The Iraq thread 3

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]the truth is that no fucking gov't in the world gave a fuck about Iraq before the war and had nothing to say UNTIL Bush decided to go in. and then rest of the leftwing talk as if it they were doing some fucking thing to improve situation in Iraq.

I do not remeber mass protests when Clinton used tomahawk missiles against Iraq after finding out Saddam men tried to kill fmr. president Bush (the missiles did not do a thing). Also, no protests about the corruption of the food for oil program that took food/money away from Iraqi people. What about the uprising that was violently crushed in Iraq after the Gulf War. Were was the mass protests to do something about Saddam actions? Were were the mass protests when the UN inspect. team was kicked out in the 90's? or when Iraqi aa fired at american/british planes in the no-fly zone?

That's because you didn't go look for it. No, no mass protest because it was not a prolonged assault costing thousands of innocent lives. But there were articles in various publications that were highly critical of this tactic as well as of Clinton's "Wag the Dog" tactics.

As for protests against the food for oil program, there were none because it was difficult to get the facts on this program and exactly what the level of corruption was on this. In fact right now we are ONLY JUST beginning to get the facts on this corruption. How could people protest on what they didn't know about??? Liberals may be smart, but they're not psychic. Yes there were some allegations here and there, but generally people don't go marching into the streets over rumors and allegations.

Protests against Saddam's violent crushing of rebellions?

Protests all over America and the world don't just spring up overnight. They require some serious momentum to get going, but there were TONS of articles written about America's lack of action to protect the Shi'ites and Kurds who were slaughtered. Please remember that these groups were slaughtered because WE BETRAYED THEM. They were ENCOURAGED TO REVOLT BY THE 1st BUSH ADMINISTRATION and we PROMISED them military assistance and air support. But we ended up abandoning them to Saddam. Then we Americans wonder "Oh why oh why do these stupid Arabs not trust the most honorable George Bush Jr. and the Almighty United Staes?"

Protests against the UN inspectors getting kicked out? There was no need... they got punished enough with sanctions...although sadly it was the Iraqi people and not Saddam who were really punished by the sanctions (hence one reason why Iraqis do not trust the UN much either).

Also the politicians here in the US made PLENTY of protest about this. So why would the American people protest this if their politicians are already speaking out on that issue?

Attacks on US/British warplanes? Well that might have something to do with the fact that Saddam was a little pissed about foreign fighter aircraft flying over his country and often flying over areas of Iraq outside of the No-Fly zone on recon missions. Also there were well documented attacks on non-military targets such as on freight trucks coming in from Turkey as well as on random cars and buildings mistaken as "military targets" or just attacked for unknown reasons.

One Western journalist nearly lost his life in one of these attacks. His pictures and account was not well published. I'll have to see if I can find the story.

The fact of the matter is that here in America we're fed one side of the story and rarely get anything sense of how the "other" perceives us. So because of that the "other" are strange and savage people to be feared and destroyed.

They have the same problem in the Middle East. Its only when you bridge these gaps of knowledge and start trying to see things from the point of view of your enemy that serious peace can occur.

We still may be able to one day get that Arab Ghandi... or maybe it will be a courageous American President who will be that Ghandi.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]current sitaution is that if occupational force can't get the nation back on its feet, it will be a long time before we see a stable gov't in Iraq, and more trouble in ME. So whether we like it or not, we are stuck with this.

There was a report on the television that talked about the reopening of a university/college in Iraq. It had brand new computer, internet access, and etc. The students were interviewed and the main problem for them is security situation. The school had armed guard for protection against would-be attackers. I wish I can remember what channel it was on.

No doubt. But there are good and bad ways of fixing the security problem in Iraq. To keep it simple:

Good way: Use Iraqi Army and police for raids against militants and criminals and not US troops except in a very limited way. Avoid clashes in areas likely to ignite tensions between US troops and Iraqis. Use the local political leaders of communities (even those hostile to the US) to help deliver food and supplies rather then foreign contractors unless these contractors are working with these local poltical leaders and are under their protection.

Bad Way: Trying to crush the population of entire city by putting them under seige and launching bombing raids and massive sniper attacks against any of the population that dares to walk around in the streets.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Were were the mass protests when the UN inspect. team was kicked out in the 90's?

They weren't kicked out, they left on their own accord. They chose to leave because they said that Saddam made every effort to make their work as difficult as possible.

Quote[/b] ]or when Iraqi aa fired at american/british planes in the no-fly zone?

You mean why there weren't objections against the illegal no-fly zone? By international law Iraq had all the right to fire upon those planes. According to the cease-fire agreement in '91 Iraq was to have its full border integrity, including airspace. The no-fly zone was a direct violation against that agreement. By the rules Iraq had the full right to defend its territorial integrity.

You should ask yourself this instead: How come when Iraq started an illegal war against Kuwait that a UN military intervention and sanctions followed while when the US started an equally illegal war against Iraq, no punative measures were taken by the international community?

[turms 0]

Compared to others, we are arguing about Iraq quite polite:

Quote[/b] ]Several Wounded in U.N. Police Shootout in Kosovo

Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:07 PM ET

By Shaban Buza

KOSOVSKA MITROVICA, Serbia and Montenegero (Reuters) - A dispute over Iraq led to a shootout on Saturday in the Kosovo town of Mitrovica between several American and one Pakistani U.N. police officers in which several officers were wounded and some may have died, U.N. police sources said.

Another report said Jordanian police were involved in the shooting, which broke out at a prison in the U.N. compound in the northern Kosovo town.

"This afternoon at the Mitrovica detention center there was a shooting incident involving international policemen," U.N. police spokesman Neeraj Singh told Reuters.

"Some international police officers were injured...there may be fatalities," he added.

