I’m sorry that it seems I’m a little bent out of shape. I guess I will always react that way when someone defends the actions of a well-documented tyrant like Saadam. This is a fuckhead that needs, and almost is begging for, a well-deserved butt-kicking.
And who’s to say that I’m not doing something a little more “constructive” than letting my blood pressure raise?
hmmmm???..
I, for one, would be treating him far less respectfully if he claimed to be American.
I am trying like the dickens to attribute the narrow-minded stupidity of his posts as much as possible to the fact that English is not his native language.
On the other hand, for him to be looking down his nose at all of us, and trumpeting the superiority of his news sources over Fox News, the biassed propaganda arm of the US government, and then to claim to be unaware that Iraq is refusing to allow inspectors into their WMD development sites -
OK, English isn’t his native language. Trollish might be.
HenryB - your sig line claims Siberia, your location claims Russia, and you claim Finland. Where exactly IS your bridge?
Regards,
Shodan
** Jodi, ** I didn’t at all mean to imply that you personally are xenophobic, or even that all those who are slamming **Henry ** are. It seems, however, that some posters who are taking issue with his choice and interpretation of sources on the issue of Iraq may not know which sources he is referring to. The mainstream Russian media sucks far worse than the mainstream American media in terms of presenting balanced facts and viewpoints, so my point was that if folks here are assuming that Henry is Russian and is therefore relying primarily on the Russian media to develop his views, they’re probably mistaken.
Primarily, however, I am taking issue with some people’s decision in this thread to insult the OP in an extremely rude and personal way because they disagree with him on a political issue. Even in the Pit, unless one has been personally insulted, I see no reason for such uncivilized behavior. The only person Henry insulted was George Bush the Younger (and even that contained no swear words and was based on specific actions taken/threatened by the person in question), and if Dubya wants to step in and defend his honor, then we should all absolutely take heed.
As for ** Henry’s ** opinions, I’m sure he’ll be back shortly to defend them.
Thank You Eva for defending me.
I have to admit that I have used (a little bit?) sarcastic style, but I hope I did not hurt anyone. If I did, please accept my apologies.
I will post my answers within 14 - 16 hours, at night. I share a telephone-line with my neighbour and he is making his business, selling houses etc., in daytime, so I can only be in the Net for longer times in the night.
Just for information:
I read badly Russian, and never Russian news-papers. (Some times my secretary has verbally translated some of the articles to me).
I use Reuters, CNN, NYT and other media of its kind.
I also read Counter Punch, Slate etc.
In Europe I use AFP (the Enlish version), BBC etc.
I follow different peace-movments, -institutes, different “-watch” organisations etc.
I read islamic news in English; IAP, Palestine Monitor, Palestine Chronicle, etc., but rarely use them as direct sources. I always mention if I use them that the source is this or that, it is islamic etc. etc.
Usually I find through them articles that is written in the Israeli papers and elsewhere. They can even refer to Christian Sience Monitor, etc.
To put it simply: I always try to find the both sides information, taking nothing for granted, cross-check the information and thus get a picture.
To use different views as sources, spares much time: “Let them read and comment the press all over the world and check Yourself just what they have come up to” is the only possible way to get enough information, the essential information from both or three-four sides. Even if You work with information as Your main work, which is not my case.
I also read some Scandinavian papers, but have only once referred to one, because it means that I have to translate everything to English. Also here I find clues, which I then check out; what Reuters, CNN etc. (maybe 5 - 20 others) has been writing about it.
If You do this, You will be astonished about how many news comes from the capital of each country. I mean, few reporters goes to the spot, where the news actually happens.
Think if I would be writing about USA, living in a hotel in Washington, giving reports what has happened in e.g. Arkansas.
I would probably give a quite good picture, because there is telephones, there is people who speaks English etc.
But when we are speaking of a xxxxx-stan, where there is many villages without telephones and many cities without telephone-books and they speak a lingua that the reporter does not understand, I would say that the “news” are not so objective.
When there is sent a reporter from France, Finland, USA etc. and the only thing that they have in English, French etc. is the official governmental bulletins and their and others embassies “knowledge”.
