Iraq In Transition Show a Hit On Iraqi TV

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vniow, Aug 8, 2004.

  1. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #1
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0408030227aug03,1,3035066.story
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  4. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #4
    Well that nice of them. It won't cover the houses destroyed during the most intense part of the bombings. Am I reading this right?.
     
  5. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #5
    Sounds to me like they are financed by private enterprise ventures not the government, so what is wrong with them setting the criteria for which houses they rebuild themselves their own way?
     
  6. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #6
    read the quote. Its funded by American compensation programs. It's a good thing what they are doing but i think compensation should cover all events after march 2003 when the war started and all the main destruction happened.

    why?
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Because the war was an Act of God, of course.
     
  8. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #8
    leo, what have you got to say in defense of this policy? What does fox have to say about it?
     
  9. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #9
    I don't know what Fox has to say about it.
    I'm not sure which policy that you mean.
    If you are talking about some stupid tv show, limiting itself to which houses get paid to be rebuilt and which ones don't, I don't think it is a good policy for the US to pay for the tv show at all. It should be paid for by a private enterprise.

    I don't think the US should get into the business of financially rewarding those we have gone to war with. I understand it wasn't the civilians fault, but if we only go to war when we can afford to rebuild them then we would have fewer wars in our own best interests. That should not be a criteria that is looked at prior to a war. That is the price they paid for their freedom. That is the price they paid for not rebelling on their own and fighting their own damn war.
     
  10. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #10
    i'm talking about the compensation programs that don't cover houses destroyed during the war. The TV show is a good idea IMHO because it lets eveyone see what they are doing. But the real issue is that houses are being rebuilt (paid for by US compensation and rightly so) but only ones destroyed since after the combat operations, why?
    Financially rewarding? What the ****? If the US war machine had been in the least bit competent or if they had decided on a much more low key precise sub-war then they wouldn't have all these ruined civilians houses.

    Look, you've got to wake up Leo. You live in the richest country in the world, which in itself is a damned privilege. You can't sit their and tell other countries they need to look after their own and fight their own wars when they clearly haven't got the means to do it. Its our responsibility as rich nations to help the poorer ones to bring some equality into the world. Isn't that the goal that mankind should be aiming towards? Now that sounds like I'm justifying the war on Iraq. I'm not, the iraq war was the biggest farce in the name of world peace in my living memory. (Not long).
    I'm not sure if any of this makes sense, but I'm Ill and I've just quite my job.

    I'm just gonna finish by saying that the world is becoming an increasingly divided place between those who are materialistic and those who aren't. The materialistic people look to work hard and look after their own so they can live in comfort, in doing so they shut themselves off from the world and its uncomfortableness, they compete for resources to increase their own comfort and the comfort of those around them. meanwhile people starve and wars and social disease are rife with the ones who aren't able to keep up. The less materialistic people realise that we shouldn't be competing, because in the end we all want the same thing. They find happiness in others and in this beautiful world we live in, the problem is they can't because everyone is competing around them, and institutions exist that serve no purpose but to add more numbers onto some other numbers in a bank account, things that don't actually mean ANYTHING, that people devote their entire energy and lives too. In turn ****ing those less fortunate over.

    Whatever I'm sick and tired and going to go sleep/

    rant off
     

Share This Page