Why does EVERY DARN THING have to be politicized?

[Django]

I am the most APOLITICAL guy I know.

But I find, from common experience, that, these days, it is virtually impossible to do ANYTHING without it being interpreted as having some sort of "hidden political agenda" or something.

This is just so darn IRRITATING!!! :( :frustrated:

It's like you have to guard your speech all the time and watch what you say for fear that your statements will be misinterpreted and attached with some totally absurd political context. Sometimes it feels like it's like living in the Soviet Union or something! (Okay, I admit that that's a political statement, but it's also a fact.)

Anyway, the point is that politics is politics, and there's no getting around it, in the 21st century. But, on the other hand, politics has its place, and not everything has to have a political context, even though there are some people who must attach a political context or slant to EVERY DARN THING!!! :frustrated: :furious:

Life is too short to waste ALL your time over politics! People should try to enjoy themselves some more instead of politicizing everything! Why do movies, TV and entertainment have to be politicized? Why do socializing, dating, relationships and friendships have to be politicized? Why does politics have to enter into EVERYTHING? Why does EVERYTHING have to have a goshdarned hidden political agenda? WHY??? :scream: I DEMAND to know! RIGHT NOW!!!

(Sorry, got a little carried away there!)

[n7of9]

you are not apolitical IMO...the fact that you see/imagine/think/interpret everything to have a political agenda makes you politically minded...if you were apolitical you wouldn't see it everywhere and it wouldn't bother you

however, you haven't exactly said WHAT you are talking about..can you give us an example?? are you actually talking about politics, as in the government, or are you saying political as in "politically correct"???

[Piddzilla]

First I would like to say that I don't know what world Django is living in because in the one I live in nobody gives a flying **** about politics anymore. I don't know what movies and tv shows you are watching because if there is something that lacks active political standpoints, it's today's mainstream movies and tv shows. HOWEVER, at the same time, politics is everywhere all the time. In the movies there is always a hidden ideology and in mainstream Hollywood that ideology is this: ask no questions, everything is fine, don't use your mind, swallow what we feed you (more or less). I can understand if people get fed up with party politics, but the fact that someone actually wants people to care less about what goes on - that's ****ing frightening. :eek:

Django. You're the establishment's wettest dream. :yup:

[Sir Toose]

It's the infusion of information, my good man.

Once upon a time we could keep things separated into nice little boxes, but now it's just not possible here in the information age.

More and more information has allowed the common man to see the vast 'interconnection' of the world, and has in fact given birth to more of it. It's going to get worse before it gets better. The warehouses ar filling up and few know what is good information and what is bad information.

Like anything else, there will come a time to clean house and there will be a throw back to the basics.

Mark My Words.

[Piddzilla]

The gigantic media conglomerats are cleaning the house as we speak.

[Django]

n7of9: I don't quite agree with your reasoning. I don't have to be politically minded to be able to recognize a hidden political agenda or slant. I just have to be reasonably intelligent, as opposed to totally ignorant about the real world, which I am not. About an example, let's say I have a conversation with someone and make a completely inoffensive remark. More often than not, I find, my statement will be misinterpreted and ascribed to some hidden political agenda, and this, I find, is very irritating!

Piddzilla: I'm not saying that people should care less about the world around them. What I'm saying is that politics has it's place and not everything has to have a hidden political agenda. In the world I live in, I see an excessive proliferation of political thinking into every dimension of life, so much so that nothing is sacred anymore--not art, not family, not relationships, not religion or faith, not freedom--nothing, it seems, is safe from some form of political association. That's kind of a drag, in my opinion. There's more to life than politics--that's not to say that politics doesn't have its place in life. I'm not advocating that we should live in a fantasy world and close our eyes to political realities. But, on the other hand, not everything has to be politically motivated either!

Sir Toose: I agree with you that the "post-media age"--the information age--is upon us, and that is a good thing! More solid information and less propaganda--that is always good!

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Django
Piddzilla: I'm not saying that people should care less about the world around them. What I'm saying is that politics has it's place and not everything has to have a hidden political agenda. In the world I live in, I see an excessive proliferation of political thinking into every dimension of life, so much so that nothing is sacred anymore--not art, not family, not relationships, not religion or faith, not freedom--nothing, it seems, is safe from some form of political association. That's kind of a drag, in my opinion. There's more to life than politics--that's not to say that politics doesn't have its place in life. I'm not advocating that we should live in a fantasy world and close our eyes to political realities. But, on the other hand, not everything has to be politically motivated either!


Well, I just disagree with you on that politics "has its place". It has not. Politics is and should be everywhere and is not a phenomenon reserved for the politicians. I think it would be a victory for society if the "ordinary people" became more politically aware. In the last congress election in America about 30% (correct me if I'm wrong) of the voters actually voted. I think it's terrifying that in the world's most powerful country, nobody cares about who makes the decisions. That gains only the ones allready in power and it enforces their power while the people get weaker.

Sure, there are always occasions where you don't need to discuss politics or categorize people as left-wing or right-wing. That's totally unnecessary. But it's dangerous when we stop to ask "why" and "how come".

[Django]

I'd say we're talking about two different things.

You're saying that more people need to become politically aware. I don't deny that.

On the other hand, not every aspect of life needs to be connected with politics either! Politics has its place--there are other things in life of equal and greater importance! Not everything has to be affiliated with politics! THAT, in my opinion, is a drag and sucks big time! That's kind of like a "Big Brother" scenario in which every little aspect of your life is regulated by the state.

[Austruck]

Like it or not, our lives start and end based on the political arena. We live in countries, states, cities, towns --and those necessarily have governments because that's how human beings live together.

Even if the governments aren't oppressive, the decisions they make affect how we live, how much we pay in taxes, how we live. You buy a book and pay sales tax? Government/politics. You ride on roads with a lot of potholes because no one's fixing them? Government/politics.

I think because we live in a relative free society where we are allowed to express ourselves freely, we take for granted that, although politics and government are omnipresent, they aren't overbearing.

But for most people in most countries and situations in history, governments and politics have been something they could not ignore. They had to contend with oppressive regimes and conniving local politicians. Many people today still live lives under such political nightmares. Some people still pay for living in an inherently political world with their lives.

It is precisely because our political situations are better and freer that we can sit here and gripe about how everything is political.