And then they cable the “news” home and we all should belive it?
I have been a reporter and I would claim I know pretty well how the press is working in Europe. In USA it seem even to be worse, the news are made like You cook a soup: “from different sources”, (as reporters do in Europe), without proper background material, history etc. (as reporters do in Europe), uniformed to what the listeners, watchers and readers are expecting (as reporters do in Europe). This last one seem to be in USA stronger than in Europe.
There is also a strong tendency to “not offend the guys who are paying the advertisements”. This is a very big problem in USA. Just look at what Ted Turner said some months ago, about the Palestine-conflict and how much CNN had to apologize about it.
If You really believe You get balanced news, just following the main media, where ever You live on this globe, You believe much.
About news in Russia: Many of the news-papers are not newspapers. They are just printed stuff with nationalistic propaganda surronding the only usable issues in the paper: the TV-program and the crossword.
This does not mean that the TV would be better. It is very nationalistic, but there are some programs that I follow, as good as I can with my not too good Russian; the programs about history never told before. Just one example: They told that every solidier who opposed to go to Chechoslovakia 1968, against the people there, was shot.
They told how the real “war” between Russia and China was in the sixties. But this is not the OP. But I hope You find it interesting.
I have been writing in another site, about the “legal criminality” etc. in Russia, but could not publish everything, because there is always a chance that someone would sue the site. And it is quite unbelieveble for the westenern audience.
And there are things that I do not want to write about, because my Russian should be much better if I would write about something that I have not myself expierienced, just going through different resources etc.
But, as I said, I come back to the topic about what should be done in order to take Saddam from the power etc.
About the OP: As I told, Der Spiegel has written what the Iraqian minister said. Now Iraq says that the UN-guys can not inspect the presidental palaces.
I and You, we are both right about that Saddam is a bad guy.
It is sad that some of You think that I am defending Saddam or Baath. Not so. Just read my posts.
But I am sure that we should play every card he gives us before an attack. It means that we “over-proof” the other Islamic countries about what west wants to do.
If USA want to go to a straight attack, go ahead and good luck.
After this, every country will begin to think when it’s their turn and take measures accordingly.
And that will not be good for the trade, the rights of people, and so on. It will only turn to more nationalistic propaganda, new pacts and other measures.
So the inspections can begin on Friday, the 18th of this month.
If not, I think that the whole world will react and that means that within some months there will be enough of allies to put out Saddam, politically or through war. I think through war.
I still do not understand why the US administration does not seem to want the inspections to happen?
But more about this later, at night. OK?
Eva Luna said:
A political issue? If a lunatic has wiped out part of his own family, has hired rapists to assault his daughters, has invaded his neighbor’s homes, and has threatened that you might be next, is that a political issue?
Henry B mused:
Well, let me try again since you didn’t understand what I wrote above. Here’s a hypothetical:
A man with a history of murder, rape, and robbery is stalking you. He has anthrax and other poisons in his home. There are several restraining orders telling him to stay away from you. But he pays them no attention. Each time you complain, he is dragged into court, promises he’ll do better, and another restraining order is issued. Then you see him once again through your living room window, standing on your front porch and giving money to a hit man.
Are you thinking that maybe if you wave one of the restraining orders at him, he’ll see the error of his ways and change?
Libertarian, is there really any credibible evidence that Saddam is a lunatic ? He’s been adroitly holding off the agressive policies of the US and UN for 10 years, and even now has got most of the world’s nations convinced that he’s, at worst a regional bad-boy, and not the imminent apocalypse you would have us believe. Could a lunatic do that ? Or is it just barely possible that you’ve been a sucker to the hype for war ?
If there’s been any foaming at the mouth this past month, it’s not come from Saddam’s faction.
Go fuck yerself, bitch. I resent the hell out of that accusation. I have sigs turned off and documented that I was doing so months ago in ATMB. Do a search.
The reason I (or anyone else) is treating Henry like an idiot is that he is one.
I mean, anyone asking for a cite that Saddam doesn’t allow weapon inspectors unrestricted access?
C’mon. :rolleyes:
Fenris
Just happened to see this above.
