The War of the Worlds

[trevor826]

Wow! you've managed to re-write over a thousand years of history in a couple of paragraphs, you must be very proud of yourself!

By the way, in your list of mass killers through history you missed out one of the biggest, Christians particularly the Catholic Church, try looking at the history of Latin America for a start!

I really suggest you start reading some decent books on history.

Trev.

[stevetseitz]

>>Wow! you've managed to re-write over a thousand years of history in a couple of paragraphs, you must be very proud of yourself!<<

Whatever.

I can cite dates, names, etc. The facts are on my side. Can YOU do the same? I'll be glad to share my sources including:

Sir Steven Runciman's "A History of the Crusades"

Hans Eberhard Mayer's "The Crusades"

Jean Richard's "The Crusades"

Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The Crusades: A Short History"


Shall I continue?

You might want to examine the tons of data on this site:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

The data on the site supports the conclusion that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity and that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. This, of course, includes ECONOMIC power to all you socialists out there.


Your tagline "The less you know" seems fitting.

Your knee-jerk response does not even bother to address the fact that the inherently anti-semitic Islam (the Koran compares Jews to "apes and swine") was expanded in a violent and aggressive fashion initially by it's founder: a wealthy and powerful political figure in Mohammed and continued under the various theocratic regimes that followed.

[trevor826]

Let's keep it as simple as possible. War/fighting has been used as a solution for eons and what has it proved?

It Doesn't work!

Fact. The Crusades were used as an excuse to satisfy the power lust and greed of the European nobles and the Catholic church.

Fact. The Catholic church instigated the slaughter of millions of naturalised South Americans in the name of God.

Fact. The German army in WWII carried out their decimation of Europe and Russia and the Middle East and the slaughter of millions of Jews while wearing a belt buckle that stated Gott Mit Uns.

Fact. The new Americans virtually wiped out the native americans.

Fact. Anti semitism has existed since year dot, Jews have been persecuted from all sides and especially by the Christian church. It was seen as perfectly normal, you only have to look at "The Merchant of Venice" to see that it was part of everyday culture.

To quote from an essay by Laurence M. Vance.

Many supporters of the senseless war in Iraq are high on religion. Add a religious element to a war and the faithful will come out in droves in support of it. In the case of the current war in Iraq this is easy to do. Because the United States is supposedly a "Christian nation," the war can be turned into a modern-day crusade since Iraq is a "Muslim nation."

The use of religion in war is as old as history itself. If there is one thing that men are willing to fight and die for it is their religious beliefs. But unfortunately, it is also historically true that many are willing to kill or justify killing under the guise of religion.

Trev.

And yes the more I learn through life, the wider my vision becomes and the more I realise just how little I or anyone else knows.

[tabuno]

stevetseitz: "First of all, it isn't an "American" war on foreign soil. It's a coalition led by America who has been most vocal and active in the war on terror. There has been no significant loss of our "freedoms" here in the United States unless of course you are a radical, extremist muslim who supports terrorism. We haven't "invaded" other lands. I don't see anyone changing country names to "United States of Iraq" or "United States of Afghanistan". "

tabuno: I better start off by correcting my terminology about America's activities in Iraq. If one is to believe in the U.S. Constitution, it would probably be better to call our war a "military action" since the U.S. Congress hasn't really officially declared war on Iraq. The United States hasn't been at war since WWII if I'm reading history right.

The so-called "coalition led by America" has been pretty much a name-only phrase to make our country's action appear more legitimate. America and to a lesser extent Britain have been the most pronounced presence in Iraq with token support, reluctant support from other countries who were pulled into our military action. What one calls "no significant loss of our "freedoms" here is debatable since the national security apparatus is now keeping track of many activities of the U.S. citizens and has encroached on the rights of a few citizens and others that several Western countries, our allies have deemed illegal, particularly in arrests and torture.

So far it appears that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not for national security interests, no weapons of mass destruction have been found or even suspected now, it appears that so far the leaders of our country misled the public into the war. Public support has fallen to below 50%. Our national security is now less than before the war. Terrorism is now up. Our world is now much more unstable and insecure. More than $87 billion and almost 2,000 American lives have been lost. For America to presume it can take over a country and be a beacon of liberty is attempting to change hundreds of years of cultural development without truly understanding that cultures evolve in certain ways and that western, technological, democracy isn't truly what military action is about nowadays - it's a cover for other covert purposes.

