the realisation that the policies in Iraq are flawed and failed ones. One thing is for sure history does and will repeat itself for human beings are seemingly ruled by the most avaricious and power hungry and they have no bounds to their appetites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yehtmae Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 khunsanuk said:Hi, Guys, unless we bring this back to the main issue, I will be forced to close this. Sanuk! I'd close it. It's got bugger all to do with 'News about Thailand' anyway. Although, "The pictures are too graphic to show you.", could refer to a news report about the Soi 7 beergarden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hi! Shit happens in every war, by every nation's fighters That's true but most nations aren't constantly ranting about how morally superior they are and that they are the only ones fit to rule the world. Also remember that thr Iraqis were the ones who were invaded, not the invaders. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hi! Iraq had something to do with 9/11. No they didn't. That was repeatedly in the Swedish news media and other European ones as well. The general consensus was that Al Qaida didn't exist in Iraq for the very simple reason that Sadam was a dictator and would not accept any competition. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted November 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 >>>It posed a tremendous opportunity to expand american influence into the middle east.<<< and for that you need a war? a war based on "pretaxts"? isn't that exactly the same hitler has done with poland? The US has always has used pretexts to go to war. In WWII the rooselvelt admin wanted to come into the european war but the american public would have none of it, even though the germans were sinking our commercial ships. When the japs bombed PearlHarbor, the treaty alliances all kicked in (a pretext) and we jumped into the war in Europe with both feet. The war against the japs was not a big concern and the lion's share of resources went to europe. The troops and mcarthur in the pacific hung on by a shoe string while the war in europe got it all. Since the japs are the ones who bombed us, why didn't we go all out in the pacific war and take care of our treaty obligations in europe later? The bombing of pearl harbor was the perfect pretext to get into europe. Roosevelt was right of course to focus on europe and its a good thing the japs gave the pretext otherwise europe would look alot different now. Pre texts are not always a bad thing Fly. The US is a country of 260million, to get them to support foreign policy initiatives you have to appeal to certain concepts that are ingrained into the american psyche. You can lambaste the administration for doing that but it has always been that way and always will. The outcome is what is important and if you have good leaders then good things can happen. If you have incompetent leaders... The real criticism of the administartion is their failure to anticipate what would happen even when it was easily ascertainable. >>so you only need to bind the major networks and news sources to you, and the naysayers are a matter of irrelevance.<< I can almost agree with this. The US gov does not have control of the media. Every american has been informed that there are no WMD. Every american has seen GW floundering at news briefings (which very rarely happen btw - news briefings that is). The question that i cannot figure out is WHY the actual effects of conducting war in iraq is blacked out of the major news outlets. I suspect if this is not figured out and exposed then it may continue for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted November 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 >>>When bush announced he was invading because of WMD, I did not believe him. It wasn't that I did not believe saddam had WMD. I believed he had 'em and so did everyone else.>>> Please retract the "So did everyone else" How naive can you possibly get? I have not met any european or Thai who did believe the WDM joke. Do you think Colin Powel believes??? All my friends rather think Irak was INVADED by the USA to control oil. C'mon, everyone thought that saddam had WMD. If he did not, then why was he refusing the inspections? If everyone knew that he did not have WMD, then why did the UN pass a resolution saying that if he refused the inspections he would face the consequences? Lets not rewrite history. I don't fault people for believing that saddam had the weapons. People who believed the US went into iraq BECAUSE he had WMD, well that is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted November 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Fly said "somewhat like, make them minor issues by using the medias to instill fear, paranoia and patriotism into the population. " Zorro said: >>The whole atmoshphere in the US post 9/11 smacks of a throw back to the McCarthism of the fifties. This time the enemy is not the communists but terrorists.<<< The idea of barbarians at the gate goes all the way back to roman times. Sometimes they are really there, other times not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.