We are the World

The two faces of humanity.
I found it profoundly touching seeing the exprssion of the Iraqi.
And expressions speak louder than words.



THE HUNTER...

...AND THE HUNTED

Very profound. No need for words here.

Why is it that some must suffer so much in this world....its not fair. Not fair at all.

^^^said^^^

What gives Bush the right to cause such pain as that? What gives him the right?:shk:

So many innocent people die! and for what reason?

Bush knows no one will stand up to him so he is free to do what he wants

what gives Bush the right.... The American People (american ) who havent stood up to him....our apathy has to stop or we are just as guilty as the German citizens who stood ideally by while millions were slaughtered.... our job as citizens to keep our government in check... and while im just as scared as the next person.... we have to do something.... atrocious acts of violence are being perpetrayed in our name and with our money... in a court of law thats enough to be tried and convicted on either conpsiracy to commit murder or accessory before and after the fact... we have not demanded REAL inquiries we have been satified with half truths and pundits full of spin regardless of wether they are blue or red.... these are trully sad days that we are living in but weve made this bed and now we have to deal with it..... hopefully come Nov I wont be the only one voting for a non-incumbent.... exercise your authority ... VOTE! that is the only non-violent mean by which we have to curtail our government.... if after 06/08 things havent changed then it might be time to consider somethign other than voting....either way....the only way to stop Bush and his Cronies is to stop being apathetic.... we have to stand up for what is right.... not what is convienent.

I think this is more accurate as the man was mouning people killed by Sunni insurgents.

The Hunters...



...and the Hunted

An Iraqi father mourns at a local morgue for his two sons, Mohammed, 16, and Ahmed, 18, killed in the previous day's bomb attacks on a soccer field, Thursday, Aug. 3, 2006, in Baghdad, Iraq. The two homemade bombs went off Wednesday afternoon on the soccer field in the mostly Shiite district of Amil in west Baghdad, killing both players and spectators ranging in age from 15 to 25, police 1st Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
/paf38

[edit on 4-8-2006 by AceOfBase]

The real question is: What the F@##$% is WRONG WITH US?????!!!!!!!!!

That is the question. WE, the people are to blame for letting the suffering and mayhem happen.

It is US. Shame on us. WE will pay by being reduced to a fine powder. We deserve it!!!!!

IF WE ALL STOOD UP AND DEMANDED A CHANGE, MAYBE THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE BUT AT LEAST

WE WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING

[edit on 4-8-2006 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I think this is more accurate as the man was mouning people killed by Sunni insurgents.

The Hunters...

...and the Hunted

Thank you. I love all the Bush bashers. He is soooooo evil. Just think when Clinton had bombed Iraq in 98( to cover up one of his many scandels) and then finished the job, this would all be over by now. No balls clinton. I can't wait for Hillary to run, alll those skeltons in that closet. Are they going to have a feild day.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by steve99]

[edit on 4-8-2006 by steve99]

Gotta love all the Clinton haters too steve.... no one said anything about this being exclusive to bush.... if you noticed... i mentioned both Blue and Red getting both sides of the party not just one side... i am an equal opputunity "basher" as you call it... so.... Why the same generic phrases instead of actual thought out ideas? Yes we dislike Bush.... Yes I blame his administration for many things.... however ... keep this in mind... i was only 8(1992?) when Clinton was elected.... but im sure that if i was around i would have been raising cane..... point being he wasnt trying to bash all he was doing was putting up two pictures with one word underneath each...and while they are mildy inflammatory they are not bashing.... he said nothing about the "hunted" man being hunted by Bush... that was something that you assumed he insinuated.... the pictures were ment to stir emotions differently in every person... but i imagine the primary emotion he wanted to evoke was that of compassion for the Iraqi people and the tragic situation that they are in.....

Showing a picture of President Bush labeled as 'The Hunter' with a man (whose son was killed by a terrorist bomb....more innocents) labeled as 'The Hunted' implies that President Bush killed the mans son.

The first post couldn't be farther than the truth.....

You have terrorists blowing up children playing soccer but it seems that in a majority of you that is totally okay. What a pathetic bunch!!

Originally posted by ferretman2
Showing a picture of President Bush labeled as 'The Hunter' with a man (whose son was killed by a terrorist bomb....more innocents) labeled as 'The Hunted' implies that President Bush killed the mans son.

So you would argue that the foreign policies enacted by both Clinton and Bush were not instrumental in the explosion (forgive the pun) of terrorist activity in other lands? This is being fair in my opinion. This is becoming more and more of a mess, and though there was a division of Sunnis and Shiites before the current war, the division wasn't as bad as now, and I see this as being a direct result of foreign policy enacted by Bush and Co, with being enabled by flawed policies created by Clinton during his terms.

A Pathetic bunch? Well you're entitled to your opinions of course, but so is everyone else, and calling fellow members pathetic is not going to do much to further a proper conversation on the subject, now is it?

I also vote that this thread be moved to PTS, imo, it isn't appropriate for ATS as it deals with politics. Just my opinion, of course.

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by ferretman2
Showing a picture of President Bush labeled as 'The Hunter' with a man (whose son was killed by a terrorist bomb....more innocents) labeled as 'The Hunted' implies that President Bush killed the mans son.