Toaster wrote that Saddam does not “ALLOW THE INSPECTORS INTO HIS COUNTRY”.
(I was just curious which view he would give. There is some theories etc. about this, but more about this later.)
So this was news for me. I did think that Mr Blix (UN) and Iraq had agreed on everything, about two-three weeks ago.
So I asked for a site that shows that Iraq has gone back on this promise.
If Iraq has not claimed that this agreement is off, and You can not provide a site about this, I can assure You that only a idiot would write as Fenris here above.
If Saddam has really taken back the the promise that the inspectors can begin to inspect on Friday, it would be world news!
And this would automatically mean a war, and Saddam knows that. If there can not be inspections as e.g. France has suggested, I do not think that France will oppose a war with Iraq. And there will be a huge rage all over the world and Saddam will be soon finished.
So You are telling me world news and thinking I am an idiot that asks for a site?
Phone Reuters and ask if it would be big news or not? I think You do not understand politics at all, just war or peace, On or Off, as I earlier wrote.
You also seem to think that all other politicians, especially in Europe (except Blair) are just lunatic guys that “are defending Saddam”, because they are not so hot on war.
Just wait a few hours and You will get some facts.
And to those who can think, and has actual knowledge, I will ask for some clearifications and be most happy to get some sites.
So, till then.
I forgot one point:
Fenris wrote:
(Bolding mine).
I was not asking for a site about “unrestricted access”, because Toaster did not claim that.
I just want to point out to You, that this unrestricted access is what the whole OP is about, if You haven’t understood this.
Just do calm down and read a little bit. Slowly.
It’s good for You.
Fuck other nations. The duty of our government is to protect citizens of this nation. And if you don’t think he’s a lunatic, then you’re a moron.
I just know I’m going to hate myself for this, but…
HenryB, you keep inferring, intimating, hinting (whatever) that there must be a “real reason” why Bush and the US want to go to war with Iraq.
Care to let us in on the secret that nobody else in the world has yet discovered?
You know, the more you say this, the more you look like an asshole.
Henry B offered:
Dammit, man. That’s already been world news, what, forty times now? If a man slaps you repeatedly, do you blame your face?
**Fenris, ** if you want to read into my post that I was accusing you personally of anything, I suppose that’s your prerogative. And if you think I have the spare time to read the profiles of every person who posts in threads where I’ve posted, get over yourself.
If you want to treat ** Henry, ** or me, or anyone else like an idiot, fine. I’m just asking that you not swear at people or hurl personal insults at them for interpreting facts differently than you do. And calling me a bitch for requesting some modicum of civility and prioportionality in your reactions is completely out of line.
I’m not going to sink to your level, so that’s all for now.
P.S. ** Libertarian, ** whatever Saddam Hussein does in his role as the person in charge of Iraq is a political act, but can certainly also be an immoral, heinous one; the two certainly aren’t mutually exclusive. What the U.S. chooses to do about it, as a nation, will also be a political and/or military decision, as well as a moral one (I hope).
Keen, Eva, you certainly accused someone in this thread of dissing Henry because he’s a Ruskie. Name names. This cowardly “be honest with yourselves…” stuff is bad form.
And I apologize for the entire sentence containing the “b” word and the “f” word. Despite my strong disagreement with what you wrote, I admit that my reaction was over the top. Sorry about that.
Fenris
** Fenris, ** apology accepted.
However, as to the second part of your post above, if you read the wording of my post carefully, you will see that rather than making direct and specific accusations aimed at individual posters, I chose the route of asking posters to do a bit of self-examination to see if, in retrospect, they had been guilty of dissing **Henry ** because he’s “a Russkie” (which he isn’t, BTW. Not all people writing from Russia are Russian. The location was also true of me in the summer of 1995.)
You disagree with my method and think it’s dishonest; that’s obviously your prerogative. I respectfully disagree, preferring to believe that specific accusations sometimes accomplish nothing beyond pissing people off, unless there’s been a blatant insult hurled by another poster. I prefer to save my specific accusations for those occasions, although it seems I’ve pissed a few people off anyway, each of whom has apparently chosen to believe that my veiled insinuation was aimed specifically at him/her.
However, I also asked each of you to think about whether you’re treating **Henry ** differently because he’s not American and/or doesn’t express himself as well as you might like in what is probably at least his fourth language. It was meant as food for thought, and doesn’t necessarily require a specific response (athough by all means, feel free).
That question still stands, whether it’s because you think he has a different ideological bias because of his different frame of reference, or whether you think he’s wrong or stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with his life experiences, or whatever. I just thought it might be nice for those of us who are Americans, especially those of you who have not spent large chunks of time overseas and/or don’t access other countries’ viewpoints on a regular basis, to think about exactly why the rest of the world isn’t with the U.S. on this issue so far. IMHO if you dig a little bit deeper, you might see the roots of the conflict better.
There are people who I respect and disagree with. I’ll assume that we have a different persepective, or that they’re well-meaning but wrong, or that the disagreement is one over which honest people can differ.
Henry is none of those. He’s the December of the Left: inflamitory OPs designed to inflame and incite rather than discusss and explore. December’s a better writer, but frankly, that’s about all the difference between the two other than their biases. I coudn’t care less what country he’s from, until you started mentioning his sig and people started discussing it, I had no idea that he was from whereever the hell he’s from. The fact that he’s apparenly NOT Russian
And my dislike for Henry (and for that matter December) has nothing to do with either of their ideologies: it has to do with their idiot debating “technique” of throwing a firebomb into a toilet, then standing back and watching the explosion.
And I still despise the “Deep down you’re just biased.” technique. Have you ever looked within yourself and wondered if you’re disagreeing with me because of your deep rooted insecurities towards men and your racism? If you dig a bit deeper you might see the roots of the conflict better. I don’t mean to say that you’re a man-hater, but it’s meant as food for thought, and doesn’t require a specific response. Enjoy being slimed by that technique? Neither does anyone else.
Eva wrote:
If nothing else, I must admit that you write with a calm tone. I envy your dispassion. I shouldn’t have been so heavy handed with you. I’m sorry.
As far as I’m concerned, the only proper ethical response to the initiation of force and fraud by Saddam is that he forfeit his liberty.
Geez, **Fenris, ** a little jumpy, are we? IMHO a little self-examination never hurt anyone; I do it myself all the time, with few, if any, ill effects. If, after thinking about my original question, you don’t feel it applies to you, then you’ve answered the question. It’s that simple. There’s really no need to get your nose out of joint. I didn’t say that anyone here was biased; I just feel that the ability to see the other person’s point of view, even if you disagree, is a very helpful thing in diplomacy, and even in debates on message boards. I thought it might be an interesting perceptual exercise. You apparently disagree.
OK, here’s a deal for you: I’ll follow your advice and ask myself about my potential racism and insecurities toward men, and in return, if you agree, you can ask yourself analogous questions about your relationship with foreigners who don’t agree with your stance on the potential U.S. bombing/invasion of Iraq.
Questions for myself:
Is it possible that I can learn something about how others perceive my behavior by trying to see myself as this other person sees me? Maybe; let’s see what happens if I do…
Has anyone else noted in recent memory that I am racist or insecure toward men? If so, what were their own potential perceptual/ideological biases? Nope to the first two, so #3 doesn’t apply.
Do I have good relationships, both personal and business, with numerous individuals of every imaginable race, ethnic/cultural background, and color, of both genders? Yep.
Do I feel “slimed” by your insinuation? Nope, just mildly amused.
Now can we please get back to discussing whether there is merit to the idea that maybe the U.S. should take a deep breath and think again, and more seriously, about some coalition-building and/or alternative strategies before going to war against Iraq? Can we conceive that perhaps there is a reason that nearly all the countries that are normally our allies are in disagreement with us? That there might be some merit to their position, which it might be useful for us to address in a public and cohesive way if we don’t want to go this alone? That even if the President is 100% right about everything, more right than some of the highly intelligent and experienced members of his own administration who have addressed these issues for their entire professional careers, it’s much easier to fight a war with help? And if, after examining ALL the U.S.’ options with the attention they deserve, the current administration decides that all-out war is the best option, is it crazy to come up with some kind of long-term strategy BEFORE we commence?