Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 17

Thread: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

  1. #9
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    (A few minutes? Arrianna, my response is taking hours even if it isn't directed at me)
    You're more then welcome to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    As we all know, the US and its allies bypassed the UN and went to war even as they were still debating the legality of it all.
    Actually they didn't. What you are repeating here is what I call "instant revision". The media especially is guilty of it just as Ninrev was complaining of. It is the attempt to rewrite history either the instant it happens or while it is still happening. As a result, media personal who didn't care for the war in Iraq started reporting it as "illegal" a "travesty" and a "violation of human rights" the moment things were set in action. Sure there are accusations but that doesn't make them true.

    Forgive me but I remember it well as my family hung on every instant.

    The first thing you have to remember is that we were already at war with Iraq in a UN approved action. You also need to realize that the UN had already sanctioned Iraq telling them they needed to comply with X or they would invade. Iraq didn't and neither did the UN. Ergo, under UN rules and descisions already handed down there was already the necessary ground work laid for a legal invasion.

    The next thing you need to realize is that because of this and because of numerous failed attempts at arbitration over several years, Pres. Bush didn't need approval from the UN. By their own laws he was already with in his rights. By US law he didn't even need the consent of congress. However he didn't walk on either. First he brought all the evidence at his disposal to the congress. In the House the vote was 296 yea and 133 nay. In the Senate it was 77 yea and 23 nay. Therefore it was approved.

    In the UN things were a bit more complicated. President Bush gave the UN a deadline by which to suceed at arbitration or he would move in. Not one referendum that came before the UN claimed that he didn't have the right to do it. The referendums that did come foreward that would either support the US or actually enforce present sanctions were all overruled by the delegations from the same countries that would shortly be found to have illegally dipped their hands into the oil-for-food program. The UN was deadlocked. The deadline passed, Pres Bush still gave them extra time to try, and then finally invaded with the support of many other countries. All legal and above board.

    Immediatly there were accusations by enemies of the US that they had acted illegally. They were shot down hard by both specialists in international law and other members of the UN. The illegality claim is nothing more then a political ploy by those who didn't support the war and it still is. The media of course picked it up immediatly and have done their best to run with it.


    Facts Sib. Much of what people believe to be common truth is nothing more then media spin. How often does somthing have to be repeated before it is called "truth"? I am personlly tired of people lying in order to accuse someone else of being a lier. If their "facts" are built on sand they deserve to be washed away, I only hope they are.
    Last edited by Arrianna; Jul 21, 2005 at 11:15 AM.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  2. #10
    Otaku yanna may be famous one day yanna may be famous one day yanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    somehere with the readneck of texas
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    I couldnt tell you what the whole reasoning behind the war in Iraq is but I know there are quite a few kids from my home town who are over there and I think our town has lost two boys because we are a small town and all so but I hope that the war is over soon.
    I am insane and I am loving every hour of it? Any problems?

  3. #11
    Sib
    Sib is offline
    Otaku Sib may be famous one day Sib may be famous one day Sib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    …media personal who didn't care for the war in Iraq started reporting it as "illegal" a "travesty" and a "violation of human rights" the moment things were set in action. Sure there are accusations but that doesn't make them true.
    It doesn’t make them wrong either. I’m not an MP, military commander or a UN delegate, so I don’t have access to a lot of the information they are privy to. So… even if the media spins a lot of what it says, it’s all I have to go on. I assume it’s the same with everyone else on here as well.

    But since each media source reports on events slightly differently, the best that you or I can hope to do is gather the information available and attempt to piece together a picture that is not only possible but believable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    The first thing you have to remember is that we were already at war with Iraq in a UN approved action. You also need to realize that the UN had already sanctioned Iraq telling them they needed to comply with X or they would invade. Iraq didn't and neither did the UN. Ergo, under UN rules and descisions already handed down there was already the necessary ground work laid for a legal invasion.
    Though the war never actually ended in an official sense, I never heard of any large scale military operations on behalf of Iraq that would warrant an escalation of the war on the scale we’ve seen. Whatever the problems inherent with international policy, International law is written down and permanent. Given the unreliability of the media that we have discussed, I’m using these laws as the basis of my arguments that will follow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    The next thing you need to realize is that because of this and because of numerous failed attempts at arbitration over several years, Pres. Bush didn't need approval from the UN. By their own laws he was already with in his rights. By US law he didn't even need the consent of congress. However he didn't walk on either. First he brought all the evidence at his disposal to the congress. In the House the vote was 296 yea and 133 nay. In the Senate it was 77 yea and 23 nay. Therefore it was approved.
    I don’t know much about US law, but I’m curious as to how approval of congress alone makes the war legal. International law does not recognise the policies of individual states, and under international law, the use of force can only be brought to bare should the UN security council deem in necessary.

