Yes, we are going not to war, but to get Saddam out of power.

It is in the works as I type! I have a Brother in the know and is a done deal!

Baghdad will not be hailstormed but has been suggested to any CNN reporters, do not be there!

Even most pof the Arab Countries want Saddam out, but will not publicieze it.

Two scenerios, assination, or retire to a country that will have him! That is the deal or Bombing! Even Kaddafi hates his guts and he does not say much after he was a target!

The countries that the Military is the most worried about are the Pakistanies and the N Koreans! They both have Nuke power which came from the little countries that left the Soviet Union!

There is so much armament missing and being sold it is not funny!

Beleive it or not, both Russia and China are trying to keep N Korea in check! China is sending food and money to N K but theonly ones being fes is N K Mill. man army, the rest of the country is starving by the thousnads!

Hell am getting to tired to type well so screw it!



TTFN! Ya All!:)

last night i found out one of my really good friends, paul, ( and the former president of FKQ here) is shipping out on friday for the middle east. He's in the Army ROTC here in Iowa and he was called up...

I didn't want to go to war in the first place... now i really really don't want us to go.

Well guys it's not looking good...driving back from home the other day I saw a truck and on it were two tanks painted a sickeningly familiar "sand" color. I nearly cried when I saw that. Why else would they order tanks painted to blend in to the desert sands? And here's an interesting tidbit for ya, all of you who are discussing media and censorship and what not. I'm fluent in Arabic (little known fact) and I listened to what one of the Iraqi officials were saying (in Arabic) on CNN and it was NOT the same as what the translator said. AT ALL. Basically what dude said was fairly, well...non aggressive, but the translator 'made him say' something completely different, and, well, aggressive. Does that scare anyone else????? My theory is that CNN is just being Bush's puppet and trying to scare us "ignorants" into thinking that this war is a great idea. I too pray for all of our soldiers, AND those serving from other countries. It's a job I'd be hard pressed to take. God bless them all!

swissmiss, that is a very interesting perspective. if you had not mentioned the fact that translators can make other people 'say' things, and make all of us believe they are being majorly aggressive, I probably wouldn't have thought about it.

I just wish perspectives like this got more attention from media so the people of this country could know more about the situation.

Many US military vehicles nowadays are painted in desert colors; in days of old the camouflage de rigeur was 'Woodland', designed for the forests of Central Europe.

Quote:

And here's an interesting tidbit for ya, all of you who are discussing media and censorship and what not. I'm fluent in Arabic (little known fact) and I listened to what one of the Iraqi officials were saying (in Arabic) on CNN and it was NOT the same as what the translator said. AT ALL. Basically what dude said was fairly, well...non aggressive, but the translator 'made him say' something completely different, and, well, aggressive. Does that scare anyone else????? My theory is that CNN is just being Bush's puppet and trying to scare us "ignorants" into thinking that this war is a great idea. I too pray for all of our soldiers, AND those serving from other countries. It's a job I'd be hard pressed to take. God bless them all!

I'd hafta digress on that... out of all the networks, CNN, while it has a liberal slant on things, is somewhat objective in their news coverage. I would have agreed with ya if it was Fox News, which is staunchly conservative.

Translation is one thing, interpretation is quite another. Considering how Arabic can be a very subtle language to interpret (I speak fluent Spanish, but not Arabic) and if the translator is not skilled in the nuances of a foreign language could lead to misinterpretation.

Case in point: during the closing days of WW II the Japanese issued a statement that was misinterpreted by the Americans. It hinged on the use of one Japanese word, 'mokusatsu' (literally, 'killing with silence'). Needless to say, the Americans took it as meaning the Japanese weren't even going to consider unconditional surrender, and this accelerated the decision to using the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Here's an excellent definition on how it's used: (source: http://www.apmforum.com/columns/boye36.htm)

Quote:

Mokusatsu refers to the idea of "killing" the other party's case or proposition by letting it die in the vacuum of silence. Americans and other aggressive types are especially susceptible to being tripped up by time gaps because they have been conditioned to abhor vacuums - to jump into any gap in a conditioned reflex to keep the dialogue from lagging or stopping. Too often the foreign side presumes that the Japanese do not understand the points that were made, or that they have not yet accepted the reasoning of the foreign side and need more convincing. This presumption regularly leads to hurried repetitions and frequently to on-the-spot revisions or compromises that favor the Japanese. The proper defense for a mokusatsu ploy is simple. Just do as the Japanese do - rest and think, make use of the break to refer to notes, hold private discussions with your own colleagues, and so on. It also pays to introduce your own time gaps, and have control of the ball.