[Django]

You have a point there. I agree that politics is a very vitally important dimension of life, and the more so in politically repressive societies. However, my point is that not every dimension of life has to be politicized, which it often is. I don't deny the importance of political issues, only that there are other, more important things in life that shouldn't be politicized--like relationships, family, friends, religion and faith, the arts, science, entertainment, fun, nature, etc. Not everything has to have a goshdarned political slant to it. I don't deny the value of the political freedoms of the society we live in. However, on the other hand, I question the necessity of politicizing every dimension of life.

[Austruck]

Perhaps I am just a little older than you then. I agree with you in theory that it would be nice not to politicize love, family, relationships, jobs, careers, faith, dreams.

But I think I've become a little more of a realist in recent years and I just don't see life being that "pure" any more. Nearly every area mentioned above is politicized in my life in one way or another. Love and family meet with divorce and it's in the political court systems. Jobs and careers meet with obstacles if you don't play the right games with the right people to get up the next rung of the ladder. Christians are often categorized as politically conservative, while Muslims are lately seen as politically suspect.

I just don't see any way around it these days. I try to work with the system when I can without compromising my principles, and not cause too big a stir when I have to oppose the system. That's probably the closest I can get to a non-political life.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Austruck
I just don't see any way around it these days. I try to work with the system when I can without compromising my principles, and not cause too big a stir when I have to oppose the system. That's probably the closest I can get to a non-political life.

You should cause a big BIG stir!!! :D Let them know you think they're wrong!!!

I would like to ask Django how he defines "politics"? And also, can you give me an example of how your family life or love life are being politicized?

[Django]

Austruck, you make my point exactly! :yup: That's exactly what I'm saying. In the "real world", EVERY DARN THING has to be politicized or have some political element or agenda attached to it. Nothing is pure anymore! That just gets on my nerves! :furious:

Piddzilla, read Austruck's post above to get a clearer picture of what I mean.

[Piddzilla]

Whatever, man.....

[Austruck]

I guess the difference then is that I try not to let it get on my nerves. :p

I have too many things to do in the "real world" to overly worry about the politics of everyday life. When it comes up, I deal with it. When it doesn't, I don't. That's the best advice I can give you too.

Linda

[r3port3r66]

I'm not sure Django, and please I mean no disrespect to you--honestly. But what I think your experiencing is racism, or at least your concerns reflect that.

What situations exactly are you putting yourself into that makes you feel as though there's a political slant to everything?

I mean what is it that makes people want to politicize everything when they talk to you?

Perhaps you're looking to politicize everything. Do you hail from another culture than that of the US? Perhaps you look different. Americans can be very rude sometimes to people who look different (I know, I'm half Mexican); they think they're the King of fu*king everything.

I did read Austrucks well-written posts, and it doesn't seem that she's as bothered with politics as you are; she may observe it, but it doesn't seem to affect her everyday life.

Originally posted by Austruck
When it comes up, I deal with it. When it doesn't, I don't. That's the best advice I can give you too.

Are you sure you're not experiencing racism or prejudice, thus forcing you to see things as always political?

[Django]

I am from another culture--from Bombay, India, originally.

Following September 11, 2001, there has, of course, been a marked increase of xenophobia and racism in the US. So your comments make sense.

However, I am curious: how do my comments translate to the experience of racism? I find it very interesting that you were able to read that in my posts. Please elaborate.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
Americans can be very rude sometimes to people who look different (I know, I'm half Mexican); they think they're the King of fu*king everything.


Hey, who ever said your skin had to be white to be American? "American" is a head/heart set... not a skin color. We're the great melting pot, remember?

Anyone who thinks this isn't true need only to trace their roots...

[LordSlaytan]

Ugh...another generalization. How rude! Those stinkin' half Mexican's, they think they know everything!

[r3port3r66]

However, I am curious: how do my comments translate to the experience of racism? I find it very interesting that you were able to read that in my posts. Please elaborate.

Django, I was going to elaborate on how I came to that conclusion, but I think the last two posts exemplify how things can turn political just by bringing up race. In the real world, with people interacting with people, first impressions are generally the catalyst for political judgements.

I once did a story about people from India coming to San Jose, CA to work in the software industry during the 90's. I was shocked to find out that one of my interviewees said that the biggest problem he had in America was that most Americans thought that the main mode of transportation in India was elephants--I kid you not!

Sir Toose and Slay: I am a proud American, I was born here; I served my country for 3 years. I know that you guys think I was generalizing based on race, but it has been my experience, both personally and professionally, that most "white" Americans always base conclusions about people on the color of one's skin. I'm sorry if that offends you, and I'm not saying that it applies to you, I'm just saying more often than not, that it's true. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as Affirmative action.

[Sir Toose]

Sir Toose and Slay: I am a proud American, I was born here; I served my country for 3 years. I know that you guys think I was generalizing based on race, but it has been my experience, both personally and professionally, that most "white" Americans always base conclusions about people on the color of one's skin. I'm sorry if that offends you, and I'm not saying that it applies to you, I'm just saying more often than not, that it's true. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as Affirmative action.


Gotta register my respectful disagreement. Obviously I can't state what you say to be false... that's not my intent to begin with. If you say 'white' america has been unfair to you, then I believe it. My problem lies with your 'most americans' statement. I'm sure you're very popular, but I doubt that you know most Americans (whatever their color).

Also, you leave no room for the reverse. I was one of a few white boys in a predominantly mexican school in Ca. for a year. It was rough... it was 'americans' picking on other 'americans'. Dig?

I work in corporate america. On my campus there are 14,000+ people who work here in my location alone. There is HUGE mix of people and were I to count heads on any given day I doubt I'd see a majority of any one people. My team consists of (1) Redneck white boy (me), (2) black women, (1) Indian man with a giant brain, (1) mexican man, and a russian woman. I don't hesitate in putting my trust with these people, it's unheard of in the middle ranks where I live my corporate life. I'm not saying it's non-existent... by far... I'm just seeing less and less of it.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Sir Toose


Gotta register my respectful disagreement. Obviously I can't state what you say to be false... that's not my intent to begin with. If you say 'white' america has been unfair to you, then I believe it. My problem lies with your 'most americans' statement. I'm sure you're very popular, but I doubt that you know most Americans (whatever their color).

Also, you leave no room for the reverse. I was one of a few white boys in a predominantly mexican school in Ca. for a year. It was rough... it was 'americans' picking on other 'americans'. Dig?

I work in corporate america. On my campus there are 14,000+ people who work here in my location alone. There is HUGE mix of people and were I to count heads on any given day I doubt I'd see a majority of any one people. My team consists of (1) Redneck white boy (me), (2) black women, (1) Indian man with a giant brain, (1) mexican man, and a russian woman. I don't hesitate in putting my trust with these people, it's unheard of in the middle ranks where I live my corporate life. I'm not saying it's non-existent... by far... I'm just seeing less and less of it.

Yeah, and I was just trying to be funny, I failed miserably. Damn, half mexican american reporter type...you're all the same, raining on my parade, making me feel wh..wh..white!!!! :bawling:

[Sir Toose]

It's all fun and games 'till someone strikes a nerve...


:laugh:


I'm too serioose sometimes, methinks. All though he did accuse me of being a hater.



:sick: :# :laugh:

[r3port3r66]

Darn us half-mexican American journalists and our gross exaggeration of the truth!;) And to think, I could have made my living in the Central Valley.

[LordSlaytan]

They wouldn't take your kind anyway. I think they're prejudiced towards reporters.

Whoo-hoo 1,000 post's. I want to thank God, the Academy, and all you little people that don't matter! ;D

[Django]

This has been a very interesting and informative discussion so far! Thanks everyone for your input.

From my experience, I'd say that the US is probably the most diverse society in the world in every respect and, consequently, there is more acceptance of ethnic, religious, physical and other differences here than, probably, anywhere else in the world. And this applies even more so (generally speaking) to California and, esp., to the Bay Area.

HOWEVER, and this is a big "however", among many strata of society in the US, there is still a MARKED and SIGNIFICANT racist undercurrent in people's attitudes. Probably, no more than can be expected among any population anywhere, but it exists nonetheless. I expect that the only remedy for this is time. As the world and the US open up and people become more and more aware of the world around them and interact with other races and groups, I imagine that there will be less and less of what r3port3r66 cites, and what I, personally, agree with. Basically, such attitudes stem from ignorance about the rest of the world, and this can be remedied in a number of ways--cultural exchanges, museum exhibitions, movies, cultural shows, festivals, cuisine, etc. Again, it's a matter of time. I am personally glad to be living in as culturally diverse a region as San Francisco. I doubt that you will see such cultural diversity and acceptance anywhere in the world as you see here in the Bay Area. I only hope that the Bay Area becomes a model for a successful tolerant and pacifistic society for the rest of the world and especially for the militant conservative administration in the White House.

One final point. I come, originally, from India, which is in geographical proximity to Afghanistan, but is a completely separate nation. India is a SECULAR DEMOCRACY with a diverse ethnic and religious population. This is as opposed to Pakistan, our immediate neighbor, which is an Islamist military dictatorship and Afghanistan, which was (prior to the US invasion) a radical Islamic theocracy (the Taliban). HOWEVER, after September 11, there were ANY NUMBER of incidents involving Indian nationals being persecuted and their property being vandalized. How many Americans would really be able to distinguish between an Indian national and someone of Afghan origin? Not many, and I can hardly blame them, quite frankly. Basically, the white American sees a Sikh man (from India) and, noticing the turban on his head, immediately associates him with Osama bin Laden and the turban on his head, and concludes that the Hindu Sikh from India (a secular democracy) is somehow linked with the Al Quaeda terrorist network--a co-conspirator, if you will. If the white American were to visit India, however, he would see that there is no connection at all between the Hindu Sikh and the radical Muslim from Afghanistan, and that, in fact, India has been a target of Al Quaeda sponsored terrorism (from Pakistan) for decades past. The Kashmir situation in India is directly linked to hostilities between Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan. But this sort of thing is hardly apparent to the average white American, and one can hardly expect Americans to really be aware of these niceties. But, on the other hand, it makes a huge difference to a lot of innocent Americans originally from the Indian subcontinent, that white Americans understand that there is a difference between the Islamic terrorist and the average Indian. I am, personally, a Christian and, as such, have no connections with terrorism anywhere in the world. But how many Americans would be able to say that their suspicions are not aroused solely because I happen to have a healthy tan on my skin (from hanging out at the beach and lap-swimming under a bright, tropical sun)? That's a question to think about!

[Piddzilla]

You've spoken well, Django. However, all muslims aren't fundamentalists or potential terrorists and some christians might in fact be terrorists. Check out both sides in Northern Ireland. But I'm with you. I think it's the same problem in every country in the western world that has a lot of immigrants. This is a very big issue in Sweden too.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Django

HOWEVER, and this is a big "however", among many strata of society in the US, there is still a MARKED and SIGNIFICANT racist undercurrent in people's attitudes.

You can say this, but I would strongly urge that you not limit racism to 'white' America. To many, racism is defined as the 'white' people hating everyone else. I'm sure there is some of this, I won't try to deny it. There is, however, just as strong a current of other ethnicities disliking people because their skin is white. I am a minority because I'm an american, white male. Half the world hates me from the starting point. Even Piddy hated me for a while, until my charm eventually won him over.


Originally posted by Django
HOWEVER, after September 11, there were ANY NUMBER of incidents involving Indian nationals being persecuted and their property being vandalized. How many Americans would really be able to distinguish between an Indian national and someone of Afghan origin? Not many, and I can hardly blame them, quite frankly. Basically, the white American sees a Sikh man (from India) and, noticing the turban on his head, immediately associates him with Osama bin Laden and the turban on his head, and concludes that the Hindu Sikh from India (a secular democracy) is somehow linked with the Al Quaeda terrorist network--a co-conspirator, if you will.

Again... can we turn the glass around please? What if I were to take my family on vacation to downtown Baghdad? Those people would look at me and they would generalize that I am spawn of "great satan" and they would stone me to death in the streets.

I have NO problem with you saying that racism exists. I DO have a problem with you using the white american to define it as if that is the only place where racism exists. THAT is horsesh*t of the foulest color, my good man.

[Django]

Piddzilla, I agree completely with what you say. I cite my examples to try and promote tolerance and understanding.

Sir Toose, you also make a valid point. However, the reason I emphasize racial intolerance on the part of western Europeans is that in the western world, i.e. in Europe and America, the population is predominantly western European. And let's face it--America is the only superpower in the world today while Europe is a superpower on the rise. Western European attitudes are of crucial importance to people like me. I don't deny that there is racism and xenophobia in other parts of the world. But if you were to visit Baghdad or Palestine, the most that the racist Iraqi or Palestinian would do is throw stones at you. However, on the other hand, the west has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons which it uses to keep the peace, supposedly. So it doesn't bother me so much that an Iraqi or a Palestinian might be racist. It bothers me a lot more that an American or a European might be racist, with the huge arsenal of nuclear weapons that they have stockpiled for use at the slightest pretext. There is a lot of talk about North Korea's nuclear arsenal targeted against the US. Frankly, it strikes me as oddly humorous that a country as powerful as the US should be concerned about a tiny under-developed nation like North Korea with, what, maybe one or two ICBM's pointing towards the US (terrible though that prospect may be) while, on the other hand, the US has about 1000 times as many missiles pointing towards North Korea! If N. Korea were so foolish as to deploy its solitary missile against the American shores, they would literally be committing suicide, as the US reprisal would utterly devastate that nation.

The US literally is the only nuclear superpower left in the world today. It is such a wealthy, powerful nation, that it has become completely paranoid. The reason that it is evoking such hostility from all quarters globally is precisely because it is so wealthy and powerful--people the world over feel insecure at the prospect of a hugely powerful nation--armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, calling itself the world's protector and claiming to act in the best interests of people at large--basically having the power to do what it pleases! Who watches the watchmen, is what comes to my mind. No wonder you see protest marches all over the world at US militarism in Iraq--you see them in Italy, Greece, France, Germany--everywhere. I think the US administration needs a serious reality check--they need to come to their senses and cease their paranoid militarism before it results in a tragedy of greater proportions than even September 11, 2001!

Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

[r3port3r66]

...And that, my friend Django, is why every darn thing has to be politicized...

It just turns political almost automatically.

[Django]

LOL! :dizzy: Yeah, you just get sucked into it without even realizing it! That's how sinister politics can be! ;D

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Django
However, on the other hand, the west has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons which it uses to keep the peace, supposedly.



Correction: Doesn't use to keep the peace (except that once, with worldwide support).


Originally posted by Django
So it doesn't bother me so much that an Iraqi or a Palestinian might be racist. It bothers me a lot more that an American or a European might be racist, with the huge arsenal of nuclear weapons that they have stockpiled for use at the slightest pretext.

oooohhh shaky, snaky ground there... the ice is cracking beneath your feet. Racism is moral at heart, apolitical if you will. It's either right or it's wrong, whatever the circumstances.

Also, you paint a picture of trigger happiness... there is no history to support that. There is a history of great restraint, though. On September 12, 2001 how many Americans do you think WANTED to start pushing buttons left and right? That pretext you speak of is pretty well handled in checks and balances.



Originally posted by Django
The US literally is the only nuclear superpower left in the world today. It is such a wealthy, powerful nation, that it has become completely paranoid. The reason that it is evoking such hostility from all quarters globally is precisely because it is so wealthy and powerful--people the world over feel insecure at the prospect of a hugely powerful nation--armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, calling itself the world's protector and claiming to act in the best interests of people at large--basically having the power to do what it pleases! Who watches the watchmen, is what comes to my mind. No wonder you see protest marches all over the world at US militarism in Iraq--you see them in Italy, Greece, France, Germany--everywhere. I think the US administration needs a serious reality check--they need to come to their senses and cease their paranoid militarism before it results in a tragedy of greater proportions than even September 11, 2001!


That wealth and power is shared the world over. The economic success of the US is a codependent relationship with the rest of the world. Basically, we'd have a hard time being autonomous and the world benefits from the prosperity of this nation. BTW, there is nothing stopping almost anyone from becoming a citizen of the US and sharing in that prosperity. It's not and never has been a 'closed' club. My wife is middle eastern and I attended her citizenship ceremony many years ago... members of her whole family are now productive US citizens.

Your stance above is VERY paranoid (re-read it).
Originally posted by Django

Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

I've very much enjoyed your point of view... "what it's worth" is much... I appreciate your time and effort and look forward to kicking this and many other issues around with you.

[Django]

Correction: Doesn't use to keep the peace (except that once, with worldwide support).

Using nuclear weapons for deterrence is still using nuclear weapons! It's about the threat of force as opposed to the use of force--it is still using the weapons.

oooohhh shaky, snaky ground there... the ice is cracking beneath your feet. Racism is moral at heart, apolitical if you will. It's either right or it's wrong, whatever the circumstances.

Okay, but its not the moral implications of racism I am concerned with here but the practical implications. I am not here to wrestle with moral issues, which, in my opinion, is best left to personal conscience and God. However, I am concerned with the practical upshot of racism--in Western Europe vs. in the Middle East.

Also, you paint a picture of trigger happiness... there is no history to support that. There is a history of great restraint, though. On September 12, 2001 how many Americans do you think WANTED to start pushing buttons left and right? That pretext you speak of is pretty well handled in checks and balances.

I don't deny that the US has exercised a great deal of restraint following 9/11/01, and the people of this great nation are to be commended for that. I am also grateful for the system of checks and balances which maintain the integrity of the American society. However, the paranoid belligerency displayed by the current administration pretty much has everyone the world over on edge, and it is this nervousness that they express by protesting the US stance against Iraq.

That wealth and power is shared the world over. The economic success of the US is a codependent relationship with the rest of the world. Basically, we'd have a hard time being autonomous and the world benefits from the prosperity of this nation. BTW, there is nothing stopping almost anyone from becoming a citizen of the US and sharing in that prosperity. It's not and never has been a 'closed' club. My wife is middle eastern and I attended her citizenship ceremony many years ago... members of her whole family are now productive US citizens.

You are right in saying that a lot of people the world over benefit from US economic prosperity, myself included. That's one of the reasons I am so opposed to the impending Gulf War--because it is potentially harmful to the US economy at large, besides being a criminal waste of human life and resources, both American and Mid-Eastern. I am also glad to be a working resident in the US--another motive for my concern regarding this insane path to war that the Bush administration seems hell-bent on pursuing. No good can come of it, in my opinion.

Your stance above is VERY paranoid (re-read it).

Not paranoid, but realistic.

I've very much enjoyed your point of view... "what it's worth" is much... I appreciate your time and effort and look forward to kicking this and many other issues around with you.

I appreciate that, and same to you! :yup:

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Django
But if you were to visit Baghdad or Palestine, the most that the racist Iraqi or Palestinian would do is throw stones at you. However, on the other hand, the west has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons which it uses to keep the peace, supposedly. So it doesn't bother me so much that an Iraqi or a Palestinian might be racist. It bothers me a lot more that an American or a European might be racist, with the huge arsenal of nuclear weapons that they have stockpiled for use at the slightest pretext.

Jesus Christ! I'm going to throw up now!

[Django]

Jesus Christ says: Hey, it's your prerogative to throw up, Lord Slaytan, just as it's Django's prerogative to express himself whether it makes you throw up or not!

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Django
Jesus Christ says: Hey, it's your prerogative to throw up, Lord Slaytan, just as it's Django's prerogative to express himself whether it makes you throw up or not!

I'm sorry man, It's just a touchy subject for me. But you're right, we're all a bunch of trigger happy racists, you should be afraid. I mean, we've proven that point already haven't we?

BTW, where are you from and how old are you?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sir Toose
Even Piddy hated me for a while

:confused: I beg you pardon???

Anyway, a few points.

I'm fed up with the arrogant approach the Bush administration represent. I'm fed up with the french "we are the kings of Europe, US go **** yourself" attitude. And I'm fed up with the double standard crap that Germany pulls. It's like kids fighting in a playground and Saddam and Osama stands beside laughing their pants off. (Even if they would like to kill each other at the same time). This is what Osama wanted - a West World shaken to its foundations. The future of UN and NATO is threatened and the European Union, who's supposed to be united when it comes to foreign affairs, is shattered (even with this so called compromise that they've come up with). Osama must be so pleased...

I don't care what you say, this would never have happened with Clinton in office. Europe loved Clinton - they don't love Bush - and Bush (not to mention Rumsfeld) does not like Europe very much right now either. And you know what... I'm starting to think that the terrorists waited to see who got elected and when they saw it was Bush - they said GO! And after 9-11 US had the entire world's sympathy. They had the world in their hands and we were all with them, willing to go and do something. But this administration ****ed it all up, pardon my FRENCH! I've said it long ago on this board and I say it again: Bush will make this world a more insecure place to live in. And that's exactly how the terrorists want it to be.

For the first time in my life I'm actually afraid. Some fools call Saddam the new Hitler and "look what happened in the 30's when no one stopped that guy!". Saddam can't fart in the wrong direction without the americans and the brits bombing him to kingdom come. I'm not afraid of Saddam, we will deal with him in some way in due time. He's not the biggest threat to peace - the leaders of the West World are. And I heard somewhere that in the Gulf War something like 150.000 iraqies (spel.) died and 79 americans (Is this correct? Maybe someone here knows), and this used to be one of the reasons to why I was skeptical about the war. Is it really worth taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings because they might be terrorists in the future? Now, however, I'm afraid because I see the friendship within the western world falling to pieces. I mean the way american journalists mock the french and the germans, and, trust me, people around here aren't very nice towards americans either. And now the countries within EU is arguing too. There's a lot of tension between France and other states, and Germany refuses to do anything at all. And these two are two of the most powerful countries in EU. And at the same time US is saying that they will attack with or without the premission from UN plus that they are going to start an economic war against Germany. It's all going to hell.... And Osama is sooo pleased. This is what happens when you let men without no contact what so ever with the people or the real life rule the world.

When it comes to racism. Firstly, it's kind of interesting that the ones here saying that whites are't racist - is in fact white. Let me ask you this: The racism that you, Toose, as a white male say you experience from non-whites. Where do you think that racism comes from? What's the origin of it?

I don't think whites per ce are more reacist than any other people. But it's a fact that White Christian Males rule this world and I think that those who rule like to keep it that way. And that's racist to me. And this is by no means unique for America.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Piddzilla


:confused: I beg you pardon???

It was a joke, dum@ss :D

Anyway, a few points.

I'm fed up with the arrogant approach the Bush administration represent. I'm fed up with the french "we are the kings of Europe, US go **** yourself" attitude. And I'm fed up with the double standard crap that Germany pulls. It's like kids fighting in a playground and Saddam and Osama stands beside laughing their pants off. (Even if they would like to kill each other at the same time). This is what Osama wanted - a West World shaken to its foundations. The future of UN and NATO is threatened and the European Union, who's supposed to be united when it comes to foreign affairs, is shattered (even with this so called compromise that they've come up with). Osama must be so pleased...

No rebuttal. Though I don't think Bush is being arrogant.

I don't care what you say, this would never have happened with Clinton in office. Europe loved Clinton - they don't love Bush - and Bush (not to mention Rumsfeld) does not like Europe very much right now either. And you know what... I'm starting to think that the terrorists waited to see who got elected and when they saw it was Bush - they said GO! And after 9-11 US had the entire world's sympathy. They had the world in their hands and we were all with them, willing to go and do something. But this administration ****ed it all up, pardon my FRENCH! I've said it long ago on this board and I say it again: Bush will make this world a more insecure place to live in. And that's exactly how the terrorists want it to be.

You're wrong about this. The terrorist cells and the enabling of it all happened under Clinton's watch. He ignored the problem until it got bigger and bigger. The timing happened because Osama finally had a loaded gun. I don't think Bush in office had anything to do with it. Having said that I wonder if Gore had been elected if they'd have not attacked and just kept building a bigger arsenal so they could really waste us. And US means YOU and everyone who does not want to bow down to Allah. It's not JUST about America. To them we are all infidels and we all must convert or die. That is the only acceptable solution to them... yet we are called war mongers for responding to a very likely and viable threat.


When it comes to racism. Firstly, it's kind of interesting that the ones here saying that whites are't racist - is in fact white. Let me ask you this: The racism that you, Toose, as a white male say you experience from non-whites. Where do you think that racism comes from? What's the origin of it?

First off, I never said whites weren't racist. There you go again Mr. All or Nothing. I said it's not as widespread as our paranoid Django says it is. Where does that racism come from? How the fukk do I know? I can't know the mind of another man. I live my life, love my kids, give back to society... racial things hardly, if ever, enter my mind. Some of you act like every white guy on the planet walks around counting how many blacks, asians, indians, etc there are while loading our guns. There is a misconception that all white men have money. What kind of sh*t is that? I lived without a roof over my head in my late teens. If someone hates me because of class envy or something they're way off track. They need to look in the mirror. If a black man hates me because a possible ancestor of mine made a possible ancestor of his a slave then it's time for that man to focus on the now and stop crying tears for the past. EVERYONE has hardship in their past. Were there no white or indian slaves?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sir Toose

You're wrong about this. The terrorist cells and the enabling of it all happened under Clinton's watch. He ignored the problem until it got bigger and bigger. The timing happened because Osama finally had a loaded gun. I don't think Bush in office had anything to do with it. Having said that I wonder if Gore had been elected if they'd have not attacked and just kept building a bigger arsenal so they could really waste us. And US means YOU and everyone who does not want to bow down to Allah. It's not JUST about America. To them we are all infidels and we all must convert or die. That is the only acceptable solution to them... yet we are called war mongers for responding to a very likely and viable threat.

Well, one can only speculate on why the terrorists stroke when they did. I didn't say that was in fact the reason - only that it made me think. But I don't think Clinton was anymore ignorant than Bush about the terrorist threat - BEFORE 9-11. Remember that Bush promised in his presedential campaign that he would concentrate more on domestic politics than on what goes on internationally. Of course, 9-11 changed all that. Anyway, that's pretty much a matter of what president you like the most, obviously...

Maybe the reason to why Osama and his pals terrorize US is to make all westerners muslims. US today, the world tomorrow sort of. And if I remember it correctly, pretty much everyone was okay with the decision to bomb Afghanistan, even if I personally didn't think it would wipe out terrorism. And I think we can all agree on that Saddam is not an islamic fundamentalist - he's just a crazy, egocentric dictator (with christians in his government). The only reason that he calls for Jihad is because he needs allies - he's religious when he needs to be. I think it's very important not to see things as something that they're not. Why does Saddam hate America? Because he thinks that US should mind their own business when he tries to be king of the Middle East. Why does Osama hate America? Because America = Satan.

But why does America hate Saddam? Saddam that they used to help (like the frenchmen also did)? Some "expert" on tv said something interesting (for once). It's not because US want the oil - it's because they don't want Saddam to have it. What if another nutcase, perhaps a islamic fundametalist, gained power in Saudi Arabia and started working together with Saddam? Then that region would be very powerful and very, very rich with enough oil to create a very modern army with very dangerous weapons. This, according to this "expert", is why US in fact wants to invade. Pretty understandable but at the same time a reason even harder to sell to the world community then the "mass destruction weapons" package.

First off, I never said whites weren't racist. There you go again Mr. All or Nothing. I said it's not as widespread as our paranoid Django says it is. Where does that racism come from? How the fukk do I know? I can't know the mind of another man. I live my life, love my kids, give back to society... racial things hardly, if ever, enter my mind. Some of you act like every white guy on the planet walks around counting how many blacks, asians, indians, etc there are while loading our guns. There is a misconception that all white men have money. What kind of sh*t is that? I lived without a roof over my head in my late teens. If someone hates me because of class envy or something they're way off track. They need to look in the mirror. If a black man hates me because a possible ancestor of mine made a possible ancestor of his a slave then it's time for that man to focus on the now and stop crying tears for the past. EVERYONE has hardship in their past. Were there no white or indian slaves?

Well, Mr Generalize! Did you even read this?

I don't think whites per ce are more reacist than any other people. But it's a fact that White Christian Males rule this world and I think that those who rule like to keep it that way. And that's racist to me. And this is by no means unique for America.


And I didn't say all white men had money. This is also a big reason to racism. Poor white folks who have to struggle to survive get offended when they hear about how unfair the ethnic minorities are being treated. That can easily turn into hatred and racism. And when a black or hispanic man feels hatred against you, Toose. Do you think that guy knows about your past or who you really are? No, of course not. He just sees you as a part of a group. Just like you think "They get all the grants and scholarships just because they belong to minority while I who have **** don't get anything!", he thinks "That guy would have nothing if he had my skincolor!".

So. Toose. My dear dear friend. :love: We all know who's fault it is that we have this segregation and bitterness, right. It's society's fault. And the government's. :yup: And what do you need over there??? All together now!! SOCIALISM!!! :D :D :D Well, or to be a little bit more specific - socialdemocracy. That's the path, man!

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sir Toose
Even Piddy hated me for a while

Ooooh, for a while!! I thought it said "for a white"....

He he... ooops!

Yeah, I did hate you for a while! :D But not because you're white but because your face is brown - from being stuck up your ass for too long!!!

:laugh: :scream: :rotfl: :scream: :laugh: :scream: :rotfl: ;D :D ;D :D :)

[Caitlyn]

Originally posted by Piddzilla

And I heard somewhere that in the Gulf War something like 150.000 iraqies (spel.) died and 79 americans (Is this correct? Maybe someone here knows), and this used to be one of the reasons to why I was skeptical about the war.

Piddy… An Iranian newspaper quoted an Iraqi official as saying there were 20,000 Iraqi dead but no one has ever been allowed to actually check the numbers… however, several human rights groups have estimated the figures at approximately 1,500 Iraqi soldiers dead and approximately 100 civilians…. There were approximately 71,000 Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner and of that 71,000, only 2,000 were wounded and I don’t think any of those injuries were life threatening nor were they all caused by military actions…. American soldiers reportedly buried 577 Iraqi soldiers. There were 760 American Gulf War casualties but I'm not certain about the numbers from other countries although I do know they suffered casualties too… incidentally, there have been to date, another 8,306 American veterans who have died from Gulf related illnesses and another 180 thousand who are sick with the same symptoms…

There were approximately 150 thousand Iraqi soldiers who deserted during the Gulf War and the Pentagon also issued a projected casualty report long before the war actually started that speculated casualties could reach 150 thousand. This report was based on the number of Iraqi soldiers in the field at the time Iraq invaded Kuwait… soldiers who seemed to have disappeared during the Gulf War but from combined intelligence reports, reemerged soon after the cease fire…

And for the record, I personally don’t think it matters to the terrorist who is in the oval office… the World Trade Center was bombed with 1,100 lbs of explosives on February 26, 1993 by Islamic fundamentalists directly linked to Osama Bin Laden while President Clinton was in office... the terrorist would have taken the towers down then if they had not made a slight error in where they placed the explosives… they learned a lesson then and between 1993 and 9/11, they regrouped and sent several of their members (one was Mohammad Atta) to school in Germany to study World Architecture... they didn't make the same mistake the second time...

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Caitlyn


Piddy… An Iranian newspaper quoted an Iraqi official as saying there were 20,000 Iraqi dead but no one has ever been allowed to actually check the numbers… however, several human rights groups have estimated the figures at approximately 1,500 Iraqi soldiers dead and approximately 100 civilians…. There were approximately 71,000 Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner and of that 71,000, only 2,000 were wounded and I don’t think any of those injuries were life threatening nor were they all caused by military actions…. American soldiers reportedly buried 577 Iraqi soldiers. There were 760 American Gulf War casualties but I'm not certain about the numbers from other countries although I do know they suffered casualties too… incidentally, there have been to date, another 8,306 American veterans who have died from Gulf related illnesses and another 180 thousand who are sick with the same symptoms…

Yeah, I thought 150.000 sounded like a lot. It was this comedian, Bill Hicks, who said it on a comedy track I heard the other day.

What I can't understand is how US can describe the Gulf War as a success when apparently the americans had more casualties than the iraqies. I mean, they always say that the Vietnam war was the only war that US ever lost - but not even in that one did the americans have more casualties than the other side.

Man, this brings you down doesn't it... Talking about casualties as numbers.

And for the record, I personally don’t think it matters to the terrorist who is in the oval office… the World Trade Center was bombed with 1,100 lbs of explosives on February 26, 1993 by Islamic fundamentalists directly linked to Osama Bin Laden while President Clinton was in office... the terrorist would have taken the towers down then if they had not made a slight error in where they placed the explosives… they learned a lesson then and between 1993 and 9/11, they regrouped and sent several of their members (one was Mohammad Atta) to school in Germany to study World Architecture... they didn't make the same mistake the second time...

Well, I guess you're right.... Man, those damned germans, eh?? ;)

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
But I don't think Clinton was anymore ignorant than Bush about the terrorist threat - BEFORE 9-11. Remember that Bush promised in his presedential campaign that he would concentrate more on domestic politics than on what goes on internationally.
There IS an objective gripe: intelligence and military spending. Clinton cut it like mad. Bush ran on a platform to increase both.

"Wars are caused by undefended wealth."

Clinton was not the demon many Conservatives make him out to be, but he messed up in regards to budget cuts in those two areas.


Originally posted by Piddzilla
It's society's fault. And the government's. :yup:
It's the government's fault?

:confused:


Originally posted by Piddzilla
And what do you need over there??? All together now!! SOCIALISM!!! :D :D :D Well, or to be a little bit more specific - socialdemocracy. That's the path, man!
What's "socialdemocracy"?

Anyhoo, Caitlyn makes an excellent point: history shows us that it's not recent foreign policy, or Dubya specifically, that's brought this upon us. They've been trying to take us out for over a decade. We could elect Mr. Rogers and they'd still come after us.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Piddzilla


Ooooh, for a while!! I thought it said "for a white"....

He he... ooops!

Yeah, I did hate you for a while! :D But not because you're white but because your face is brown - from being stuck up your ass for too long!!!

:laugh: :scream: :rotfl: :scream: :laugh: :scream: :rotfl: ;D :D ;D :D :)


I'm going to hunt you down and kill you for the dog that you are.


:eek: :laugh: :furiousdevil: :kiss: :laugh:

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Yoda

There IS an objective gripe: intelligence and military spending. Clinton cut it like mad. Bush ran on a platform to increase both.

"Wars are caused by undefended wealth."



This is DEAD on. Clinton cut the defense budget, traded secrets with the Chinese and painted a rosy picture for all of us. He was robbing Peter to pay Paul and now we know it.

Let's not even start making a hero of captain BJ.

[Yoda]

In case anyone was wondering, that quote is courtesy of Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Sir Toose]

"Quote of the day" may be in order here....


:)

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Sir Toose
"Quote of the day" may be in order here....
Oh, I've got grander plans, Sir Toose. I shall contact thee shortly in regards to them. :yup:

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

There IS an objective gripe: intelligence and military spending. Clinton cut it like mad. Bush ran on a platform to increase both.

"Wars are caused by undefended wealth."

Clinton was not the demon many Conservatives make him out to be, but he messed up in regards to budget cuts in those two areas.

Maybe so. I don't think there's any president that wouldn't be regarded as a mess-up in those areas these days. And repbulican presidents always increase that kind of spendings while democrats cut them down, don't they?

It's the government's fault?

:confused:

Well, not only the present government. The governments now and those in the past together with the congress and every single politician on a higher level. There must be a reason to why people hardly bother to vote any longer. They don't trust the politicians anymore. (Or less than ever anyway...).

What's "socialdemocracy"?

Oh, sorry. It's similar to the Labour Party in Britain. Socialdemocracy has its roots in socialism just like communism. But unlike communism it seeks change through reforms instead of revolution. And also, it's democratic, also unlike communism. In the 30's the nazis and the communists in Germany joined togehther to stop the german socialdemocrats.

I think it started and developed in Germany in the end of th 19th century. In Sweden the Socialdemokratiska Arbetarepartiet (SAP) (something like The Socialdemocratic Labour Party or Worker's Party) grew stronger in the beginning of the 20th century. It gained a lot influence among the unions and the working class. Sweden was a very poor country during this time and when the socialdemocats finally won power they slowly turned the country around from a third world country to a modern and rich country.

Socialdemocracy used to be a strictly left wing party - socialistic, but democratic. Nowadays it's more like a mix between that and liberalism. It's somewhere in the middle, I would say. The party has gone from almost 50% of the votes to around 40%, mostly because some of the voters think that the party isn't true to its origin - which is total solidarity with the working class. But I like them. :D I think that today they have more in common with the swedish liberal party, Folkpartiet, but they refuse to govern together with the socialdemocrats. So, instead, the s.d. have to govern with support from the Left Party who are quite out of their mind. (They mean well but they live in a dreamworld).

[Django]

Hi! Just a quick post to let you know that I'm still around, but too busy to address all the issues that have been tossed my way. I'll be back soon enough, though, and address every point in turn! Keep the ball rolling, guys, and talk to you soon! :D ;)

[Django]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan


I'm sorry man, It's just a touchy subject for me. But you're right, we're all a bunch of trigger happy racists, you should be afraid. I mean, we've proven that point already haven't we?

BTW, where are you from and how old are you?

:rolleyes: Where are YOU from and how old are YOU?