[Johann]

I'll stay out of this one. But be warned Trevor!

Steve will bombard you with meaningless facts and figures that miss the point completely.

[trevor826]

Thanks, I think I'll let him keep his blinkers on.

Cheers Trev.

[stevetseitz]

>>Let's keep it as simple as possible. War/fighting has been used as a solution for eons and what has it proved?

It Doesn't work!<<

Are you totally blind? Of course it works: The Civil War ended slavery in the U.S. , WWII ended the extermination of millions of innocents and stopped the Nazis and Fascists from spreading across Europe (and the totalitarian regime of Imperial Japan in the South Pacific) and victory in the Cold War ended the illusion that Soviet Communism was viable system.

Fact. The Crusades were used as an excuse to satisfy the power lust and greed of the European nobles and the Catholic church.<<

False. Your lack of knowledge is staggering. The initial Crusades were a response to rampant Muslim expansion throughout the Levant. To view the crusades as some organized military effort is laughably naive. A vast majority of the Crusaders were landless peasants and religious pilgrims. The armies that did go weren't much more than disorganized group of religious knights like the Templars and the Hospitallers. Are you really naive enough to think that wealthy lords gave up much if not all of their power in Europe, forfeiting their lands and wealth to finance expensive quests in the name of "lust and greed"? It shows a complete disconnect with the mentality of the medieval mind. Modern people can't imagine leaving hearth and home and traversing hostile regions, battling every sort of adversity for a concept like salvation. It's true that the later (more unsuccessful) Crusades were efforts by various political forces within Europe to leverage power.

>>Fact. The Catholic church instigated the slaughter of millions of naturalised South Americans in the name of God.<<

The efforts to expand Christianity to the people of the South America by the Church was often at odds with the political ambitions and conquest desired by the leaders in Europe. To confuse the two is beyond ignorant. It is disingenuous.

>>Fact. The German army in WWII carried out their decimation of Europe and Russia and the Middle East and the slaughter of millions of Jews while wearing a belt buckle that stated Gott Mit Uns.<<

Ummmm...and what stopped the German army? You in a chat room? It was WAR. Bloody war. Horrible war. People killing other people and breaking things. Fact: The Nazis served a totally secular and non-religious and NATIONAL SOCIALIST regime.

If you have two choices and both are bad you must choose the lesser of two evils. War killed some 40 million people in the 20th century. Totalitarianism killed 170 million. Do the math. This does not even take into account that a good portion of that 40 million were killed in wars against the rapid expansion of totalitarian regimes. Sometimes the good people of this world have to make hard choices to defeat the evil ideas and philosophies.

>>Fact. The new Americans virtually wiped out the native americans.<<

Fact: There is archealogical evidence that the so-called "native americans" wiped out their predecessors. Kennewick man and so forth. Brutal warfare was common between the "native American" peoples in America. So it has been throughout history. There is no static utopian model in human history. Change is the only constant.

>>Fact. Anti semitism has existed since year dot, Jews have been persecuted from all sides and especially by the Christian church. It was seen as perfectly normal, you only have to look at "The Merchant of Venice" to see that it was part of everyday culture.<<

Fact: It is the extremist Muslim nations that practice Anti-Semitism as a form of policy these days. It is they who financially support terror worldwide. It speaks volumes that the ugly re-birth of Anti-Semitism is happening fastest in the European nations that opposed the war in Iraq.

[Johann]

See? Did I call it or did I call it?


Those tidbits and facts are all fine and dandy Steve but the fact is war should be an absolute, final, last-ditch resort.

All you've proven is that human beings have gone to war over the centuries. You've shown that the human species are dumb, that's all.

Slavery? It still exists on this planet. Who gives a shit about the civil war's impact on slavery? It still exists.

Jews are still being persecuted. WWII hasn't eliminated hatred for Jewish people. You seem to be summing up war as the best (only?) way to deal with horrors of the day.

When the fuck is someone gonna step up and say PEACE is the ultimate way?

O wait! Gandhi did. That's right.

But he was assassinated.

John Lennon did. That's right.

But he was assassinated.

I guess war is the only way to solve problems, huh?

Is/was Iraq an absolute, last-ditch resort?
Nope. Not by a fucking long shot.


Human beings will be at war forever.
Life sucks. Grab a helmet.

[stevetseitz]

Johann,

I'm not sure you have responded to the content of what I wrote or if this is just a latent pent-up response to the last exchange

>>the fact is war should be an absolute, final, last-ditch resort.<<

O.K.......and when did I say war should be undertaken lightly?
If you ask me is war the best or first option I'll say no, but if you ask me if war is preferable to totalitarianism, I'll say EVERY TIME. The numbers prove that totalitarian regimes (like Saddam's, like the Taliban's , like Hitler's, like Stalin's) kill far more people (almost 5 times as many) than war.



>>Slavery? It still exists on this planet. Who gives a shit about the civil war's impact on slavery? It still exists.<<

And ever will slavery exist, as long as a single person decides to exploit a weaker person. The point is that slavery as an INSTITUTION no longer exists. It is abhored by reasonable people the world over.

>>Jews are still being persecuted. WWII hasn't eliminated hatred for Jewish people. You seem to be summing up war as the best (only?) way to deal with horrors of the day.<<

Racism and intolerance will be with the human race as long as one person decides some other person is inferior. The point is that, under the Nazis, racism and extermination of other races was an institution that was defeated by brave Allied soldiers.



>>Is/was Iraq an absolute, last-ditch resort?
Nope. Not by a fucking long shot.<<

Oh, I'm sure the bleeding hearts could have had a few more rallies and everything would have been alright.

Iraq was the culmination of decades of diplomatic efforts, failed (and undermined) sanctions, and no improvement in the situation. 9/11 simply proved that state sponsors of terror are too dangerous to allow to hold sway over vital regions of our planet.


>>Human beings will be at war forever.<<

So it's a good thing for those of us on the side of human rights, prosperity and democracy have a more powerful army.

[Johann]

Iraq is the culmination of a business chase that began with George Herbert Walker Bush and is continuing under George W. Bush.

There are photos on the net of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983, after a weapons deal.

There is mountains of evidence that Bush planned on invading Iraq as soon as he got into office.
And it is an American Invasion- not a "coalition"- what a stupid term for this "military action". It's an invading army, romping and stomping and killing anything that moves. They are foreigners, a foreign army, doing whatever the hell it wants, on orders from an imperial, fascist "administration".

To suggest otherwise is the height of blindness.

You say war is better than totalitarianism. I agree.
Problem is, Saddam was not only a dictator with a totalitarian regime, he was the leader of a country with the second largest oil reserves on the earth. As you said once upon a time:
Connect The Dots.

You're missing the point completely. The circumstances surrounding this "war" are not as cut and dried as you claim.

There is way more to consider. Way more to scrutinize.

For instance, people's lives. If you are the President, and you are contemplating war, you explore all the options. You make damn sure that this is the right thing to do. You make sure every shred of your being is invested in making sure this is a worthy cause. (after all, shouldn't dying for something be a carefully thought out thing before a decision is made?)

Look what we have now in Iraq. Was it worth it? Dubya seems to think so. (And he must. His shit about "you know where I stand" would be gone with the wind if he said otherwise).

Yep, Saddam's gone. Yee-hah, no more horrible regime.
But why are soldiers and civilians still dying? the average number of Iraqis who die daily is 34. 34 a day have been dying since march 2003. Soldiers? Who knows. We do know we can't trust the "news" to deliver us the truth on the war dead.

We know that Dubya lies. Constantly.
He makes Pinnochio look like matchstickman with a splinter.

There is no government in Iraq. There are no rules or defined "society" there. There is chaos- a country in ruins, with an occupying military that likes to torture people, steal millions of dollars (the U.S. army has found many many large stashes of money-millions and millions in fact- all U.S. bills too!- we don't know WHAT they are doing over there, let's face it) and don't forget shooting civilians! they do it all the time! people who get out of their cars, hands up, BLAM! Sorry, you might be a terrorist...

Wars kill less people than regimes?

Not this war Bubba. This war is changing all that.

The military industrial complex can sustain lots of casualties- it's in the budget.

[Johann]

At the beginning Iraq was all about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and how Saddam was a hair's breath away from launching these weapons.


Then, somehow the reason for the war changed. It became
"We're freeing the Iraqi people".

