Nobody roots for Goliath

BY MITCH ALBOM
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

America is the big guy. Iraq is the small guy. Because of that, no matter what we do, certain perceptions will never change.

So even though America, the big guy, has an army of volunteers, while Iraq, the small guy, pulls men from their homes and threatens to kill their loved ones if they don't fight -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, wears army uniforms and rides in army tanks, while Iraq, the small guy, wears civilian clothes and drives Toyotas and blends in, waiting for an ambush -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, doesn't fight with chemical or biological weapons, while Iraq, the little guy, has used them before, on its own people, and will use them again if given the chance -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, drops leaflets saying we don't want to hurt you, here's what to do so you don't get shot, while Iraq, the small guy, allegedly shoots anyone who is found with those leaflets -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

You notice a pattern?

Pretending to be civilians

Even though America, the big guy, tries to aid surrendering civilians, while Iraq, the small guy, has its soldiers pretend to be those civilians, who then pull out weapons and attack us -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, tries to clear a port to bring in humanitarian supplies, while Iraq, the small guy, lays mines in that very water -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, provides food and medical attention to any captured prisoner, while Iraq, the small guy, fires guns into a river hoping to kill a downed American pilot -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, sees its own citizens protesting, blocking traffic, disagreeing with the war, and tolerates it because it is part of who we are, while Iraq, the small guy, cuts out a man's tongue and lets him bleed to death in the street -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, has an open press, hundreds of embedded reporters, and nightly criticism of our efforts, while Iraq has a government-run TV station that plays pro-Saddam videos and urges Iraqi's to "slit the enemy's throats" -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, prays for the liberation of Iraq, while Iraq, the little guy, prays for the destruction of America -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

What's wrong with this picture?

Shooting behind women, children

Even though America, the big guy, spends billions for bombs that will spare civilians, while Iraq, the small guy, shoots from behind women and children in schools and hospitals -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, when confronted with a soldier who allegedly threw grenades at his own men, handcuffs that soldier and takes him to be tried, in a court, with a lawyer, while Iraq, the small guy, reportedly shoots its own reluctant soldiers in the head, no trial, no questions asked -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, is assailed by the Arab world for endangering its "brethren," while that same Arab world never rose to help Iraqi "brethren" when they were being slaughtered by their own leader -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

This is how it is. We are the big guy. They are the small guy. Which means parts of the world will always call us the bully, because, as Wilt Chamberlain once said, "Nobody roots for Goliath."

And what these critics keep missing, what is clear and plain and on brutal display every day and night, is one screamingly obvious fact: The biggest bully of all is running the small guy's battle.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Nice!

Well said.

Even though America is killing people to bring it's citizens cheaper oil, America is the bully.

I find it somewhat rediculous, that the Soviet Union which had nuclear weapons (and everybody knew it) and even threatened to use them on the U.S. never got attacked!

If you think that the only reason this war is happening is because the U.S. wants to be nice and liberate poor Iraqi people from their oppressive leader, and to get rid of his weapons, you are mistaken. If we had thought that Russia had enough valuable natural resources to make an invasion worth while we probably would have done so, IMHO.

I don't think it's a bad thing that he will be thrown out of power (I think it's a very good thing) but America is most definately in the position of world bully, and has been for some time now.

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
I find it somewhat rediculous, that the Soviet Union which had nuclear weapons (and everybody knew it) and even threatened to use them on the U.S. never got attacked!

ever hear of deterence or mutually assured destruction?

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
I find it somewhat rediculous, that the Soviet Union which had nuclear weapons (and everybody knew it) and even threatened to use them on the U.S. never got attacked!


Originally posted by rsxer45


ever hear of deterence or mutually assured destruction?

Apparently not.



Originally posted by 2strokebloke
Even though America is killing people to bring it's citizens cheaper oil, America is the bully.

:rolleyes:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

"ever hear of deterence or mutually assured destruction?"

Thank you for helping get my point across. The Soviet Union was not attacked for fear that they'd use their weapons of mass destruction. GWB, claimed that Iraq too had weapons of mass destruction, yet we attacked them, do you think GWB really ever believed they had these weapons?, or do you really think that he'd be stupid enough to attack a country with Nukes aimed at his own country?

The article demonstrates once more that a lot of people in America just refuse to see the wider picture.Saddam is wrong,without question, but George is also wrong.And as anybody can tell you,two wrongs do not make a right.To then stand up and say that the rest of the world sees America as a bully because it is a much bigger country is fanciful.America is a bully for travelling thousands of miles to dump vast amounts of ordinance on its objective,despite the fact that there is no evidence that Saddam has ever harmed a single citizen in America.