My prayers to our servicemen and women about to go into battle.

swissmiss- Basically what dude said was fairly, well...non aggressive, but the translator 'made him say' something completely different, and, well, aggressive. Does that scare anyone else?????

Shades of the book, "The Ugly American" a must read for everyone.

Now it is explained that France and Germany have HUGE financial interests in KEEPING Sadahm in power, or at LEAST keeping the status quo as far as oil is concerned. Plus, the govt. of Iraq-which of course translates into Sadahm- owes Germany something like 6 or 7 BILLION dollars! Is it just more rhetoric?
AMERICAN news sources ae implying that Germany and France's anti war stance is no so much a call for peace as a call for retaining the current balance of power where OIL (there it is again) is concerned. Plus, yes they do see us as too strong and know that a change in regeims would most likely favor the US position. No wonder they are balking. Still, Rumsfeld's comments were a far cry from diplomtic statement.


Intersting article from The Jordan Times dated Jan. 31 2001!
exerpts-from Spain's perspective. (Funny, that so many say we haven't given Iraq enough time.)

"We have always believed that the solution to the Iraqi problem had to be political," he said.

His one-day mission to Baghdad aimed to "listen to the Iraqis" and evaluate the deadlock caused by "Iraq's refusal to accept UN inspectors."

"In this context, there have been encouraging developments lately, as Iraq has accepted for the first time to talk to the UN to find a way out of the current impasse," the envoy said.
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/01312001001.htm

interesting news from the Iraqi front...
 

CNN just reported this on their website:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- President Saddam Hussein's eldest son Uday has warned the United States of huge losses and a calamity worse than the September 11 attacks if it goes ahead with plans to invade Iraq.

"It is better for them (the Americans) to keep themselves away from us," Uday was quoted as saying on Thursday night by al-Shabab (Youth) television which he owns.

"Because if they come, September 11 which they are crying over and see as a big thing will be a real picnic for them, God willing," Uday said, referring to suicide hijacker attacks in New York and Washington which killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

"They will be hurt and pay a price they will never imagine," he added, repeating similar comments in an editorial in Thursday's Babel daily, which Uday also owns.

Uday said the Americans could get more gains from Iraq without war, saying that Washington would fail in ousting President Saddam Hussein.

"They can get much more from Iraq by dialogue without resorting to the logic of force and war," he said.

The United States believes Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction from U.N. arms inspectors and has threatened to disarm him by force if necessary. Iraq denies having such weapons.

President George W. Bush's administration, which is building up a major military force in the Gulf area, has said the release of a U.N. Iraqi weapons inspections report on January 27 will be an "important date" in deciding how to react against Baghdad.

"They (inspectors) will discover that we do not have these things, we are not lying, we are telling the truth, we have no proscribed weapons," Uday said.

===============================
If you don't want to read it all, it basically says Saddam's eldest son said if the American invasion occurs, it will come at a high price for all Americans and make 9/11 look like 'a picnic'.

This leaves me thinking 2 things:
1. First of all why is this guy saying Americans will pay a price higher than the lives lost at 9-11? This really worries me.

2. *How* is America going to 'pay'? Does this mean they do have these weapons? Or??

3. Or is this an example of how they are being misinterpreted by the translators?

Question. :rolleyes:

What gives US the right to question other countries about having weapons on mass destruction?

Re: interesting news from the Iraqi front...
 

Typical war-mongering bluster... remember the 'mother of all battles' in '91? However, I'd keep an eye out for Uday Hussein... he's reputed to be even more bloodthirsty than his old man.

Quote:

2. *How* is America going to 'pay'? Does this mean they do have these weapons? Or??

Probably... that's why they're playing 'hide the evidence' and jerking UNSCOM's chain, and we're not buying it. Maybe not a workable nuclear device, but don't discount them using radiological waste and make 'dirty bombs'. Poor man's nukes, but just as deadly.

I'd be more worried about chem or bio weapons, since it is a known fact Saddam has 'em and has used 'em.

I don't think Saddam understands the meaning of the famous saying of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Two years later Yamamoto was ambushed by American forces and killed.

It's already been said that should Saddam or any terrorist organization with ties to Iraq detonates a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon on US troops, interests or people, the US military reserves the right to respond in kind. God forbid this should ever happen...

Quote:

3. Or is this an example of how they are being misinterpreted by the translators?

Unlikely this time... be aware that just like Spanish, there are several dialects of Arabic, and one word's meaning in Algerian Arabic could mean something entirely different in Iraqi Arabic. (I speak fluent Spanish with a Venezuelan dialect and accent(though I'll throw in some Cuban or Puerto Rican just to confuse things), and I have a hard time understanding Mexican Spanish and its slang.)