    During the process of laying out the case for war at the UN, the US and UK both relied heavily on UN resolutions 949, 1154 and 1441. These resolutions warned of ‘severe consequences’ (possible invasion) should Iraq fail to live up to the demands made by the UN. However, these resolutions were addressed towards Iraq and not the member states. It was done in this way to prevent individual states taking unilateral action.

    Under the 1969 Vienna Convention, Section 3, Article 3, any treaty must be in accordance with its objects and purposes, including it’s preamble.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vienna Convention
    SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
    Article 31
    General rule of interpretation
    1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

    2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
    (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
    (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
    3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
    (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
    (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
    (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
    4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

    Source: http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm
    This means that any charter, including the UN charter is not be taken as a guidebook, but AS LAW.

    The UN charter provides the framework for the use of force international law. Almost all states are party to the charter, including Iraq, the US and the UK. The charter emphasises that peace is the fundamental aim of the charter and is to be preserved if at all possible.
    The preamble expresses the determination ’to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, ’to practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’, ’to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security’, and to ensure, ’that armed force is not used, save in the common interest.’

    Article 1 of the charter sets out the purpose of the United Nations. The first is…
    Quote Originally Posted by UN Charter: Article 1.1
    To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
    Article 2 sets out 2 further principles.
    Quote Originally Posted by UN Charter: Article 2
    2(3)All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

    2(4)All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
    These 2 articles mean that the use of force can only be justified as expressly provided under the charter, and only in situations where it is consistent with the UN’s principles.

    Basically, under international law, force in Iraq would only be justified if…

    a) Iraq mounted a direct attack against the US or it’s allies and that ally requested the support of the US.
    b) An attack on the US or one of it’s allies was imminent and couldn’t be diverted by any other means that armed force.
    c) The United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.

    Iraq did not directly attack the US or it’s allies in the run up to military escalation. Iraq did not threaten to attack the US or it’s allies in the run up to military escalation and the UN did not authorise the use of force in clear terms.

    The US went to war in Iraq with the aims of removing Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to bring about a change in leadership. The US considered the war to be justified on the basis of the right to carry out pre-emptive strikes in self defence (September 11th), and on the basis of existed UN security council resolutions. I’ve just shown that neither of these justifications are valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by UN Charter: Article 42
    Article 42
    Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 (see previous post) would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
    This means that the use of force can only be justified by the UN if all other peaceful means of resolving the dispute are exhausted. Furthermore, this article does not imply that should a member state believe that another state has failed to adhere to a security council resolution, they do not have unilateral right to use force to secure adherence or ’punish’ that state. It’s a decision for the security council to make.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    President Bush gave the UN a deadline by which to suceed at arbitration or he would move in. Not one referendum that came before the UN claimed that he didn't have the right to do it.
    A referendum was not required since the charter already said he didn’t have the right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    …a country that had already declared war on them and had been attacking their soldiers for years. Personally I believe that shows restraint that they waited so long under such provocation…

    The UN was deadlocked. The deadline passed, Pres Bush still gave them extra time to try, and then finally invaded with the support of many other countries. All legal and above board.
    I don’t think Bush showed the restraint that probably should have done. True things in the UN were proceeding slowly, but with Iraq posing no imminent threat to international security Ihave to disagree with the idea of having a deadline.
    Quote Originally Posted by UN Charter: Article 39
    The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
    [post length too long]

    Hmmm... He's not technically human, so it wouldn't really be like cannibalism...
    .:Anime Relfections:.l.:SibArt (Being Updated):.