When the weapons thing was given some scrutiny, and was found to be a complete, utter lie, the Busheviks claimed that they were now "bringing peace and democracy to the middle east".

How sweet. Bush cares so much about the middle east and the prospects for peace (amazing, huh? coming from a WAR PRESIDENT) that he's changed his reasons for war totally.

And we are supposed to buy this shit.

We are supposed to believe that Bush was acting with America's interests pressed to his bosom, with his fathoms-deep concern for the USA and it's people's safety.

Right.

He's gonna launch bombs to save us. He's gonna "attack them abroad so we don't get attacked at home" Right.

He's got no other interest in Iraq besides protecting the American people. Right.

He's so full of shit IT HURTS.

[Johann]

To get back to the film, It's a serious guilty pleasure.
It's the "Emmerich Godzilla" of this year.

Dakota fanning is starting to get on my nerves.
Combined with her, Tom's "Katie Holmes schizophrenics" hanging over the whole thing and Spielberg's penchant for overblowing an already overblown idea and you have War of the Worlds.

It's kinda weird, but I kept saying to myself that I shouldn't like this film, I should hate everything about it. But I was really getting into it!

(Maybe it was the reefers...)

Some sfx shots are as awesome as any I've seen in my life.

[stevetseitz]

>>Iraq is the culmination of a business chase that began with George Herbert Walker Bush and is continuing under George W. Bush.

There are photos on the net of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983, after a weapons deal.<<

Rumsfeld was sent as an envoy to try and garner support in the Middle East after the Shah was toppled in Iran. He has been a Sec Def before. This is what you would refer to as a diplomatic phase in dealing with Saddam. The U.S. policy at the time (THE COLD WAR) to favor secular thugs vs. idealogical nutjobs. This strategy failed to calculate the exremist Islamic element.

>>There is mountains of evidence that Bush planned on invading Iraq as soon as he got into office.<<

??? This mountain is sure difficult to find. Having a plan for contingencies does not mean that you expect every one of them to occur. If there WERE no plan it would be serious negligence.


And it is an American Invasion- not a "coalition"- what a stupid term for this "military action". It's an invading army, romping and stomping and killing anything that moves.<<

Now you are just being ignorant. One of my best friends, now a major in Iraq is in charge of rebuilding and improving infrastructure conditions that were already horrible in Iraq PRIOR to the war.

>>They are foreigners, a foreign army, doing whatever the hell it wants, on orders from an imperial, fascist "administration".<<

More ignorance. You don't even know what a fascist is if you use that term for this administration.



>>Yep, Saddam's gone. Yee-hah, no more horrible regime.
But why are soldiers and civilians still dying? the average number of Iraqis who die daily is 34. 34 a day have been dying since march 2003. Soldiers? Who knows. We do know we can't trust the "news" to deliver us the truth on the war dead.<<

Consider the alternative. If you take any similar timespan during Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq and average the number of people he murdered, it's a greater figure than the soldiers and civilians that have died during this war.


>>There is no government in Iraq. There are no rules or defined "society" there. There is chaos- a country in ruins, with an occupying military that likes to torture people, steal millions of dollars (the U.S. army has found many many large stashes of money-millions and millions in fact- all U.S. bills too!- we don't know WHAT they are doing over there, let's face it) and don't forget shooting civilians! they do it all the time! people who get out of their cars, hands up, BLAM! Sorry, you might be a terrorist...<<

You are insane if you think we sent an army over to Iraq to loot the country and shoot civilians. Not even the conspiracy clowns like Micheal Moore have made such ludicous claims.

Here is a quote from BBCArabic by Iraqi Hassan al-Saadoun Diyala regarding President Bush's June 28th speech:

"Thank you courageous president; you faced down the whole world in order to rid the world from terrorism, Wahabi extremists and those who have supported them amongst the weaker Arabs. Iraqis are grateful for your courage and support. You are a true leader."

Another quote from an Iraqi on BBCArabic:

"The Iraqi people will never forget the sacrifices of members of the coalition in Iraq in their efforts to bring about democracy and to expunge terrorism. We will also always remember the role played by the Arab dictatorships in their efforts to destroy Iraq"

Muthafar al-Anzi

Abdul Al Suja an Iraqi in Ramallah had this to say:

"As an Iraqi, I am uniquely qualified to post on this discussion. First off, life is definitely better under the coalition than under Saddam. Saddam's regime killed thousands of my fellow Iraqis. The only way people in the "West" don't see this is because they have a media with a liberal bias.

