The difference that words can make...

Sometimes it boggles me, how people can willingly misrepresent, or poorly define an object, person or place. Surfing through the web this evening, I came across a nicely written article, by an experienced writer, published in the Guardian.
The article talks about the family's life in Turkey. How they have moved from England to Turkey by choice, and enjoy a life where they can spend time as a family. I did think, though, that when the author is talking about not being able to find Beanie Babies, for someone who did not know Turkey, it might sound like there are no toys in Turkey.
She does go ahead and state that the toys they can find are very poor in quality. I totally disagree as this being the general condition, having many cousins, friends and family with younger children in the country, I will not forget how amazed I was when I saw the toys(this site is in english too!) they were playing with. Yes there are toys that are very poor in quality, but only if you have to buy them from the street vendors. If they live in the west coast, they must be close to Izmir, or Bodrum, where they must be able to find toys... But this is not the general state of the country. It’s where you choose to live.
Links like this will take you to online stores where you can buy the latest toys for your kids (the first one is a playstation 2 if you notice, let me know if you need any translation). It’s one thing to not have the means to afford the toys that are available to you, and another to say that toys are not available in the country. I currently live in New Jersey, and Manhattan is about 1 hr away from us, but I have never ever bought anything from FAO Schwarz, where they sell a playhouse house for $30,000, I would never say they dont have doll houses in Manhattan though. ;o))
Another issue I would like to take upon myself to clarify for those who are not familiar with the country is women’s rights in Turkey. Yes, true, women are not as well recognized in Turkey as they are in other countries in the world. However, we did have a woman as the Prime Minister at one point in time. Second, many women serve as judges, lawyers, doctors, high ranking government officials. If the country was your "typical Middle Eastern country" governed by the muslim traditions, men would never allow a woman judge to make a life altering decision for them. Again, I must clarify, I in no means will ever say that the country does not have a long way to go in it’s human rights and women rights policies, but it is not as behind as some people would like to be.
I would like to ask the author about why they thought of "packing their bags..." when the adventure seeking prime minister proposed a law against adultery? Don’t get me wrong, I too, along with everybody else I know in that country, were opposed to the "law", but why leave the country?

All we have to do is look around the world. When has any nation ever overcome terrorism through violence?

hehehe... I'm laughing. When I was watching the debates last night it amazed me on how Bush could come out and say "I know how this world works." After all, he was the one who came so close to being booed off stage at the UN. He's the one who really killed the "American ideology" that existed in Europe and the Middle East. He's the one who is always mocked, ridiculed by the rest of the world leaders and the press. You dont believe me?
If anybody has any doubts about how the rest of the world sees Bush, please begin by reading this article from the Asia Times:
The Smirking Robot: the president of the United States lip-smacking, smirking, blinking, eye-rolling, performing anguished jazz solos of facial contortions, and looking genuinely angry. His voice was petulant. He barely remembered his own record. He said absolutely nothing new. And he could barely disguise his rage: How could anyone even dream of questioning and holding him to account for his foreign-policy choices - in the "war on terra" and in Iraq? After all, "I just know how this world works."

This from cnn.com outlines how Europeans think. Oh, and the "what about Blair? What do you call that?" comment Bush made last night, is probably not going to last too long if he keeps going on this track.
Almost half of adults in Britain, France and Germany believe that if Senator John Kerry were to win the U.S. presidential election, relations between the U.S. and Europe would be "better" than they are at present, according to a survey.

Here's a very good summary of the debate last night between Kerry and Bush.

'Nuff said? Republicans can rightfully argue that Bush REALLY got International attention. Probably more than any other US President that preceded him. He successfully shoved international views about the US to the darkest corners. America itself is not hated internationally. Americans are not. It's BUSH. It's those I-rule-the-world-I-can-do-whatever-I-want-I-kill-whomever-I-want Republicans sitting in the White House that they hate. Republicans tend to identify America with the President. Meaning, to them America=Bush, Bush=America. That's why when somebody says I hate Bush, it's automatically translated into: "I hate America".
Open your eyes people, look afar a little. Go beyond your borders, there really is a world out there...