So you would argue that the foreign policies enacted by both Clinton and Bush were not instrumental in the explosion (forgive the pun) of terrorist activity in other lands? This is being fair in my opinion. This is becoming more and more of a mess, and though there was a division of Sunnis and Shiites before the current war, the division wasn't as bad as now, and I see this as being a direct result of foreign policy enacted by Bush and Co, with being enabled by flawed policies created by Clinton during his terms.

I totally agree with niteboy here.
Ferretman2 doesn't seem to get the overall picture and the sentiment and the emotions behind the photograph. The pic symbolises one of the thousands who have suffered as a consequence of Western policies.
In Operation 'Shock and Awe' hundreds of innocent Iraqis had the same expression, losing all their family members in wave after wave of deadly missile attacks.

Have you ever felt the pain of losing a near and dear one Ferretman2?

So many Americans bash Bush and praise Clinton now.... thats just as ignorant in my opinion as being pro-Bush religious conservative.

Democracts and Republics- the only two choices you have (realistic choices), mostly differ on matters of domestic policies. But US foreign policy is set in stone. No matter who is in power, US will continue to do everything to expand its influence and acquire the resources and allies it needs- coups, 'liberation', assasinations, false wars, propaganda to demonize the enemy. Clinton did it (Yugoslavia). Bush senior did it. Reagan did it. Every president since FDR did it. And they will do it in the future. Some presidents (Regan, Clinton) are praised, because thousands of US mercenaries didn't die overseas because of their wars. But it does not mean they didn't have a hand in "colnizing" and globalizing the world. The fact is- it seems US presidents have much power over foreign policy. It is decided by national interests, corporations, military agencies, NATO, etc.

Nearly every democracyin the world has a multi-party (more than 2) political system. Nearly every one has more choices during presidential elections than: a. pro-war pro-corporate capitalist who disapproves gay marriage; b. pro-war pro-corporate capitalist who approves gay marriage. All of European nations have socialist (far left), nationalist (far right), and various other parties.


Name one post WWII US president who did not support any dictators, did not organize any coups or military actions, and who furthered worldwide peace in any way. If Americans want to change the way things are going, they need to change their foreign policy. Heck- go back to isolationism ala pre-WWI era. It'll be bad, but better than what you got now- 2/3 of the world despising what is currently done in the name of the US. Or put your power in the hands of UN, and disolve NATO and similar imperialistic tools. UN needs to be reformed, but it stands a better chance in achieve a more peaceful world than a sole-hyperpower policing the world in its interests.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by maloy]

[edit on 4-8-2006 by maloy]

So what we have here is a misleading picture, labeled in such as way as to elicit an emotional response and never intended to kindle any intellectual debate at all.

Blaming all of the insurgent attacks on "Western" policy is exactly like blaming Ford because a drunk ran over someone in a Tuarus. Ridiculous to the sublime.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

Blaming all of the insurgent attacks on "Western" policy is exactly like blaming Ford because a drunk ran over someone in a Tuarus. Ridiculous to the sublime.

Semper

Hang on. You're overshooting the runway.
Can you tell me how many insurgent attacks occured in Iraq pre American invasion?
Ford was'nt driving the Tuarus, but Bush is sure driving American policy!

And by the way, I don't 'hate' Americans. On the contrary I think they're a great people.
And I have a lot many friends there. What I'm bugged about is the policies of the present American government.

Here is an excerpt of what I had written in another thread:

The danger in the seemingly "benevolent" desire by the United States to spread its brand of democracy abroad has been summarized as follows:

The New World Order is one in which the dominant liberal culture tends to diminish awareness of alternative values and ideologies and is conducive to the ready condemnation of others for not conforming to one's own perception of the norms appropriate to them (Hipler, 1995, pp. 9-10).

Determinists contend that "pockets of illiberal creeds, racist norms, patrimonial rituals, and anti-democratic ideologies exist throughout the world, but only Osama bin Ladenism and its variants constitute a serious transnational alternative to liberal democracy today" (McFaul, 2004, p.4).

America is currently led by a determinist president who believes that his "responsibility to history is to 'rid the world of evil'" primarily by ousting 'autocratic' rulers and "spreading democracy."

The result? Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, with Iran, Syria and North Korea coming up and a host of other countries smarting under the imposition of the concept of western style democracy. They rebel because of this conflict of ideology.

And terrorism is born. The only method by which they can stand up to asymmetrical military power.

So, Ford isn't driving a Tuarus, but Bush is sure riding a tiger gone berserk!

[edit on 5-8-2006 by mikesingh]

Not insurgents, but Saddam Killed EXPONENTIALLY more then the insurgents.

Would you rather have that?

It would appear that way.

Semper

That's interesting. Then explain what drove the insurgents to do what they are doing. They are doing this for a reason. If not the West, then what? And please don't use Islam as an excuse.

Downright STUPID this thread is...

Again, would you rather Saddam was still killing the EXPONENTIALLY higher number of women and children? Or do you just want to blame the actions of fanatics on the easiest target, US?


It is an amazing simplification to blame everything on the US, it requires no reading, no real research, all you need is a TV and an emotional response.


Semper

This is something new to the mix. Why not compare the types of treatment each leader exacted on the Iraqi civilians? I bet you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Saddam do not differ in their mistreatment and torture of Iraqi civilians.

However, my previous question still stands. What is the real reason the insurgents are doing this? It is not always just pinned on Islam. There is a political reason in there too.