An open letter to those protesting the war in Iraq:
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
- Status
K
Kirk
Guest
Yeah, okay
So then change the rules to "thou shaltnot offend religiously, but patrioticly or politically is perfectly fine".
K
Kirk
Guest
Well I'm stupid, explain it to me.
F
fist of fury
Guest
Yes I can agree with that I've found him eating crayons and paste a couple of times at work. Ofcourse there was that one time when he glued his face to his desk..........
I absolutley agree with you about Heinlan. I think the Book Starship Troopers pointed out a LOT of solutions to problems he saw growing in this country at the time he wrote it, that have since come to pass.
Too Bad the movie didn't do the political ideals of that book Justice.
Too Bad the movie didn't do the political ideals of that book Justice.
Matt Stone
Master of Arts
You have to work with him?!?!? Poor guy...
Slap him in the nads for me next time you see him. Tell him I said "hi."
Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:
cali_tkdbruin
Master of Arts
Heeheeheehee, that's some funny stuff...
:rofl::lol:
OP
OP
Mod Note
The discussion on 'Signatures' has been split off to a seperate thread of its own. Please return this thread to its main focus.
Thank you
Kaith
Sig thread : http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?&threadid=6988
The discussion on 'Signatures' has been split off to a seperate thread of its own. Please return this thread to its main focus.
Thank you
Kaith
Sig thread : http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?&threadid=6988
www.newsmax.com
Disillusioned Human Shields
Reed Irvine
Friday, March 28, 2003
At the ArmyĀs daily briefing in Qatar on March 26, a reporter asked Gen. Vincent Brooks what he had to say to the human shields who have gone to Iraq to risk their lives to stop the war. The general missed a great opportunity to tell what two of these "human shields" had recently said about what they learned in Baghdad that caused them to abandon their plans to risk their lives trying to protect innocent Iraqi civilians.
In a dispatch from Amman, Jordan, distributed by UPI and published in the Washington Times on March 23, veteran foreign correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave reported that a group of Americans who had joined a delegation of Japanese "human shields" in Iraq had changed their minds and fled the country with 14 hours of videotaped interviews with Iraqis who hoped the Coalition forces would be their liberators.
The spokesman for the group, the Rev. Kenneth Joseph, a pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East, an ancient Christian church that has a substantial membership in the United States, told de Borchgrave that his trip to Iraq "had shocked me back to reality."
He said that his talks with Iraqis convinced him that Saddam is "a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so [the torture masters] could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
He told de Borchgrave that some of the Iraqis he had interviewed on camera told him they would commit suicide if the American bombing didnĀt start and that they were willing to see their homes destroyed if it would free them from SaddamĀs bloody tyranny.
The Rev. Joseph and his group were not the only would-be human shields who changed their minds after hearing what Iraqi civilians had to say about Saddam. Daniel Pepper, a 23-year-old Jewish American living in London who had traveled in the Middle East as a student and a photographer for Newsweek, went to Iraq on Jan. 25 with a group that intended to serve as human shields to call attention to the anti-war movement. He wrote about his experience in the London Telegraph on March 23.
He said, "The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldnĀt say that I was exactly pro-war. No, I am ambivalent, but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed. I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad Ā a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, ĀBush bad, war bad, Iraq good.Ā He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
"He slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of SaddamĀs regime. Until then I had only heard the president spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of IraqĀs oil money went into SaddamĀs pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family. It scared the hell out of me. ... I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. ... I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others."
Safely over the border, they asked the driver "what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment." He surprised them, saying: "The Americans donĀt want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb the government and SaddamĀs palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam. All Iraqi people want this war."
He was convinced that Saddam had paid them to come to Iraq. Pepper concluded his article saying, "Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops people from exercising that freedom."
Extraordinary indeed.
Reed Irvine is chairman of Accuracy in Media.
Disillusioned Human Shields
Reed Irvine
Friday, March 28, 2003
At the ArmyĀs daily briefing in Qatar on March 26, a reporter asked Gen. Vincent Brooks what he had to say to the human shields who have gone to Iraq to risk their lives to stop the war. The general missed a great opportunity to tell what two of these "human shields" had recently said about what they learned in Baghdad that caused them to abandon their plans to risk their lives trying to protect innocent Iraqi civilians.
In a dispatch from Amman, Jordan, distributed by UPI and published in the Washington Times on March 23, veteran foreign correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave reported that a group of Americans who had joined a delegation of Japanese "human shields" in Iraq had changed their minds and fled the country with 14 hours of videotaped interviews with Iraqis who hoped the Coalition forces would be their liberators.