It is very interesting and hopeful to see how the British government is working to try and free Ken Bigley. Is this a notable difference between Bush and Blair? Blair actually has a conscience?
Muslim Council Team Heads to Iraq

This is an article from Asia Times. A very firm view and analysis of the situation in Iraq and the different reactions to it. I wonder who in the White House reads these, and decides to dismiss these ever growing views. How stubborn and arrogant can you get when you're in so much power without being a global dictator?
Never has the US (according to international public opinion polls) been so resented, if not loathed, by so many people around the world. And this is exactly the kind of environment in which al-Qaeda terrorists - who represent a real and ongoing threat to the US and others - thrive.

It's very interesting to read different views on Bush and the UN. Here are some examples, from the Republicans, Democrats and the rest of the world:

Here's one from the National Post (Canada), criticising mostly how Bush failed to address UNs concerns. Here's one quote from Bush's address in the article:
"Mr. Bush said yesterday increased terrorist attacks were an expected reaction of people opposed to universal freedom."
Ok... so why did he decide to declare war by bullying other nations? I thought he was trying to END terrorism not encourage it. And he says that Kerry conflicts himself? Yeah, but he should also listen to himself talk every now and then.
"....that Washington's projection of power around the world is not an attack on the sovereign rights of nations, but a promotion of individual rights against despotic regimes."

From the Seattle Times:
The article again points out that he was not thinking of his audience when he was giving his speech. You have to agree that it awfully sounded like his speech at the Republican Convention in New York. But, what he fails to consider is that his audience yesterday, are not fed the propaganda that the American Republican media is full of. They see the "real" side of Iraq when they open the news, they don't only see when Americans die, they dont only see when Americans kill the terrorists. They see dead children, women, men, houses bombed in the middle of dinner. They never see any Iraqis thanking American soldiers. They see Iraqis screaming and yelling at them so they leave and stop bombing their neighborhoods, schools and homes. So, I doubt that his reasoning at home really worked for the international community.
His message was aimed at U.S. voters, not the leaders unenthusiastically listening to him, and appeared designed to respond to the assertions by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been a failure.

Here's one from a Russian Newspaper Pravda. The header says it all about this one:
Bush tries unsuccessfully to defend his actions in an address to the UN

Here's one from the Denver Post. Does the tone seem to be trying hard to stay neutral?
Allawi praised Bush for his courage "in deciding to wage war to destroy Saddam."

One from San Francisco Chronicle:
Bush's upbeat assessment of world affairs in general and Iraq in particular contrasted sharply with that of diplomats and world leaders gathered for the annual meeting of the U.N.

The Guardian. From the greatest ally country too.
Defiant Bush defends war in speech to UN

The New York Times. An analysis of the European thoughts about the speech:
Bush's Speech to U.N. Wins Few Plaudits in Europe

I'm really looking to post some PRO-Bush thoughts on the speech. Here's I think one that is very close:
Pres. Bush defends decision to invade Iraq in UN speech

I knew I could find one here! FOXNEWS:
Bush: 'Freedom Will Find a Way'

But don't you think something is REALLY off if you search for "Bush Speech to UN" on Google and Yahoo and you only find ONE that is really supporting his speech? Doesnt that mean anything to you?

I dont think there are any words to explain how the majority of us feel about all that's going on in Iraq.
I just dont understand why we got ourselves in this situation? I was reading some posts here and there, and saw that some people were saying, 3 people's lives are worth to keep the evil away, and save the hundreds of people who would die otherwise. Isn't this twisted logic? I mean thousands of people have died already, I dont see any of their deaths being worth anything at this point, except to serve a certain people's egos.
The world shouldnt be this bad, and we definitely shouldn't be making it this bad!

Here's a site that actually shows the death toll from hostages alone... (not sure how accurate it is, I know that it doesnt list the deaths of the Americans and the Turkish driver, but it gives us a sense)

Here's an article from a Scottish journalist "outlining" how they support Blair's decisions... But you know what? Blair has called the family, and told the family that there's nothing he can do, he was straight out honest with them. Did Bush do that? Did he even address the American kidnappings anywhere? I didnt see anything about it, not online anywhere anyway, might have been on Fox for a few minutes when I wasnt looking :oppp

Wow. I can't believe it's been a year and a half since I last posted on this site.
Time flies. I've been working alot and trying to keep up with my personal life.

Let's see if I'll be able to keep writing this time.