  4. #12
    Sib
    Sib is offline
    Otaku Sib may be famous one day Sib may be famous one day Sib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    [continued]
    Shortly before the war, Iraq offered to hold further talks with the UNMOVIC, the UN weapons inspectorate. Before those talks are held, or the offer withdrawn, it would be premature to conclude that no alternatives to force are available. The majority of the security council wanted these talks to proceed as directed by the UN charter, and should they have failed, then the security council may have concluded that force had to be used in order to get Iraq to comply.

    Tony Blair used the excuse that even should the talks fail, the security council may still decide not to use force, and hence force should be used to ensure nobody can turn a blind eye to this. This argument implies that the use of force is the decision of individual states and that the UN need only endorse such action. This ignores the fundamental position of the UN as a forum of collective decision making.

    Regardless as to what the US congress or UK parliament said about the legality of the war, International clearly shows that the escalation of the war in Iraq was not justified. Nations may not act unilaterally and may not use force unless the use of force is granted by the security council.

    Bush made a deadline to the UN knowing full well that the debate was likely to be intense and the process slow. What would it have hurt to have postponed further military action another few months or even a year longer in order to get the UN to conclude force was needed?

    All in all, it paints a nice picture of Bush and Blair sitting in a office yelling ‘Ye-haw!’ and ‘Tally-ho!’.

    Additional source: www.un.org
    Last edited by Sib; Jul 22, 2005 at 01:26 PM.

    Hmmm... He's not technically human, so it wouldn't really be like cannibalism...
    .:Anime Relfections:.l.:SibArt (Being Updated):.

  5. #13
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    Well done.

    Your still missing the significance of the fact that The US and The UK were already at war with Iraq. It's the reason the armistic is so important. When Iraq fired on US and UK troops it reopened UN approved hostilities and itself broke all approved treaties. As for waiting a year for negotiations, negotiations had been going on for 8 years. Iraq had broken numerous UN mandates and even throw the UN out multiple times. When infractions have been going on for 8 years why wait one more year? Or in other words:
    Basically, under international law, force in Iraq would only be justified if…

    a) Iraq mounted a direct attack against the US or it’s allies and that ally requested the support of the US.
    b) An attack on the US or one of it’s allies was imminent and couldn’t be diverted by any other means that armed force.
    c) The United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.
    a) Iraq was attacking US and UK troops constantly and consistently.
    b) The evidence indicated that such an attack could be considered imminent since Iraq had gathered troops on the Kuwait border again and there was every reason to believe Saddam had plans to use the WMD's he believed he had (testimony from deserters).
    c) Armistic, the UN had already approved force in the on-going war as well as your afore mentioned UN resolutions 949, 1154 and 1441.

    But since you wondered about the significance of congress and US law.

    In the US the UN is NOT the final athority, that is the US executive and legislative (and judicial) branch. By our constitutional law no treaty or international "law" is binding on the US unless the Congress has ratified it (and the Surpreme court hasn't overturned it as unconstitutional) even if it has been signed by the President. That is why the President going to the Congress is significant. By US laws if the US chooses to go to war international law has no say in the matter outside of Congressionally ratified treaties and even then there are exceptions (a treaty can be considered to have lapsed if the circumstances surrounding it have changed significanty). The President can take any action he wishes (Commander in Chief) for X days before it has to be approved by the Congress. The President can declare the US to be at war but that also has to be ratified by Congress. Most significantly, any other countries military fireing upon US military personal is considered a declaration of war by said country and requires no ratification of Congress for recourse.

    The UN can have a thousand and one rules and regulations, but unless it is ratified and recognized by Congress it IS NOT BINDING. One document that is recognized and ratified by Congress is the Geneva Convention. Which is why you will hear it mentioned most often by those discussing US international affairs these days.


    Alot of people say, why didn't the US invade X or Y instead or as well. The answer, because of a and b. President Bush has made it clear that unless a country offers clear provocation (like harboring known terrorists who have attacked the US or shooting at military personal) or the US is invited in by a legitimate governing body he will not do so. Under constitutional law c is not necessary but entirely at the consideration of the President.


