Actually, he was a threat 10 years ago... desert storm ring a bell? Hitler wasn't a threat 10 years before he got into power, but after that he sure got mighty supreme on the world.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>

Dagolar wrote:

I didn't say you were ignorant. When did I say that?

Before I break this down, you really need to stop taking things as literal, ok? If you don't understand the idea of assumption, and someone implying something, then your going to look like a baffoon trying to comment on what I first said.

One VERY GOOD reason...which I'm mildly certain will be downplayed as usual. Here you go:

-The justification for war is too weak.

Saving thousands of people is not a strong justification? Rather, saving millions of innocent people from futher torture/murder. Wow, if you ask me then Osama was right, we are the great satan!

That's it. It's that simple. The justification for a WAR...okay, it's a WAR...citizens are going to die. They already have. War. Soldiers will be killed. It's war. This is not a political diplomacy stand-off, okay? It's war. In my opinion, for WAR to occur, there has to be fantastic, fully-backed proof that it needs to occur.

You still ignore that its a proven and well known fact that Saddam is an evil dictator who is bent on the destruction of everyone who does not serve him, and has been documented on the mass murder of millions of men, women, and children especially due to his cruel laws.

Arguments went from disarming Iraq to regime removal in 3 months flat, AFTER the inspectors began actually having some success. An argument change...for WAR, for christ's sake. Hmm. That makes sense. The United States simply has not convinced the world that what it is doing is right and just. The United States is not seen as the "good liberator" removing the "evil dictator". To the people IN America it might seem fine. But as far as the world is concerned, there is an underlying agenda here (be it oil? I dunno...), and countries and people are simply not buying the argument for a humanitarian mission here.

Well, if its an "underlying agenda" situation, then that proves my point, the rest of the world seems to be selfish and arogant. Gee, this explains why I don't agree on much with you. Who really cares if America might take some oil? We are at least doing 1 morally right thing, liberating innocent people. If everyone is so against the war and peaceful, and doesn't want anybody to die, then they would of engaged conflict before this.

Operation Iraqi Freedom. They weren't freeing them in the 1990s. They weren't even THINKING about anything like that up until last year. Now, of course, they say,"Better now than later." That is what some of us call the catch 23. We'll use the lack of inaction in the past to justify action now. Well, the world is unconvinced. The case is weak. That's how it is seen. You wanted a reason, you got it...

You forget, in 1990 the president was not the one we have now(Albeit, he is the son of the elder). It's all a matter of knowing how fast Saddam's power is growing, if we give him another 10 years his power would be doubled, and weapons would be strengthened to highly dangerous levels, and they would be in the hands of a dangerous dictator. So if the reason is all based on selfish thinking, then this world has gone to hell.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>

Let me just ask you Dagolar, what would you think is smarter? To disable a threat to citizens before it happens, or sit there and scratch our butts while we look into the sky one day to see a few funny looking clouds and some high altitude bombers screaming in at astonishing speeds slaying innocent cilivians, innocent UNARMED civilians! How would that make you feel? Honestly...to be someone who's in charge of a nation's well being and safety to have known you could have stopped that from EVER happenning but you didn't because it didn't make you popular with the rest of the world! So, before you go blabbing on about something you know NOTHING about, think!

Alright, thats it! If war isn't the only viable way to handle this, then what is??? I'v asked and you havn't answered yet.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>

Something like this, you mean?

I have only one more thing to say on this. I promise not to say anything more.

I will leave this with a single word, and hope people can understand:

"Koyaanisqatsi"


Good luck, people.

-Dagolar

"KOYAANISQATSI, Reggio's debut as a film director and producer, is the first film of the QATSI trilogy. The title is a Hopi Indian word meaning "life out of balance." Created between 1975 and 1982, the film is an apocalyptic vision of the collision of two different worlds -- urban life and technology versus the environment. The musical score was composed by Philip Glass.

KOYAANISQATSI attempts to reveal the beauty of the beast! We usually perceive our world, our way of living, as beautiful because there is nothing else to perceive. If one lives in this world, the globalized world of high technology, all one can see is one layer of commodity piled upon another. In our world the "original" is the proliferation of the standardized. Copies are copies of copies. There seems to be no ability to see beyond, to see that we have encased ourselves in an artificial environment that has remarkably replaced the original, nature itself. We do not live with nature any longer; we live above it, off of it as it were. Nature has become the resource to keep this artificial or new nature alive.

That being said, my intention in-other-words, let me describe the bigger picture. KOYAANISQATSI is not so much about something, nor does it have a specific meaning or value. KOYAANISQATSI is, after all, an animated object, an object in moving time, the meaning of which is up to the viewer. Art
has no intrinsic meaning. This is its power, its mystery, and hence, its attraction. Art is free. It stimulates the viewer to insert their own meaning, their own value. So while I might have this or that intention in creating this film, I realize fully that any meaning or value KOYAANISQATSI might have comes exclusively from the beholder. The film's role is to provoke, to raise questions that only the audience can answer. This is the highest value of any work of art, not predetermined meaning, but meaning gleaned from the
experience of the encounter. The encounter is my interest, not the meaning. If meaning is the point, then propaganda and advertising is the form. So in the sense of art, the meaning of KOYAANISQATSI is whatever you wish to make of it.

This is its power. "

-- http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/films/koyaanisqatsi.php