The real target should have been Osama Bin Laden.America has a right to hold a grudge against him.

I realize that the world is hating my country that i love right now, because they fear innocent civilian casualities. But i just want to know why they never protest about all the bad things dictators have done to others, like Saddam when he massacred the Kurds. Or the whole issue with Solvidan Melosivich. Im sure some might have protested. But why is it that it is automatically WORLDWIDE protest when we try to liberate the Iraqi people. Why does something that is supposed to help them get worldwide protest when dictators do much more horendous things that get protests as much as whispers. It just confuses me, we arn't evil people. I support our soldiers, and the decision my leader has made.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
But why is it that it is automatically WORLDWIDE protest when we try to liberate the Iraqi people. Why does something that is supposed to help them get worldwide protest.......Because they don't believe that it will help, regardless of what anybody believes the intention is for invading Iraq - they believe quite the opposite.

Originally posted by taranaki
The article demonstrates once more that a lot of people in America just refuse to see the wider picture.Saddam is wrong,without question, but George is also wrong.And as anybody can tell you,two wrongs do not make a right.To then stand up and say that the rest of the world sees America as a bully because it is a much bigger country is fanciful.America is a bully for travelling thousands of miles to dump vast amounts of ordinance on its objective,despite the fact that there is no evidence that Saddam has ever harmed a single citizen in America.

The real target should have been Osama Bin Laden.America has a right to hold a grudge against him.
Not to get in an argument about this, but you say America refuses to see the wider picture, could it be that everyone else that not an American citizen is not allowing themselves to see our side of things.?

personally, i agree with that article at the top, i think everyone around the world when they hear the name "America," they all cringe. Is it because we have a stong military, is it because we are on the TV's in houses around the world war time or not war time. I just think that the world doesn't see our motives, that we mean good. If anyone has to say something like, "well America has invaded other countries without reason." Like ive said before, What about when Iraq invaded Kuwait for no reason at all, were there any protests for that beyond the Kuwaiti borders? I was around back then and don't remember any. Almost every country one time or another in their history made military errors even though i don't even consider "operation iraqi freedom" to be a mistake, we are the ones that have ever move put under a microscope and analized when other countries like Iraq and so many others do as they please only for us to involve ourselves and then face protest, when the protest should have been directed at the source of the problem, which was Iraq in the first place. I respect all countries but i think we get unfair protest many times we act.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
I realize that the world is hating my country that i love right now, because they fear innocent civilian casualities. But i just want to know why they never protest about all the bad things dictators have done to others, like Saddam when he massacred the Kurds. Or the whole issue with Solvidan Melosivich. Im sure some might have protested. But why is it that it is automatically WORLDWIDE protest when we try to liberate the Iraqi people. Why does something that is supposed to help them get worldwide protest when dictators do much more horendous things that get protests as much as whispers. It just confuses me, we arn't evil people. I support our soldiers, and the decision my leader has made.

Typical American mentality at work folks!:bloated:

Originally posted by TexasF355F1

Not to get in an argument about this, but you say America refuses to see the wider picture, could it be that everyone else that not an American citizen is not allowing themselves to see our side of things.? If you want to debate the wider picture, do a search and some reading on "Pax Americana" then come back and comment about how the world might interpret the American side of things.

Also, the american side of things is not a unanimous proposition.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
If you want to debate the wider picture, do a search and some reading on "Pax Americana" then come back and comment about seeing the American side of things.

Well thats the thing, no? Americans only see the big picture.:bloated:

I do not want to debate b/c where will it get us....no where, I will still have my views and you will have yours, so why bother. And to comment on what kaoru-tochiro said, will anyone not even give us americans respect for anything we say or believe in no matter how you feel. While I dont agree with what some may say, I don't critize ya'll for your beliefs.

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
"ever hear of deterence or mutually assured destruction?"

Thank you for helping get my point across. The Soviet Union was not attacked for fear that they'd use their weapons of mass destruction. GWB, claimed that Iraq too had weapons of mass destruction, yet we attacked them, do you think GWB really ever believed they had these weapons?, or do you really think that he'd be stupid enough to attack a country with Nukes aimed at his own country?

Iraq doesn't have nukes (or at least thats what intelligence suggests) so the principle of mutually assured destruction doesn't apply. Also Iraq doesn't have missiles with a range capable of reaching the United States. Therefore, your comment about GWB going into Iraq because he didn't believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction doesn't make sense by your logic because even if he did have WMD there would be no deterence to stop the US from attacking anyway. Therefore, you cannot use the excuse that GWB is attacking Iraq because GWB knows that Iraq doesn't have WMD based on your reasoning.

Originally posted by TexasF355F1
I do not want to debate b/c where will it get us....no where, I will still have my views and you will have yours, so why bother. And to comment on what kaoru-tochiro said, will anyone not even give us americans respect for anything we say or believe in no matter how you feel. While I dont agree with what some may say, I don't critize ya'll for your beliefs.

Oh please don't feel offended, my American political science teacher is the one that told me that Americans only see the big picture, whatever that means. :bloated:

Originally posted by TexasF355F1
I do not want to debate b/c where will it get us....no where, I will still have my views and you will have yours, so why bother. And to comment on what kaoru-tochiro said, will anyone not even give us americans respect for anything we say or believe in no matter how you feel. While I dont agree with what some may say, I don't critize ya'll for your beliefs. So don't debate then - I do not want to debate the subject either, but please do find out about the Pax Americana documents. I provided the information in the hope that some of your questions might be answered as to why world opinion is the way it is - agree or disagree, but be well informed in making your choices.

Originally posted by rsxer45


Iraq doesn't have nukes (or at least thats what intelligence suggests) so the principle of mutually assured destruction doesn't apply. Also Iraq doesn't have missiles with a range capable of reaching the United States. Therefore, your comment about GWB going into Iraq because he didn't believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction doesn't make sense by your logic because even if he did have WMD there would be no deterence to stop the US from attacking anyway. Therefore, you cannot use the excuse that GWB is attacking Iraq because GWB knows that Iraq doesn't have WMD based on your reasoning.

I'm not sure what you mean by this post.It appears that you have just summarised exactly 2strokebloke's argument,and then drawn the opposite conclusions.

SAmerica never attacked the Soviet Union because it knew that retaliation to their civilian population would have been an inevitable consequence.If George Bush thought that Saddam had WMD that were capable of being deployed against American territory, he would never have risked an invasion.The whole 'weapons of mass destruction' scenario is a sham.While there is still a chance that Iraq may still have a limited capacity to harm the troops invading his home country,he never had a credible threat to the people in the United States.

If Saddam had the power to take over the US and Europe and the rest of the world, he would do the same thing. Irak was a very powerful nation 2000 years ago, at a time when Europeans where still living in caves, now that the US is powerful let us bask in our glory.
My Political Science professor also says that the US will eventually collapse, just like the Roman Empire did.:bloated:

Originally posted by TexasF355F1

Not to get in an argument about this, but you say America refuses to see the wider picture, could it be that everyone else that not an American citizen is not allowing themselves to see our side of things.?

I think I can see the American side of things. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that the enemies of the US (and the world) are terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US wants to prevent the proliferation of WoMD, and stop terrorism. Thats a fair cause, and one which I support.

However, I don't believe that Saddam, while being a terrible tyrant, is responsible for September 11. Neither does most of the world. Tyrannical dictators are not a new thing, and some have even been
supported by Western interests. The fact that a ruler is considered "evil" has never been grounds for a full scale invasion in the past, and many people can't see why it is now. It certainly won't curtail terrorism, if anything the muslim world is rallying more against the US than it ever has in the past.

If you add to that the fact that no evidence of Iraq actually possessing WoMD has actually been found.....you begin to understand why the world is questioning the motives of the US in this matter.

Suspicion is furhter heightened by the fact that Osama is the real enemy, yet Iraqi's are dying. Naturally the lucrative economic rewards on offer to the liberator of Iraq are going to be foremost in a lot of people's minds. Its hard to imagine the US is in it for the Iraqi people....it has not helped in humanitarian situations such as East Timor (violence), North Korea (starvation, WoMD), Tibet (violence), and Zimbabwe (violence). Yet it is still Iraqi's who are dying.

Of course Inquiring people are going to wonder why there seems to be a rule for Iraq, and a rule for the rest of the world. It is easy to see that Iraq has something none of those other countries do.

Do I think it is about oil? I actually don't know.

In any event, we can speculate all day long on the why's of the presence of coalition forces in Iraq...the fact remains that most of the world feels that innocent people are dying due to the aggression of certain countries that chose not exhaust all of the diplomatic options before invading a country.....there's you primary reason for anti-war sentiment.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
So don't debate then - I do not want to debate the subject either, but please do find out about the Pax Americana documents. I provided the information in the hope that some of your questions might be answered as to why world opinion is the way it is - agree or disagree, but be well informed in making your choices.
Ok I have read a few articles talking about Pax Americana. I totally understand the idea of it. As far as me being well informed in making my decisions, I feel I am as informed as the next guy. Of course I only get what everyone else see's. I have had a love of history for a long time and have learned from teachers to try and understand the other side of things before passing judgement and creating your own opinion. This is what I do in this forum, and I understand everyone's opinions and as some may say and I'm still trying to find, "hatred" of America. I had not heard of Pax Americana, until you mentioned it and I would like to thank you for bringing it up. I would also like to thank you for doing so in a nice manner. No matter how you feel about the war or America, I hope no one casts judgement on any of us that support it.
And Matty, thank you for your input, I do appreciate it.

TexasF355F1,

Thank you for taking the time to not only read my post, but to find out about the PAX Americana documents. It was not my intention to imply that you were ill informed and I agree whole heartedly with your approach of trying to understand the other side of things before passing judgement. I will try to do more of that myself in future.

thanks for making things clearer Taranaki, sometimes I have trouble putting my thoughts into words. I see that somebody does share my viewpoint (but does any other American share my viewpoint?)
I don't know why anybody can't see how silly the WMD thing is, and that obviously there are other motives at work (and I can tell you that these motives do not include freeing the Iraqi people just because it seems like the right thing to do)

The article demonstrates once more that a lot of people in America just refuse to see the wider picture.


No it is become of the freedoms and choices we are freely allowed to make in our own homes that we do see the big picture. We're not a small country for those that cannot see the diversity of our people here in the US. I'm from Texas. Its natural habit for us to pick on "yankees" however when the towers fell I wept along side of them because they are my fellow countrymen. I've been a volenteer fireman for over 12 yrs. I'm state certified to assist in any type of fire regardless of size. I offered to go help when NYC was under attack and the days following.
We here in the US feel our state or city is the best because its our god given right to do so. We have freedom of religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to speak out against our government without fear of reprisal, Freedom to organize peacefully and rally for change, Here in Texas we have the right to secede from the union, We're the only state that has that right. We also have the right to break off into 4 separate states. Now tell me one of those rights that the Iraqi people enjoy?



Yes just what I thought. They don't enjoy even one of those rights!

When people say that WMD don't exist in Iraq now, i can agree that they don't have nukes yet. Bio weapons, YES. The whole reason for the war is nuetralizing the threat before it affects us later. GB said after 911, we can no longer sit innocently waiting for something that we didn't even deserve. Well what did we do to deserve 911? Apsolutly nothing. And we still got hit. So the only way to prevent that again is stopping a threat before it becomes stable. We all know Saddam wants them, and just like we were too late with North Korea getting nukes, we arn't gona wait around while Saddam gets closer. And just because 911 wasn't a nuclear attack, how can we be so sure the next one wont be?

Originally posted by pontiactrac
Well what did we do to deserve 911?

Like you don't know?:bloated:

Originally posted by pontiactrac
Well what did we do to deserve 911? Apsolutly nothing.

Clearly the people who made a voluntary decision to end their lives by taking control of aircraft and ploughing them into buildings thought otherwise.Before anybody jumps down my throat and starts making stupid accusations,I am NOT agreeing with their course of action,but you don't just go and kill yourself in a foregn land unless you have a point to make.
If the world is to be safe from this type of attack,we need to establish why it was carried out,exactly who ordered it,who funded it and who participated in it.There are enormous gaps in this information,and yet some people are looking to extract revenge from whoever seems most convenient and advantageous.Find out who your enemy is,and you can bring him to justice.That which is being done under the blanket term of anti-terrorism is not justice,it is more akin to lashing out blindly in anger.

alright first of all, yes they had a reason, an insane reason which was completely nonlegit. but i am asking what WE did to deserve that? Exactly we did not deserve 911 in any shape or form no matter how you look at it. The reasons they have are against anyone who isn't a muslim follower, and i don't consider that a legit. reason, it's racist.

Originally posted by taranaki


I'm not sure what you mean by this post.It appears that you have just summarised exactly 2strokebloke's argument,and then drawn the opposite conclusions.

SAmerica never attacked the Soviet Union because it knew that retaliation to their civilian population would have been an inevitable consequence.If George Bush thought that Saddam had WMD that were capable of being deployed against American territory, he would never have risked an invasion.The whole 'weapons of mass destruction' scenario is a sham.While there is still a chance that Iraq may still have a limited capacity to harm the troops invading his home country,he never had a credible threat to the people in the United States.

Sorry, I should have expanded on the subtle point in my argument. What I am saying is that we cannot assume that Iraq does not have WMD simply by the fact that the US is attacking them. Even if they do have WMD, deterence would not apply becuase they do not have a delivery system capable of wiping out the entire US. If the US knew that Iraq had WMD, a delivery system with the range of the US, and enough of WMD to completely destroy America, I doubt we would have attacked Iraq. But, the fact that we ARE attacking Iraq doesn't exclude the possibility that WMD exist in Iraq because of what I just said with the range problems... Iraq could have WMD with a carrier system that could be given to terrorists and smuggled into the US or US embassies around the world and that's why they could pose a threat to the US and that is a reason why we are attacking Iraq. However, the considering lethality of Iraq's WMD (or at least what US intelligence suggest that Iraq has) and these range problems do not provide enough of a deterent to prevent the US from attacking and defending its interests. To say that the simple fact that Iraq is being attacked by the US IMPLIES that Iraq has no WMD is faulty reasoning....That's what I was saying and that is how a drew a different conclusion than 2strokebloke. Does that clarify it? BTW, I do not mean to imply that Iraq for a fact has WMD with this post.

id have to agree with the above statement. It is hard to assume what the government is thinking through their actions because they could know alot more than we have heard through the news and media. I also think that if Iraq did have the capable means to reach us, we would have been hit already which is more the reason we have to nuetralize the threat before it becomes another 911 or worse. I would also like to add that many people are saying that we have no reason to fight this war. Well im sure many of you have already heard this, but for those who havent... 1441, (a resolution that was passed by the UN and US) said that both sides would act if Iraq didn't promise complete dissarmament. It was passed, so i don't think the question "what gives us the right to attack" has any reasoning behind it, when it was also the UN who also involved themselves in this. It is unfortunate that they do not want to live up to their words, and when we do, it makes us look like the "gun ho Texan's behind bush." Which is not the case at all. We are just standing by our words which we promised in 1441, and 911 when our security was stolen from us. Sometimes I think people expect the government to just grant "leniency" from the resolution, and that is not how a resolution works, otherwise they would be meaningless, because lets face it, nobody wants a war. This is just my take on things.

Please direct me to where 1441 authorises the use of force.
Please also direct me to any UN documentation that says that 1441 was not complied with.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Please direct me to where 1441 authorises the use of force.
Please also direct me to any UN documentation that says that 1441 was not complied with.

Well if you watched the news, u would have heard colin powel, GB, and even Tony Blair go into detail about the entire process. Yes, it is a fact. And sorry, but i don't exactly own these UN documents for you to browse.

Originally posted by pontiactrac


Well if you watched the news, u would have heard colin powel, GB, and even Tony Blair go into detail about the entire process. Yes, it is a fact. And sorry, but i don't exactly own these UN documents for you to browse.

I can't be bothered looking at the resolution, but if what you say is true, then why did the US and Britain rally so hard to get the UN second resolution in the first place. Doesn't make much sense to me. They lost, THEN decided they didn't need it. Suspicious.

Well I made a liar of myself and read 1441. Here's why the US and UK desperately needed a UN resolution to make the war legal:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

The "serious consequences" are not outlined. The UN did NOT resolve that now was the right time for military action, nor did it resolve that in fact "serious consequences" constituted military action at all, at this time, or any other.

So as far as I can tell, the war is in fact, illegal.

Sounds more like legal on a technicality to me, unless they have some kind of 'serious consequences' that aren't already imposed on Iraq before military action. There's already sanctions (pressed by the US and UK blah blah blah, we know!), so what else is there for 'serious consequences'?

I read that too (have printed off a copy) but here is what confuses me -

Does "Recalls" mean rescinded, took it back? or does it mean remembers?

All i can tell you is that Iraq was forced to comply and with unquestionable and immediate dissarmament, the UN would have the right to use military force, yes that was signed by the UN. If you want to go and say the war is illegal, join the rest of the world who doesnt understand or never heard of the document. But it is a fact and if you interprit it correctly, you would know what was signed and what it meant to say. Like i said before, nobody wants a war. But we stand by our resolutions, we signed it, they signed it. But we are the ones look bad when we follow our words.

Lol. Apparently "someone" wants a war...

Anyway, clearly, the majority of the UN didn't want outright invasion. Serious consequences could mean anything from surgical strikes on suspected facilities, to further embargoes, to militarily assissted inspections.

The point is, it is NOT up to 3 countries to decide what those consequences are, it is up to the UN to decide. A

ustralia, US, and the UK chose to interpret their own way, which is painfully obvious to the rest of the world, not what the UN intended. Thats why they went for the second resution in the first place, and only claimed what they were doing was right, AFTER it was obvious the majority of the security council did not share their view.

And T4 Primera, I believe in this instance "Recalls" means "rememebers", or "bears in mind" that Iraq hasn't been very good in complying to resolutions in the past.

Not to butt in but does this convo of the war is legal/illegal have to continue? I'm kinda getting sick of hearing it go back and forth. It's going on and there's nothing anyone can do about it. So why spend energy arguing back and forth about something none of us can get the truth straight from the horses mouth(i.e. a UN official). Oh well, just putting in my $.02 b/c I see the points of both sides.

I guess its a fair call. Nobody looks like changing their mind about it.

Originally posted by MattyG
Well I made a liar of myself and read 1441. Here's why the US and UK desperately needed a UN resolution to make the war legal:



The "serious consequences" are not outlined. The UN did NOT resolve that now was the right time for military action, nor did it resolve that in fact "serious consequences" constituted military action at all, at this time, or any other.

So as far as I can tell, the war is in fact, illegal.

So what are serious consequences? Telling him over and over we are going to whoop his ass and doing nothing aobut it? What kind of action should have been taken, genius?

see my post after pontiac "genius"

Originally posted by MattyG
see my post after pontiac "genius"

Hee's my response to that. The U.N. is pointless, weak, and not under a direct threat like the U.S. and Britain, now that it has joined us.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
BY MITCH ALBOM
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

America is the big guy. Iraq is the small guy. Because of that, no matter what we do, certain perceptions will never change.

So even though America, the big guy, has an army of volunteers, while Iraq, the small guy, pulls men from their homes and threatens to kill their loved ones if they don't fight -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, wears army uniforms and rides in army tanks, while Iraq, the small guy, wears civilian clothes and drives Toyotas and blends in, waiting for an ambush -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, doesn't fight with chemical or biological weapons, while Iraq, the little guy, has used them before, on its own people, and will use them again if given the chance -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, drops leaflets saying we don't want to hurt you, here's what to do so you don't get shot, while Iraq, the small guy, allegedly shoots anyone who is found with those leaflets -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

You notice a pattern?

Pretending to be civilians

Even though America, the big guy, tries to aid surrendering civilians, while Iraq, the small guy, has its soldiers pretend to be those civilians, who then pull out weapons and attack us -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, tries to clear a port to bring in humanitarian supplies, while Iraq, the small guy, lays mines in that very water -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, provides food and medical attention to any captured prisoner, while Iraq, the small guy, fires guns into a river hoping to kill a downed American pilot -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, sees its own citizens protesting, blocking traffic, disagreeing with the war, and tolerates it because it is part of who we are, while Iraq, the small guy, cuts out a man's tongue and lets him bleed to death in the street -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, has an open press, hundreds of embedded reporters, and nightly criticism of our efforts, while Iraq has a government-run TV station that plays pro-Saddam videos and urges Iraqi's to "slit the enemy's throats" -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, prays for the liberation of Iraq, while Iraq, the little guy, prays for the destruction of America -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

What's wrong with this picture?

Shooting behind women, children

Even though America, the big guy, spends billions for bombs that will spare civilians, while Iraq, the small guy, shoots from behind women and children in schools and hospitals -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, when confronted with a soldier who allegedly threw grenades at his own men, handcuffs that soldier and takes him to be tried, in a court, with a lawyer, while Iraq, the small guy, reportedly shoots its own reluctant soldiers in the head, no trial, no questions asked -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

And even though America, the big guy, is assailed by the Arab world for endangering its "brethren," while that same Arab world never rose to help Iraqi "brethren" when they were being slaughtered by their own leader -- we, the big guy, are the bully.

This is how it is. We are the big guy. They are the small guy. Which means parts of the world will always call us the bully, because, as Wilt Chamberlain once said, "Nobody roots for Goliath."

And what these critics keep missing, what is clear and plain and on brutal display every day and night, is one screamingly obvious fact: The biggest bully of all is running the small guy's battle.

It wasn't America who had to clear the mines :finger4: Seems like some of the Americans have already forgot that there are other countries involved in this war.

how about the 70 odd thousand British troops?

I'm not impressed at that little article because at no point does it acknowledge the help of other forces.

Originally posted by TexasF355F1
Not to butt in but does this convo of the war is legal/illegal have to continue? I'm kinda getting sick of hearing it go back and forth. It's going on and there's nothing anyone can do about it. So why spend energy arguing back and forth about something none of us can get the truth straight from the horses mouth(i.e. a UN official). Oh well, just putting in my $.02 b/c I see the points of both sides.

So basically your tired of people like me who are supporting our brave troops over there? If i were you, i would tell this to all the liberals out there who still think that if they act as "human sheilds" and stamp their feet, and yell holding signs that say bush is a terrorist. That is what tires me out, especially since there is nothing they could do to stop it so they mines well stop their complaining.

Originally posted by pontiactrac


So basically your tired of people like me who are supporting our brave troops over there? If i were you, i would tell this to all the liberals out there who still think that if they act as "human sheilds" and stamp their feet, and yell holding signs that say bush is a terrorist. That is what tires me out, especially since there is nothing they could do to stop it so they mines well stop their complaining.
Actually I'm on your side of the fence when it comes to supporting the war and our troop(look at my sig about my buddy there). I was actually in a bad mood yesterday about something not even related to the forum and kinda just let off some stem i guess you could say. But I also think that its kinda pointless to go back and forth continually when we have our own reasons why we are for this and they have theirs. We believe the info we believe and those against believe their info(which both sides can provide facts it just depends on who wants to believe what. Well anyways, all I was doing was implying my 2 cents and it wasn't meant to offend you or anyone, it was just my feelings about this whole thing.

Originally posted by TexasF355F1

Actually I'm on your side of the fence when it comes to supporting the war and our troop(look at my sig about my buddy there). I was actually in a bad mood yesterday about something not even related to the forum and kinda just let off some stem i guess you could say. But I also think that its kinda pointless to go back and forth continually when we have our own reasons why we are for this and they have theirs. We believe the info we believe and those against believe their info(which both sides can provide facts it just depends on who wants to believe what. Well anyways, all I was doing was implying my 2 cents and it wasn't meant to offend you or anyone, it was just my feelings about this whole thing.

I understand. I feel the same exact way, i think that people should stop arguing if they think the war shouldnt be had, because they arnt the ones who have to go under fire, and the war is already in play reguardless. I just think that all that negative energy that protestors give will affect our soldiers and their families and that isn't right. I am not against freedom of speech, but they know that nothing will stop until Saddam is gone, so why make a more stressful envirnment for us all when it wont amount to anything. I am just supporting the soldiers and i know we are on equal ground on that subject, so it's all good. I wish safty for your friend too.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


It wasn't America who had to clear the mines :finger4: Seems like some of the Americans have already forgot that there are other countries involved in this war.

how about the 70 odd thousand British troops?

I'm not impressed at that little article because at no point does it acknowledge the help of other forces.

What was the point of this post??? How has anyone of us pro troop forum members said anything about putting down the british or other allies in this war? I do not think any of that was nessessary, and i respect the british and all other allies 100% as much as the Americans soldiers who led the war. They are doing the same exact thing and working together for the same goal, (liberating iraq and keeping our world safe from future threats.) The only reason the british havn't been mentioned in this thread yet is because they havent' been seen as the goliath yet. But that doesn't mean we have forgetten them, they are supporting the same causes as us unlike the many other countries who do not wish to protect the world from another 911. The only thing that bugs me is the way you presented your reply. You act as if America doesnt help the world as much as we think we do. If you believe this, you are severly mistaken my friend. The reason we get so much protest, is because we help the world TOO MUCH, and the world doesn't like us intervening even if for a good cause, so we end up getting a bad rap for it. Remember that.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K

It wasn't America who had to clear the mines :finger4: Seems like some of the Americans have already forgot that there are other countries involved in this war.

how about the 70 odd thousand British troops?

I'm not impressed at that little article because at no point does it acknowledge the help of other forces.

Take a break. The point of the article was not to talk about the countries involved or not involved in the battle. It was one about appearences.

A good portion of the coverage here includes what the British are accomplishing (although we don't hear much about the Aussies or Pols) but thats not the point of the article. The fact that there are thousands of troops from Australia and Britian doesn't change what the article was about.

So based on your statment, every single written piece has to mention everyone involved in the conflict? That doesn't sound very well reasoned.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Originally posted by pontiactrac


I understand. I feel the same exact way, i think that people should stop arguing if they think the war shouldnt be had, because they arnt the ones who have to go under fire, and the war is already in play reguardless. I just think that all that negative energy that protestors give will affect our soldiers and their families and that isn't right. I am not against freedom of speech, but they know that nothing will stop until Saddam is gone, so why make a more stressful envirnment for us all when it wont amount to anything. I am just supporting the soldiers and i know we are on equal ground on that subject, so it's all good. I wish safty for your friend too.
Yep, agreed. The protestors are a waste of space in my opinion and disrupt normal everyday life in the towns they protest in. Glad to see things are cleared up, and thanks about my friend I appreciate it. I have total faith he will return safely b/c he's had an interest in the Army since elementary school and is very strong mentally and physically when it comes to his job.