    Or in other words, to understand international law it is also necessary to understand the laws of individual countries and how they are or are not impacted by them.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  6. #14
    Sib
    Sib is offline
    Otaku Sib may be famous one day Sib may be famous one day Sib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    Thanks.

    One thing strikes me as odd though. Since Bush had the legal right under US law to escalate the Iraq war, and the UN charter seemingly doesn't impact this right... why did he use the UN charter and resolutions as part of his case for war? If you are going to use UN resolutions as an excuse to invade, doesn't it make sense to NOT act unless the UN approves action?
    If the UN had authorised further action in Iraq, no questions of legality would exist. Now we have a war that is leagl, but not very? Is that even possible?
    Quote Originally Posted by Secutary General Kofi Anan, 16th September 2004.
    (When asked if the Iraq war was illegal during an interview on the BBC World Service)

    "Yes if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
    The UN's position couldn't be clearer since it's leader has specifically used the word 'illegal' to describe the Iraq war.
    Mr. Anan later went on to say that there should have been a second resolution specifically authorizing war against Iraq. Tony Blair and Jack Straw (British Home Secutary) tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a skeptical security council, who turned out to be right in the end.

    Another thing that confuses me is the timing of the attacks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    ...negotiations had been going on for 8 years. Iraq had broken numerous UN mandates and even throw the UN out multiple times. When infractions have been going on for 8 years why wait one more year?
    Why is it now that the US and UK attack? The previous US administration under President Clinton never once mentioned the possiblity of invading Iraq, even though these 'acts of war' were no less uncommon. If Clinton had been in power during the September 11th attacks, would this war still have happened?

    So could the current administration be a stand alone complex (been wanting to use that term in conversation) in the Iraq war? Bush has already described himself as a 'war president', which could be interpreted beyond its political meaning. Take this for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bush, Republican debate March 2000
    "The United States must help Taiwan defend itself. The Chinese can figure out what that means, but that's going to mean a resolute stand on my part."
    No US president before Bush ever publicly stated that the US would commit forces on behalf of Taiwan should there ever be a China-Taiwan war. The simple reason for this is beause no previous president in their right mind wanted to risk a war with China over Taiwan. Furthermore, according to Chinese law, they have the right to invade Taiwan as it is considered to be a seperatist state. So if it's legal for the US to invade Iraq without expressed UN approval, it's also legal for China to invade Taiwan in the same manner.

    Bush seems to crave war and conflict. It's a selfimposed image that's he's put upon himself. Combine this image with what i've gathered from the media ect, it's hard for me to accept that at least his motives for war, were not necessarily based upon the common good.

    Hmmm... He's not technically human, so it wouldn't really be like cannibalism...
    .:Anime Relfections:.l.:SibArt (Being Updated):.

  7. #15
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    Thanks.

    One thing strikes me as odd though. Since Bush had the legal right under US law to escalate the Iraq war, and the UN charter seemingly doesn't impact this right... why did he use the UN charter and resolutions as part of his case for war?
    Again, it's a matter of the whole picture. President Bush didn't ask the UN for permission as is commonly thought, he asked for assistance. There is a big difference. The difference between "this is what I am going to do unless you fix it, will you help" and "may I". There are two quote's from that time that are very telling. (Paraphrased) "If the UN won't enforce it's own ruling I will", and "we have just seen how impotent the UN truly is". They were incapable of accomplishing anything. If you understand how the UN works you know that there are specific countries that have an instant veto power (7 I believe). Any attempt made to actually enforce the previous madates or treaties were being completely overturned by certain members of those countries. Countries later to have discovered to be involved in the Oil for Food debacle. No matter how much the other countries wanted to do something because of the veto power they couldn't through the UN. Corruption forced them to work through the US instead since by US law something could be done and by their own laws they could assist an ally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    Now we have a war that is leagl, but not very? Is that even possible?
    Easily. That is what happens when you deal with laws concerning more then one country. What is legal in one isn't in another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    The UN's position couldn't be clearer since it's leader has specifically used the word 'illegal' to describe the Iraq war.
    I'll say no more then in my experience Mr Anan's word is temporary. As I said before, it was brought up. The experts all agreed that the US was within the law and told them to shut up. Most of those who made the accusation were either enemies of the US or considered to be expressing "sour grapes" at being shown to be so impotent though later we learned at least some of them had other motives. Either way, potato-potatoe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    Mr. Anan later went on to say that there should have been a second resolution specifically authorizing war against Iraq. Tony Blair and Jack Straw (British Home Secutary) tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a skeptical security council, who turned out to be right in the end.
    Make that a corrupt security council. Several members of which were/are guilty of severe human right's violations but could not be brought up before the UN on them because of their positions on the council. Violations that the US was pressing to be recognized and addressed. Many of them are still present.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    Another thing that confuses me is the timing of the attacks.