The spokesman for the group, the Rev. Kenneth Joseph, a pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East, an ancient Christian church that has a substantial membership in the United States, told de Borchgrave that his trip to Iraq "had shocked me back to reality."
He said that his talks with Iraqis convinced him that Saddam is "a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so [the torture masters] could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
He told de Borchgrave that some of the Iraqis he had interviewed on camera told him they would commit suicide if the American bombing didnĀt start and that they were willing to see their homes destroyed if it would free them from SaddamĀs bloody tyranny.
The Rev. Joseph and his group were not the only would-be human shields who changed their minds after hearing what Iraqi civilians had to say about Saddam. Daniel Pepper, a 23-year-old Jewish American living in London who had traveled in the Middle East as a student and a photographer for Newsweek, went to Iraq on Jan. 25 with a group that intended to serve as human shields to call attention to the anti-war movement. He wrote about his experience in the London Telegraph on March 23.
He said, "The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldnĀt say that I was exactly pro-war. No, I am ambivalent, but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed. I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad Ā a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, ĀBush bad, war bad, Iraq good.Ā He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
"He slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of SaddamĀs regime. Until then I had only heard the president spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of IraqĀs oil money went into SaddamĀs pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family. It scared the hell out of me. ... I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. ... I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others."
Safely over the border, they asked the driver "what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment." He surprised them, saying: "The Americans donĀt want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb the government and SaddamĀs palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam. All Iraqi people want this war."
He was convinced that Saddam had paid them to come to Iraq. Pepper concluded his article saying, "Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops people from exercising that freedom."
Extraordinary indeed.
Reed Irvine is chairman of Accuracy in Media.
C
chufeng
Guest
The U.N. security counsel has demonstrated its impotence more than once...the only reason it seems to be a big deal now is that a conservative (Bush is far from conservative folks...except to those so far to the left that they take on the appearance of Marxists) president with REAL convictions based on MORALS has decide it is time to defang the snake...NO one said SQUAT when Clinton approved action against in Kosovo (another war without U.N. support)...
Those who opposed this war are the very same governements who were sleeping with the Iraqi regime...
Ghouch the French AND the Germans...
I am not Republican, Democrat, or whatever...I vote for the least worst choice (which seems to be the way many elections have gone since Nixon)...
But I am a proud American...have we screwed up in the past? Yes...and WE admit that (what other government has without losing a war?)...
More American blood is spilled to protect OTHERS and allow them a chance at freedom and equality...yet, we are still viewed by many as the enemy...OK, I can buy that from an Iraqi or Iranian...
but NOT from my fellow Americans...Those people flat out disgust me...MOST of them have never bothered to look at WHAT the regimes we fight against have done...MOST of them are mindless little pawns for the professors they have in their liberal arts colleges...MOST of them don't have an inkling of the blood that has been spilt on foreign soil for a noble cause...They just get their "I hate America" banners out and start acting very violently in the name of peace...
Before you protest...take the time to research the facts...NOT what your college professor tells you are the facts...BUT the REAL facts...Someone posted a letter from a "human shield" who had his eyes opened by REALITY...I hope you all read it.
:asian:
chufeng
Those who opposed this war are the very same governements who were sleeping with the Iraqi regime...
Ghouch the French AND the Germans...
I am not Republican, Democrat, or whatever...I vote for the least worst choice (which seems to be the way many elections have gone since Nixon)...
But I am a proud American...have we screwed up in the past? Yes...and WE admit that (what other government has without losing a war?)...
More American blood is spilled to protect OTHERS and allow them a chance at freedom and equality...yet, we are still viewed by many as the enemy...OK, I can buy that from an Iraqi or Iranian...
but NOT from my fellow Americans...Those people flat out disgust me...MOST of them have never bothered to look at WHAT the regimes we fight against have done...MOST of them are mindless little pawns for the professors they have in their liberal arts colleges...MOST of them don't have an inkling of the blood that has been spilt on foreign soil for a noble cause...They just get their "I hate America" banners out and start acting very violently in the name of peace...
Before you protest...take the time to research the facts...NOT what your college professor tells you are the facts...BUT the REAL facts...Someone posted a letter from a "human shield" who had his eyes opened by REALITY...I hope you all read it.
:asian:
chufeng
E
Elfan
Guest
O I agree 100%, Bush is definantly a neo-conservative.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
REED IRVINE is who you're relying upon for facts? Yikes. AIM (not the American Indian Movement) is a well-known ultra-conservative group of "media critics," and has been for going on twenty years. These are guys who run around the country their whole lives, twitching, living in fear that somewhere, somehow, somebody gay might be teaching or writing a book...they actually think that the media and the educational system are run by communists and lesbians....
