World protests

[Brett]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_protests

""Don't kill Iraqi children! They didn't kill yours!" the protesters shouted. "

How is this so? Hasnt Saddam killed his own peoples, ruined their standard of living and taken their human rights, far more than just a war could do in Iraq to remove him?

People in Japan and all these countries have the ability of protesting. People in Iraq dont. Arent world protesters putting a double standard - they want the right to protest and be provided safety from their government, but prevent the Iraqi people from having a society from having free speech and safety from their government?

It maybe more understandable for protesters here here in the U.S. because our safety could be impacted by war from the terrorists that despise the U.S. But would the bin laden backed terrorists and Islam radicals ever go after the Japanese?

[waydwolf]

Very astute. The double standard is overpowering. As I say constantly, "everything not forbidden is not compulsory". They say horrendous, almost treasonous things, and then hide behind the Constitution here and whatever else in the rest of the west, and scream bloody murder if you dispute what they say. They have the right to say it, therefore they are right.

These same cretins were around during the thirties when evidence of Hitler's violation of the Versailles Treaty was so easy to see that Ray Charles could have nailed it at two miles, saying we should stay here and concern ourselves with the economy and whatnot.

The economy sorted itself out pretty damn quick as soon as we went to war. We might have pulled ourselves out quicker had we dealt with Hitler right off the bat and with a lot fewer lives lost.

What I'm wondering is, how high did they have to push their MPEG-2 compression for those clips of the bombing in Baghdad? The artifacting and block drops and pixellation make it look like it was shot with a PXL-2000.

[Bogy]

Originally posted by waydwolf
These same cretins were around during the thirties when evidence of Hitler's violation of the Versailles Treaty was so easy to see that Ray Charles could have nailed it at two miles, saying we should stay here and concern ourselves with the economy and whatnot.

The economy sorted itself out pretty damn quick as soon as we went to war. We might have pulled ourselves out quicker had we dealt with Hitler right off the bat and with a lot fewer lives lost.

I am a little confused here. Are you talking about the huge majority of Americans who wore their blinders proudly and insisted the problems of Europe did not concern us. Are those the cretins you are talking about? I agree that we would have been much better off helping to deal with Hitler much earlier. The best would have been if we had dealt with Germany at the end of WW1 the way we did at the end of WW2, thereby eliminating Germany's receptivity to Hitler. I'm not sure that going to war as an end to depression is a sound economic strategy.

[Richssat]

Heck Wolf, considering it is being beamed realtime from the other side of the planet, in some cases from moving Humvees in the middle of an active combat zone and it still manages to look better then some of the programming the satellite tv providers beam to us, I would say they are doing a pretty good job. :D

RR