That was unclear..

lgnorance is caused by you condescending towards others and it destroys dina

Censor what?

oh it didn't censor it
sorry, i;ll complain to my lying friends.

wars are silly things. they are easily avoided, and let's face it, many of those "pros" listed below are selfish. where are those weapons anyway? i'm sure we'll put them in "safe keeping" when we find them.

many people here are ignorant, many are also young so hopefully will overcome this.

and... cracker... just wanted to see if the rumors were tru... if so, anyone used to watch recess? why not censor womps. if not... more *******. to ya, ya *******!

[This message was edited by YNLissa on June 01, 2003 at 07:53 AM.]

i wish dina would come and debate with us instead of shouting her opinion and going off in a huff. it isn't as though nobody here agrees with her...

she seems to have missed entirely the point of this place...

~silver spirit

Whoa...lotsa issues.....

I was being sarcastic

"Washed by the blood of Jesus" is a metaphor, gemini. It's not intended to be taken literally.

What do you mean there are no benefits to this Iraq war, Dina? There are plenty which, regardless of your stance, are fairly obvious:

1. A new republic in the Middle East.

2. A new source of oil for the US and others, as well as source of revenue for the still poor Iraqis.

3. A potential new partner in the fight against terror and free country, provided that it doesn't disintegrate into a fundamentalist state (which was a reason for my previous skepticism to the war prior to its start, but I digress).

4. The overthrowing of Saddam serves as a warning to other states (Syria seems to be getting its act together, for example).

5. Saddam was producing, using, and hiding illegal weapons (there is no disputing this).

6. Saddam refused to dismantle unless forced to (hence war).

There are others, but I wouldn't want to get too bogged down in details. Here's a few cons as well:

1. Could turn into fundamentalist state (very real threat, especially after 24 years under Saddam's secular totalitarian state)

2. We already have enough problems rebuilding Afghanistan, especially in this economy.

3. We already have enough disasters when we overthrow governments in the third world. Look at what happened to Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia and other states when we tried to improve them prior to this war on terror.

4. The cost of war is staggering, and there is no guarantee to how long rebuilding will last.

5. The overthrowing of Iraq will leave us with less allies possibly for other more important wars at later dates.

6. The Iraq war despite its shortness and success may give Al Jazerra and others more propaganda to use to further their own anti-American agendas.

These again are just a few cons, there are more (and that's not including the ridiculous "no war for oil" and far left ones that others always repeat).

So what I gather from that is, if I am Patriotic or I support a war, I can not be an activist?
I am against Terrorism, Facism, Racism...ect! I support Equal Rights, Human Rights, Freedom Of Speach....ect! I also am a Patriot and I support the liberation of Iraq.

It makes me a little bit ill to see someone who obviously believes they are such a free thinker discriminate against others freedoms to express their views. Someone who thinks to be an activist, you have to hate your country, well I for one don't. I am also free to question my government as anyone in here is.

Please open your mind, it must be lonely in there all alone

Okay, this perturbs me.

Shut up, kilow. I say that with the most sincere indignation.

Whiny *** kids.

quote:

---

blood of Jesus

---

Uhm.. yey for bloodbaths?

That girl is in need of help - and quick.

"Progressive" behavoir? This isn't a gay fitness club, ma'am, sorry.

"Brainwashed?" Someone with the name of "Christiangirl" isn't brainwashed. She has, however, probably been washed with the blood of Jesus

well, most of us wouldn't have noticed if you left without a big blab. and then you go on and on, about how you're going to leave.

if you're so picky about grammar, why didn't you split up your massive paragraph into topically divided ones?

the great thing about this site, is that it's to share your opinions. christiangirl was just sharing that she is willing to die for her country, the way you are opposed to war. difference of opinion is neater than a burrit(o)-er, isn't it?!

quote:

---

We want you to remember that the opinions presented and/or posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Save the Children and its YouthNOISE program, or that of its staff.

---

I agree. Most of the youthNOISE generated articles end with "what do you think?" and aren't biased.

quote:

---

But you see, you decided to title the article "She's Willing to Die in This War" instead of "She's Willing to Kill in This War". Doesn't that show an obvious bias? If you titled it the other way, it would show another obvious bias

---

It not biased. It's a fact: christiangirl would kill and would risk being killed in the war.

Christiangirl said:

quote:

---

I am willing to die in this war on Iraq if that will help. I don't know about all of you anti-war people are you willing to die for yoru beliefs of this war.

---

She will die for/because of the war. That's a fact, according to her.

quote:

---

If you called it, "She's considering or has decided to enroll in the military for this war", THEN and only then would you be neutral.

---

Not really, considering she had already joined the military, and was not simply "considering" it. Saying that would have altered the post. YouthNOISE was just posting the article that a member made. They can't be held accountable for the opinions that certain members “voice.” If they selected which posts to run on the site and which to throw out, it would then be biased.

quote:

---

We want you to remember that the opinions presented and/or posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Save the Children and its YouthNOISE program, or that of its staff.

---

But you see, you decided to title the article "She's Willing to Die in This War" instead of "She's Willing to Kill in This War". Doesn't that show an obvious bias? If you titled it the other way, it would show another obvious bias. If you called it, "She's considering or has decided to enroll in the military for this war", THEN and only then would you be neutral. Except, wait, no. The fact that it was a featured article got YouthNOISE off its "neutral" post.

Not that I'm saying there's necessarilly anything wrong with expressing an opinion as an institution -- just don't pretend you're totally neutral when you're obviously not.


Love, Jenny

P.S. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, one leftist view and one conservative view don't make a neutral fact.

Hey NOISEmakers,

We just wanted to say we regret that the article, She's Willing to Die in this War upset DinaJacir and others.

Just to clarify, the article first appeared as a post on the board VOTE YES ON WAR WITH IRAQ!!!!. We featured the post, as we often do, in our Making NOISE section. Later, to highlight the article and other things on the site, we included it in our NOISEnews, which some of you choose to receive.

We want you to remember that the opinions presented and/or posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Save the Children and its YouthNOISE program, or that of its staff.

It really is necessary for YouthNOISE to remain neutral for the exact reasons given to you by GeminiAngel.

Check out these links to see how YouthNOISE has allowed NOISEmakers to discuss both sides the war debate:

10 Things You Can Do About a War With Iraq


The U.S. vs. Iraq: Where Do You Stand?

Save the Children is also urging President Bush and Congress to keep women and children safe

As for YouthNOISE not being a place for actual activists, check these links out:

Why girl magazines suck

Do you want to help out in a big way?

Mission 2: The Shakedown

i think i'm in love.jenny, that link is amazing. indymedia is the ticket. allpowertothepeople.