[Django]

Originally posted by Sir Toose

First off, I never said whites weren't racist. There you go again Mr. All or Nothing. I said it's not as widespread as our paranoid Django says it is. Where does that racism come from? How the fukk do I know? I can't know the mind of another man. I live my life, love my kids, give back to society... racial things hardly, if ever, enter my mind. Some of you act like every white guy on the planet walks around counting how many blacks, asians, indians, etc there are while loading our guns. There is a misconception that all white men have money. What kind of sh*t is that? I lived without a roof over my head in my late teens. If someone hates me because of class envy or something they're way off track. They need to look in the mirror. If a black man hates me because a possible ancestor of mine made a possible ancestor of his a slave then it's time for that man to focus on the now and stop crying tears for the past. EVERYONE has hardship in their past. Were there no white or indian slaves?

:rolleyes: YOU'RE the one taking my comments WAAAYYYY out of context and TOTALLY distorting what I said, dude! :yup:

[Piddzilla]

Oh yeah, I meant to say something about that but I forgot.

Toose, I don't think there's too many black people walking around hating white people today because of slavery. I mean, that is probably not the main cause for their hate - if there is any hate.

And what do you know about Django being paranoid? Have you counted the times he's heard a degrading remark referring to the color of his skin or otherwise being treated differently because of that? You say you never think about the race of people and that's good. But do you think it's as easy for non-whites to ignore race when they're constantly reminded about their own? You told the story of your life here on the board a couple of times since I joined and you've often done it to point out that you're not prejudiced. So, what is it about what Django says that is so paranoid? Why is his life story less believable than yours? You say racism isn't wide spread. Maybe that's because you don't experience it where you're at. But I'm sure there's people experiencing racism every year or every month or every day.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Oh yeah, I meant to say something about that but I forgot.

Toose, I don't think there's too many black people walking around hating white people today because of slavery. I mean, that is probably not the main cause for their hate - if there is any hate.




http://www.noi.org/

[Caitlyn]

Originally by Piddzilla

What I can't understand is how US can describe the Gulf War as a success when apparently the americans had more casualties than the iraqies. I mean, they always say that the Vietnam war was the only war that US ever lost - but not even in that one did the americans have more casualties than the other side.

The Gulf War was deemed a success because the objective was obtained…to expel Iraq from Kuwait and give the Kuwaiti people their country back and put the Kuwaiti government back in place… or at least the ones who could be found… 600 Kuwaiti Government officials were missing after the Iraqi invasion and I believe most of them are still unaccounted for… And no, the Americans did not have more casualties then the Iraqis during the actual war but there is no way to determine who has had the most casualties later as a direct result of the war because Saddam Hussein refused to let anyone into his country to check any of his allegations…

[r3port3r66]

If any of you ever get a chance to come to Los Angeles, I suggest you check out the Museum of Tolerance. Inside, it is filled with history and contemporary views about racism.

One thing you'll have to do before you enter the museum is stand in front of two doors with your group. One door is labeled "predjudiced" and the other, "not prejudiced". The guide then asks you to enter the museum through the door that best decribes you.

Take a moment now, and think about which door you would enter, then when you have your answer reveal the spoiler below.

The "not prejudice door" does not open, it is locked. The tour guide then says EVERYONE is prejudiced in some way, and you enter the museum

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by r3port3r66


Take a moment now, and think about which door you would enter, then when you have your answer reveal the spoiler below.

The "not prejudice door" does not open, it is locked. The tour guide then says EVERYONE is prejudiced in some way, and you enter the museum


I don't like midgets.


:p

[Django]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Oh yeah, I meant to say something about that but I forgot.

Toose, I don't think there's too many black people walking around hating white people today because of slavery. I mean, that is probably not the main cause for their hate - if there is any hate.

And what do you know about Django being paranoid? Have you counted the times he's heard a degrading remark referring to the color of his skin or otherwise being treated differently because of that? You say you never think about the race of people and that's good. But do you think it's as easy for non-whites to ignore race when they're constantly reminded about their own? You told the story of your life here on the board a couple of times since I joined and you've often done it to point out that you're not prejudiced. So, what is it about what Django says that is so paranoid? Why is his life story less believable than yours? You say racism isn't wide spread. Maybe that's because you don't experience it where you're at. But I'm sure there's people experiencing racism every year or every month or every day.

Well said, my friend! :yup:

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Caitlyn


The Gulf War was deemed a success because the objective was obtained…to expel Iraq from Kuwait and give the Kuwaiti people their country back and put the Kuwaiti government back in place… or at least the ones who could be found… 600 Kuwaiti Government officials were missing after the Iraqi invasion and I believe most of them are still unaccounted for… And no, the Americans did not have more casualties then the Iraqis during the actual war but there is no way to determine who has had the most casualties later as a direct result of the war because Saddam Hussein refused to let anyone into his country to check any of his allegations…

I just don't believe that the number of american lives lost in that war is higher than the number of iraqi lives lost. I tried to search the Internet for a good source on the subject but couldn't even find a bad source. However, I know that human rights organisations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty claim that the number of iraqi lives lost is somewhere around 150 000, of which half were civilians and those lives were lost during the eight months the war lasted.

[Caitlyn]

Originally posted by Piddzilla

I just don't believe that the number of american lives lost in that war is higher than the number of iraqi lives lost. I tried to search the Internet for a good source on the subject but couldn't even find a bad source. However, I know that human rights organisations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty claim that the number of iraqi lives lost is somewhere around 150 000, of which half were civilians and those lives were lost during the eight months the war lasted.

Somewhere along the way we seem to have gotten our wires crossed because I never meant the Americans suffered more losses then the Iraqis during the Gulf War…

The Gulf War only lasted 6 weeks, not 8 months... but there was an uprising in Iraq directly following the cease fire when Kurdish and Shi'ite Muslims attempted to oust Saddam Hussein from power… If I remember correctly, the number of Iraqi casualties listed by various humanitarian organizations also include the tens of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims who died or disappeared during that time…so if the numbers listed by humanitarian organizations are in fact correct, then Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath regime share the burden and Americans are not solely responsible as so many seem to believe…

[LordSlaytan]

The major portion of Iraqi casualties were inflicted by the allies, and although the war only lasted a few weeks on paper, that didn’t mean that all was peaceful after that time had elapsed. There were still engagements happening in areas throughout Iraq, involving Allied troops, well after the war had officially ended. From what I understood the Allies lost a mere 200+ troops, while the Iraqis lost a whopping 200,000+! It won’t be this crystal clear again, I’m afraid.

[Piddzilla]

Thank you for clearing that out for me. That's pretty close to the information I heard too.