    Why is it now that the US and UK attack? The previous US administration under President Clinton never once mentioned the possiblity of invading Iraq, even though these 'acts of war' were no less uncommon. If Clinton had been in power during the September 11th attacks, would this war still have happened?
    Probably not. If Clinton hadn't been president we may never have had 9/11. The entire time during his presidency there was an escalation of terrorist attacks and a build up of arms in Iraq. On three seperate occasions Pres. Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laudins head on a platter and "couldn't be bothered". Pres. Cliton had a policy of blindness where both terrorism and the middle east was concerned. That may have been why things built to a head like it did. You may have not seen much happening new combat wise between the US and Iraq but there was an escalation of hostilities occuring both inside and outside of Iraq. Head members of the government were defecting to the US (after Afaganistan) including Sadams own mistriss all of whom said that he was preparing to invade kuwait again and was stockpileing WMD's. His own son defected, returned, and was executed with his family. Iraq was seeking to get ahold of components for an A-bomb. The last part was the biggest concern since after 9-11 one of the first pushes was to figure out where the terrorists were being trained. Guess where one of the biggest training camps was located. Add that to the fact that there was definate intelligence that the terrorists were attempting to get the components to both "dirty bombs" and "pony nukes" and there was definate reason for concern. (A pony nuke is a very small a-bomb.) The invasion was not sudden and quite honestly was built up to for over a year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    So could the current administration be a stand alone complex (been wanting to use that term in conversation) in the Iraq war?
    Yes, if the US had gone in by itself, but it didn't. There were between 30 and 60 countries who commited troops or supplies during the invasion and even more that sent assistance the instant the main "war" was over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    No US president before Bush ever publicly stated that the US would commit forces on behalf of Taiwan should there ever be a China-Taiwan war. The simple reason for this is beause no previous president in their right mind wanted to risk a war with China over Taiwan. Furthermore, according to Chinese law, they have the right to invade Taiwan as it is considered to be a seperatist state. So if it's legal for the US to invade Iraq without expressed UN approval, it's also legal for China to invade Taiwan in the same manner.
    Yes it is. It is also the right of the US to defend them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sib
    Bush seems to crave war and conflict. It's a selfimposed image that's he's put upon himself. Combine this image with what i've gathered from the media ect, it's hard for me to accept that at least his motives for war, were not necessarily based upon the common good.
    I would dissagree. Have you actually listened to his own speaches in entirety or just the rehash offered by the media? I ask because the impression given is complete opposites. When I listen to him in person I get the impression of a honest, loving, man who only hopes he can can do what is best but will not compromise the security of this nation to anyones agenda. When I listen to the media I hear that he's a manipulative, power hungry, manic. Funny thing is when I take the quotes the media gives me and look up the origonal source/speech 90% of the time it has been taken out of context.

    Something to consider.
    Last edited by Arrianna; Jul 22, 2005 at 07:27 PM.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  8. #16
    Newbie GuardianAngel1292 may be famous one day GuardianAngel1292 may be famous one day GuardianAngel1292's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Red face Re: The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

    I have to agree with you on the whole media outlook, and I have to say delivering the straight up truth to the people is pretty noble.I also am or want to be a writer, but it is very hard for me just to state the truth and I always get that urge to throw in my opinion on the situation. Of course I deliver the truth, but then I add my side. I think the media does attack people who speak their minds especially if it's an opposing outlook, which to me is wrong. I respect and encourage the opinions of others for that is what helps create the world.....the knowledge of the people.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts