Interesting . . . I love the way the Muslim speaker took her to school. LOL, gotta love the confidence!! Little girl, chirping . . . . ping-pong.... great stuff.
sorry but that link is gonna be touch and go as im having some issues with my box.. it may have to go down for a format... if you would like me to post it someplace else drop me an email..
'scuse me . . . . we say Iraq, that's "eee-rack", or "eee-rock" . . . :-)
I can't account, however, for the ignorance of little gilrs who call in and "chirp." :-)) Sykodelic, I hope that link is still working, cause I'm about to make it world-famous . . . In sh'a Allah (forgive my misspelling) it will be available for along time.
LTD :: the link is up and the server is stable again... heheh sorry but i botched the install of something and needed to make sure it was completely out before i did a fresh install... lol go fig.. you put in an ip and you cant change it... god i feel stupid.. hehehe.. anyways its up and running.. have fun with it..
:: the ablity to spell a word in only one way shows a lack of imagination ::
my mistake cor.. he was from canada and had moved to the us for a better opertunity in broadcasting... he's in the reserves now.. i had more mp3s of his broadcasts but cant find them...
:: the ablity to spell a word in only one way shows a lack of imagination ::
that girl had no clue what she was talking about. i don't see why they had her on there instead of a real anti-war activist who would be able to defend the position a little better.
meh, saddam needs to be removed from power but i don't see why it's our responsibility.
I thought the q in Iraq was supposed to be a gluttal stop (or whatever they're called-you know, those small "tsu" thingies in Japanese), thus making "eye-rack" and "eee-rock" incorrect.
That girl was a sad excuse for an anti-war activist. But sadly, I’m fairly certain that the majority of anti-war activists in America (I live in Minneapolis, Minnesota) would not have been able to answer that guy's question. What I would have said: Yes, taking out Saddam will give the Iraqi people a better chance for freedom. But you have to understand that Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. What is happening there right now will have huge effects around the world for many countries, this is a GLOBAL affair. That being said, in no way does the US and UK have the right to make a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation AGAINST the will of the United Nations simply because they do not like the leader of that country. The world is beginning to see the United States for what it really is: a real threat to every sovereign nation on the globe, democratic or not. If not militarily, then culturally. Conform, or face the consequences. A descent article from NEWSWEEK about our “Arrogant Empire” http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KB10
Blah blah blah blah, we didnt attack the country, we attacked the leadership. Stop saying everything everyone else is saying and form an opinion of your own, please.
Penis is as a Penis does, so give my Penis a great big hug
and right you are. I read that Newsweek article just yesterday in the dentist's office, and it makes some valid points. However, as far as this war is going, casualties are few, the U.S. forces are excercising a great deal of discretion about bombing, and are trynig everything to win this "war" without actually fighting. It's been pretty clean so far, and regardless of whether I agree or do not agree with this war, I'm impressed with the way the U.S. has prosecuted it.
Civilians have not been targeted, and the U.S. is making every effort to focus on the LEADERSHIP and not the people. I wouldn't even call this a "war", at least not in comparison to past wars.
I'm really not worried about the outcome of this campaign, it'll be over before you know it. What concerns me is the diplomatic relations the U.S. will have with others after this is all over. I'd like to know what you think about the future of the U.N. Any thoughts?
Hash - Did you even read my post? After you have re-read it, lets see if you can answer MY question: What right does the US have making a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country with the purpose of regime change without the backing of world support and, more importantly, U.N. support??? As for LTD's post, up until about 20 minutes ago, I was also impressed with the way the military has handled themselves. But about 20 minutes ago the much talked about "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad. Who knows how many innocent civilians, people like you and I, have died and are going to die in these attacks "the likes of which have never been seen before." Though I disagree with this administration on almost every point, I support the US military and I am hoping for the safety of each and every one of them.
Look, we have all said the same bullshit for the last 4 months and I for one have just run out of shit to say. You have your opinions and I have mine, but right now there is really nothing either of us can say to change anything. The only thing that matters now is that the United States military stays on the path they are on at the moment. Minimal Casualties on both sides, Iraqies surrendering left and right. Everything is going the way it should. That all could end in Baghdad, but we will see.
Penis is as a Penis does, so give my Penis a great big hug
Yeah, "minimal" casualties up to know. Seeing as Shock and Awe has now seemingly started, we'll soon see the hundreds of Iraqis who will have been slaughtered due to the arrogance and aggression of just 3 countries, backed up by another 42 who are either little more than satellite states reliant on US aid, or those too cowardly to show their own populations feeling.
It's still a very "surgical" air campaign -without civilian targets. Will there be civilian casualties? Probably, but before we start talking about "hundreds" dead, let's wait and see what the results are. It's not like they're carpet-bombing or anything. This 'shock and awe" bombing campaign is necessary - how else will U.S. forces destroy command/control centers. Casualties are a reality of war, and be happy that there aren't any mre than there are now (wat we know about.)
Or, maybe Aermica has lost it's ability to fight a war?? Don't get squeamish, folks. Accept the reality of what is occurring and hey, don't fret over it. As for waht the iraqi's want or might not want (liberation?), let's wait until its all over. From what I'ev been hearing (from media, I'll admit), most Iraqi soldiers were grateful (so far) to see American forces. In any case, I'm more interested in seeing how the U.S. will patch things up with the rest of the Intn'l community.
although one must admit the increased use of precision weapons, you cannot deny the fact that military targets will inevitably affect civillians. especailly in post wars conditions. i was looking at the american articles that were supposed to ensure the rebuilding of iraq.
"restoration of 40%(60?) of power supply in the first six months"
you have got to be fucking kidding me.
if america really wanted democracy for iraq, they would have attacked a long time ago. according to some UN statute or charter (768 or 786), the UN has the right to adopt any measures need to ensure that countries comply to the resolutions.
I'm with you on that, corel . . . I just hope most of the civilians have found some kind of adequate shelter. I saw some cars on the streets, though, so some people seem to be taking some pretty steep risks.