As for Robert Heinlein (correct spelling, incidentally), "Starship Troopers," was the focus of a debate about fascism about twenty-five years ago. I'd recommend reading his, "Farnham's Freehold," for a book that charmingly links anti-communism, nuclear war, racist ideas about black people, and some of the worst sex scenes ever written in a mishmosh of goop...
Nothing has ever been funnier than Doogie Howser as a Gestapo colonel...takes me back to Verhoeven's first movie, "Soldier of Orange," great film.
Incidentally, nobody has a purely objective and politics-free viewpoint. The only folks I've ever met who claim such an approach are a) rabid conservatives, b) old-line Marxists who really think that the epistemological break of the 1840s allowed Karl to see history simply as it was...while, of course, Jenny was back home doing his shirts and scrabbling around for money to feed the kids.
As for Robert Heinlein (correct spelling, incidentally), "Starship Troopers," was the focus of a debate about fascism about twenty-five years ago. I'd recommend reading his, "Farnham's Freehold," for a book that charmingly links anti-communism, nuclear war, racist ideas about black people, and some of the worst sex scenes ever written in a mishmosh of goop...
Nothing has ever been funnier than Doogie Howser as a Gestapo colonel...takes me back to Verhoeven's first movie, "Soldier of Orange," great film.
Incidentally, nobody has a purely objective and politics-free viewpoint. The only folks I've ever met who claim such an approach are a) rabid conservatives, b) old-line Marxists who really think that the epistemological break of the 1840s allowed Karl to see history simply as it was...while, of course, Jenny was back home doing his shirts and scrabbling around for money to feed the kids.
Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
right on!
I hope those "human shields" are rotting in the rubbles in Iraq, giving Saddam and his thugs a belly-aching laugh!
OP
OP
While I don't condone the hope for harm.... I wonder how many of them are now realizing just how blind and stupid they are..having volenteired to shield things...and now are being held to their offer at gun point by the nobel and peaceloving Iraqi secret police.
Saw this...I like it.
Ghandi didnt need a ball bat.... MLK didnt need to throw a brick....
Saw this...I like it.
Ghandi didnt need a ball bat.... MLK didnt need to throw a brick....
E
Elfan
Guest
8. Realize that since step 5 has a typo in it and thus didnt' make sense, try again, and this time see how the peace activist "learned his lesson" and now carries a knife. As you lie in a pool of your own blood reflect on how violence only begets more violence.
-----
Sorry thats the best I could come up with.
-----
Sorry thats the best I could come up with.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Just to occasion comment: the reason violence gets used as often as it does is because violence is the lazy, thoughtless, short-term solution.
Sure, there are times when you must protect yourself. Sure there will be times when mass fighting, wars, are necessary. Sure, there are times when bullying of whatever kind has to be slapped down.
But ya know, most of the time these "necessary," wars are the result of stupid, lazy people so blinded by their own hostility that they don't bother to really think, to really look for alternatives. Just look at the record...
And if that don't float yer boat, how about the military's comments on Rumsfield et al? Ignore me, by all means...but Gen. Wallace? Military historians like John Keegan? And apparently, a lot of captains, majors, lieutenants, etc? I've heard this stuff before--about Vietnam, where apparently you pretty much couldn't get the truth out of anybody above the rank of major, and everybody else said openly that the whole thing was an immense, stupid f'up.
Clearly Hussein's gonna lose. I am not going to shed any tears over his fall. But long-term--what'll we do about consequences?
Oh, well. Just woofin'.
Sure, there are times when you must protect yourself. Sure there will be times when mass fighting, wars, are necessary. Sure, there are times when bullying of whatever kind has to be slapped down.
But ya know, most of the time these "necessary," wars are the result of stupid, lazy people so blinded by their own hostility that they don't bother to really think, to really look for alternatives. Just look at the record...
And if that don't float yer boat, how about the military's comments on Rumsfield et al? Ignore me, by all means...but Gen. Wallace? Military historians like John Keegan? And apparently, a lot of captains, majors, lieutenants, etc? I've heard this stuff before--about Vietnam, where apparently you pretty much couldn't get the truth out of anybody above the rank of major, and everybody else said openly that the whole thing was an immense, stupid f'up.
Clearly Hussein's gonna lose. I am not going to shed any tears over his fall. But long-term--what'll we do about consequences?
Oh, well. Just woofin'.
C
chufeng
Guest
Yeah...well he had 12 plus years to do the right thing...all the while the hand-ringers kept sucking up his crap and he kept on killing his own people.
- Status