"In spite of all the bad things we face on a daily basis in Iraq, life is beautiful without Saddam."

Jalal Baghdadi, Baghdad

>>Wars kill less people than regimes?

Not this war Bubba. This war is changing all that.<<

Not true. Look at the numbers.


>>At the beginning Iraq was all about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and how Saddam was a hair's breath away from launching these weapons.<<

Bull. It was about three things.

1. State sponsorship of terrorism.
2. Weapons of Mass destruction that every major intrelligence agency agreed Saddam had.
3. Human rights atrocities within Iraq.

We know Iraqis had their hands in the first World Trade Center attack. It is beyond doubt that agents of Iraq's intelligence were privy to information about the attacks of 9/11.

State sponsorship of terrorism is any intelligence, financial support, weapons , training and refuge given to terrorists.

We know Iraq provided all these things to various Islamic terror groups including Al-Queda.

You choose to believe some wacky conspiracy theory because that is your luxury. The grown ups of the world need to make the tough decisions to make the world a safer place.

[Johann]

Rumsfeld was there to make sure Saddam got his toys.
Not for "diplomacy". Look it up. If you persist in watering down what he was doing I'll post exactly what he was doing "with primary sources". Just say the word- I've done my homework.



"This mountain" ain't hard to find. Start with the Downing Memo.


I never said they aren't trying to re-build Iraq. They are.
Too bad it'll take more money, years and manpower than anybody has at the moment. Ironic and sad that killings and bombings are occurring right next to "trying to fix it".
All the while with no discernable "country".


Ignorance? No way boss- I'm staring right at it.
I'm looking it straight in the eye.
I've never been more clear.

If I was ignorant I would say this war was worth it.

Did it occur to you that the quotes from Iraqi's might be from Iraqi's that are shall we say, "less than intelligent"? Is it possible that these people (who are in the thick of it- they're "right there")
that they don't know Shah from shishkebabs?

I can also find quotes from Iraqis' who say life under Saddam was
way better, so don't throw me quotes from Iraqis. They are highly subjective. I have my doubts about Iraqis who love the Americans. sorry. I just do.

I also never said the U.S. is just there to "LOOT AND SHOOT".
But they are definitely doing it. (Goes with the territory I guess!)

Conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. Anyone with a brain can see what happened. It's beyond conspiracy now. It's accepted as truth. Bush is there for oil.

Do you need Bush himself to break down & cry on national TV and say
"I'm a crook- I used this office to go to Iraq to make money with the Global Oil Industry"?

Seems to be the case.

[stevetseitz]

I think we've gone over this territory before so I don't wish to start a non movie related thread. I merely responded to some allegorical inferences about "War of the Worlds"

Loony conspiracy theories just don't wash. Besides the fact that you have no proof, Bush's main opponents would have to be "in on it" or else they would be using this information to discredit and destroy him. Lord knows they have tried all other avenues.

O.K. let's put the name calling and "Rumsfeld is the anti-christ" nonsense aside. The data still shows that Saddam was more lethal to the human race than all the war casualties, car bombings and attacks by terrorists combined.

But you didn't care about the deaths prior to the war...you only care now because you can make silly claims about oil.


>>I also never said the U.S. is just there to "LOOT AND SHOOT".
But they are definitely doing it.<<

Oh, there NOW you said it. Somehow I knew it would slip out.

>> Bush is there for oil.<<

LOL! And how exactly does it benefit Bush? How exactly does it benefit Cheney? How does it benefit Rumsfeld?

You make claims and accusations but offer no proof.

Regardless, your claims fail to persuade me and my facts and data are apparently unable to penetrate the malted hops and bong resin that cloud your mind.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.


It's more productive to put aside present issues, partially because feelings are still sore on both sides of the controversial issue, and look at history from a conceptual standpoint.

That is why I linked to data rich website: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Hopefully, we can discuss long term trends and reasonable strategies and responses to threats to human rights.

This people of our world are perhaps a century or two away from being on the same page. The united force will be democratic capitalism. The dividing force is totalitarian idealogues like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. The sooner we bring our prosperous and beneficial way of life to the rest of the world the safer we'll all be.