Simple... certain other countries who already have the Bomb or are at the point of deploying one aren't afraid to sell 'em or give 'em away to the highest bidder, namely terrorists. India and Pakistan have itchy trigger fingers and looking for an excuse to annihilate each other. Israel isn't afraid to use their (officially non-existent) nuclear arsenal if Saddam hoses off a few Scuds with chem or bio agents. They've already informed the US through the 'back channel' to stay out of the way if that should happen.

We've unleashed the nuclear genie twice in anger over 55 years ago, and got into an arms race with the former Soviet Union that practically guaranteed the total annihilation of planet Earth several times over if they were all used. The nuclear planners called this unlikely scenario a 'war-gasm' and for good reason.

Since I sparked interest on the whole translator thing (which still wigs me out, sorry!) here's another question: Would you not think that if you were a fairly reputable news organization (like CNN) you would make darn sure and certain that your translators had "the skill" to interpret. And yes there are dialects within the Arabic language (as in all languages). There's the dialect from the Magrihb countries (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia), ECA (Egyptian Colloquial Arabic), Gulf dialect (Yemen, Omar, Bahrain, Saudi, etc) and then MSA (modern standard arabic). MSA is what is universally understood and used in the Arab world, particularly by government and media figures. From what little I heard of him, none of his language was dialectic in nature. And sorry for the language lesson....I guess if it's ever a question on Jeopardy you'll thank me. :rolleyes:

I remember watching the HBO movie Live from Baghdad (about the CNN crew that scooped everybody and got caught in the middle of a war :) ) the other day and noticed a scene where Robert Wiener (played by Michael Keaton) hires an Egyptian woman right at the hotel desk for $100 a day. And she certainly wasn't a professional translator, just a tourist.

In Spanish, we have the 'King's Spanish' (much like British English), spoken with a distinctive 'lisp' and very formal, to the very colloquial and informal Mexican Spanish, spoken with a distinct sing-song accent. And your variations in between European and Latin American Spanish. Argentinian and Chilean Spanish has a somewhat European feel to it (and many Latinos poke fun at the distinctive Argentinian accent -- the (in)famous Commie revolutionary Ernesto Guevara earned the famous nickname 'Che' from his Argentinian-accented Spanish -- they seem to like to inject the word 'che' (almost like 'bud' or 'buddy') everywhere).

Cuban and Caribbean Spanish is spoken very rapidly. Venezuelan Spanish, while it's actually in South America, is grouped as a Caribbean accent. Colombia has a distinctive accent, though Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay tend to speak a neutral accent. The same goes with the countries in Central America, the farther they are from Mexico, the accent is more neutral.

There is a version of Spanish similar to the 'Modern Standard Arabic' that's somewhat jokingly called 'Walter Cronkite Spanish' -- only used in government and news, though many of the anchorpersons give themselves away with their accents.

Steve, you are so right!

In your position and the people that I know there are many things going on!

The question is, how many people really know????

Oh, by the way, give ACK ACK a Happy Birthday on This Thread! After all even though heis from Texas He is still a Brother!:cool: :D :)

When I was home over X-mas break, I would be woken up by all of the helicopters flying over. One time I went outside to see what the commotion was and there were six helicopters, and I've also seen the Apache helicopter fly over a few times... I do not want to go to war. :eek:

We'll I would have to say that in the case of CNN it has a lot to do with ratings.... now hear me out. If you turn to CNN all they talk about it the showdown with Iraq (roughly 80% of coverage). Alot of people turn to CNN for their news and as long as you keep an "air" of tension there is a spike in the numbers of viewers as well as viewing time (this was mention in a sociology course that I sat in on). While i'm not saying that it is intentional, there might be a sub-consious effort to keep the story "riveting". Also you have to remember that the CNN you watch is broadcast only in Canada and the US... the feed to international is marganially different.

Now being in Canada i'm lucky enough to get not only US broadcasts but also Canadian and British (BBC) braodcasts. Just from watching I have noticed that the US newscasts are always more beligerent in their tone and "sound-bites". In the case of translations; the CBC, BBC, and International CNN usually differ signifacntly from the US CNN - the translations are usually alot more "diplomatic sounding" and teand to not be so harsh... which I tend to believe is closer to that actual language. Afterall even if the regime is headed by a raving lunatic, you still have to have a diplomatic or proganda staff that is somewhat competent.