Originally posted by MattyG


I can't be bothered looking at the resolution, but if what you say is true, then why did the US and Britain rally so hard to get the UN second resolution in the first place. Doesn't make much sense to me. They lost, THEN decided they didn't need it. Suspicious.

Maybe they pushed because they wanted diplomacy, and more pressure on Saddam's regime? Err.. wait, sorry, I forgot the US government are a bunch of war-mongers. They decided they didn't need it because FRANCE said they'd veto anything put on the table that ultimately led to war. This ultimatum, "disarm immediately, leave, or go to war" is called pressure.

Originally posted by pontiactrac


I just think that all that negative energy that protestors give will affect our soldiers and their families and that isn't right. I am not against freedom of speech,

.....as long as I like what I hear?

Idoubt very much that the troops in the Gulf have much time to listen to the opinions of those who are not fighting,and I doubt very much that they would care that there are people who disagree with what they are doing.I do sympathise with the wives and children of servicemen though,it must be terribly difficult to know that a husband or a father is at risk every day for the sake of George Bush's ego.

Originally posted by taranaki


.....as long as I like what I hear?

Idoubt very much that the troops in the Gulf have much time to listen to the opinions of those who are not fighting,and I doubt very much that they would care that there are people who disagree with what they are doing.I do sympathise with the wives and children of servicemen though,it must be terribly difficult to know that a husband or a father is at risk every day for the sake of George Bush's ego.

I guess these soldiers are just ignorant, blind, followers, who bark when they are told to bark and sit when they are told to sit. You do know that our army is volunteer? And no man joins the military because he is told to. That is ignorance, however, on our part.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Pick


I guess these soldiers are just ignorant, blind, followers, who bark when they are told to bark and sit when they are told to sit. You do know that our army is volunteer? And no man joins the military because he is told to. That is ignorance, however, on our part.:rolleyes:

same old argument,round and round again.Your military is there because it is what they are paid to do.They're not volunteers,they're contractors.

Originally posted by taranaki


same old argument,round and round again.Your military is there because it is what they are paid to do.They're not volunteers,they're contractors.

There not volunteers? WHAAA?. Every family member or friend that i had ever known went in the military because they wanted to protect the country and back it's ideals. Nobody has been drafted since vietnam so i don't know where you got this information.

Originally posted by pontiactrac


There not volunteers? WHAAA?. Every family member or friend that i had ever known went in the military because they wanted to protect the country and back it's ideals. Nobody has been drafted since vietnam so i don't know where you got this information.

When I joined up,it wasn't about protecting the country,or any other noble shit like that,it was about moving out of the family home without the challenge of having to set up house,it was aboutgetting paid,clothed and fed for not too much effort,and getting to work with some pretty amazing hardware.Of course,when I signed up,we weren't at war with anyone.


The same applies to the guys in the Gulf.The military is a great carreer option,but lets not pretend that anybody joins up for the greater good of their country.If they weren't paid,they wouldn't be there.Go back to your dictionary and check the definition of volunteer.These guys are employees.

Originally posted by taranaki


When I joined up,it wasn't about protecting the country,or any other noble shit like that,it was about moving out of the family home without the challenge of having to set up house,it was aboutgetting paid,clothed and fed for not too much effort,and getting to work with some pretty amazing hardware.Of course,when I signed up,we weren't at war with anyone.


The same applies to the guys in the Gulf.The military is a great carreer option,but lets not pretend that anybody joins up for the greater good of their country.If they weren't paid,they wouldn't be there.Go back to your dictionary and check the definition of volunteer.These guys are employees.

They are volunteers in the fact that their job is voluntary, they don't have to sign up. We have no draft. I think that's what he was saying.

I do see your point however, that it is a job, but it is a noble job, such as that of a fireman or an ambulance driver. They have a desire to help the greater good.

Originally posted by Prelewd


They are volunteers in the fact that their job is voluntary, they don't have to sign up. We have no draft. I think that's what he was saying.

I do see your point however, that it is a job, but it is a noble job, such as that of a fireman or an ambulance driver. They have a desire to help the greater good.

By that logic, I am a volunteer cheesemaker.In reality,I do it because it pays the bills.