The deputy director at the health center in Mitrovica, Milan Ivanovic, told reporters a female American officer, critically injured in the shootout, had died. He said he was treating several other prison officers for gunshot wounds.

Singh declined to give the number of injured, or of any dead or to disclose the nationalities involved. Asked about the cause of the incident, Singh said: "That is a matter of investigation ...and the situation now is stable and under control."

Media reports citing a variety of sources said up to four U.N. police officers may have been killed. One report said two lay covered by white sheets inside the U.N. compound.

A Reuters witness close to the scene saw a female U.S. police officer lying motionless on the ground, covered by a coat.

EDIT: link to the source here

[Acecombat 0]

Bloody hell , were they all drunked up or something?

I dont think i'd shoot anyone no matter how much we disagree on the Iraq situation.

[red oct 2]

as i said, its only going to get worse. i doubt there will be much media coverage on it, right now bush is having a pretty bad month were there has been nothing but bad news, the killing of the 4 contracters, the fighting in fallujha, the loads of casualties, Al-sadr's millitia, hostage taking, Osamas little "peace deal" w/ europe, now this, i don't think it will get much coverage in the media because he really can't afford getting this much bad news in a single month otherwise people will just throw his dumb ass out and maybe just put kerry in early.

[Acecombat 0]

What are you trying to say?

That the media will hush this up because its bad for Bushs reputation?

I dont think Bush controls Intl media or does he?

[red oct 2]

it not so much that he controls the media per say, what would happen because Pakistan is supposedly one of our allies in the war against terrorism, reporting this would generate doubt and even resentment towards Pakistan, so somebody from the white house will tell CNN, Fox news, ABC, NBC, ect.. not to air this news. this was the same case w/ the palistians cheering when the trade towers were attacked and most likely as well as when the american girl protesting the treatment of the palistians was crushed by the bulldozer.

[Longinius 1]

Wait. We have repeatedly heard Americans on this forum say that the government has no influence over media, since you got freedom of speech. Its not like that no more? Or hey, maybe it never was...

[denoir 0]

I don't think media is hiding. Of course you have a political spin on things. FOX news migth tone down the bad news for instance. On the other hand the liberal media in the US will equally amplify the bad news.

As for the Kosovo UN shootout: If the shooting was symmetrical then I would like to nominate the dead for Darwin awards. It's irony embodied: peacekeepers blowing each other brains out over a political discussion...

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]Wait. We have repeatedly heard Americans on this forum say that the government has no influence over media, since you got freedom of speech. Its not like that no more? Or hey, maybe it never was...

ok let put it like this, after over 3000 people were killed in one day by terrorist and the media is reporting these images of people cheering about it, what do you think the results would be? the results would be a angry mob most likely hell bent on wanting to see a bunch of palastians dead, and would start w/ the palastians who already have comunities in the united states. they would be constant targets of violence. same w/ the Isreali case. anti-semitism in the U.S. is no secret, at the moment it seems to be at a low, but when i was in high school, you didn't dare mention you were a jew or you would be picked on and maybe even beaten up. if a newspaper were to put on front page "American killed by Isrealie military" it would only be only counter productive and you would see more anti-semitism and it would be complete irresponsible for the media to cover this kind of stuff because of what would happen. this kind of selective media coverage is not just limited to palistians and isrealies either. i don't wana offend anybody, and i will say that i don't really like what my government has been doing but anti-semitism toward americans is by no means a new concept in Europe and there are meny who had this axe to grind w/ us long before the Iraq war, i won't say everybody in Europe is like this, but there is probaly just enough that any news channel could make seem like theres a majority.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wait. We have repeatedly heard Americans on this forum say that the government has no influence over media, since you got freedom of speech. Its not like that no more? Or hey, maybe it never was...

Freedom of Speech is not absolute (most people do not know).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for the Kosovo UN shootout:     If the shooting was symmetrical then I would like to nominate the dead for Darwin awards. It's irony embodied: peacekeepers blowing each other brains out over a political discussion...

CNN headline news reported two american policewomen and another person died in the shootout.

[denoir 0]

but anti-semitism toward americans is by no means a new concept in Europe and there are meny who had this axe to grind w/ us long before the Iraq war, i won't say everybody in Europe is like this, but there is probaly just enough that any news channel could make seem like theres a majority.

Anti-semitism towards Americans? You mean anti-americanism, right?

You could not be more wrong. Europeans have never felt more solidarity with Americans than after 11/9. You were given directly, without any hesitation the full military support from Europe for going after AQ. You were given full support, conditionless. Bush managed to squander that good will. Through his politics America went from an all-time-high popularity in Europe to an all-time-low.

Quiz: Who was the first foreign leader to wisit 'ground zero' at the WTC site.

Answer: Jacques Chirac. Incidentally France and Germany were the first countries that offered the US military help at request.

So saying that the pre-Iraq relation between Europe and America was bad couldn't be less true. And btw Clinton was the most popular US president with Europeans. Ever. Even more than Kennedy.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think brgnorway was spot on in his historical analysis and you just completely ignored what he said. Blacks in America DID fight back. There was a LOOOONG struggle, both peaceful and violent against oppression upon blacks in America by white America. Look at some of the violent rioting after WWI by Black soldiers returning from the war. Look at the history of the Black Panthers.

Ditto for hispanics. Ever heard of La Raza?? Ever heard of the Zuit Suit riots of 1943??

I was talking about civil rights movement (MLK) in 50's-60's. The violent ones were suppressed and they usually did more negative than positive (some positive). Black Panthers were effectively taken out by law enforcement. While MLK movement was able to play the racists and bigots with ease without using violence.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please remember that these groups were slaughtered because WE BETRAYED THEM.   They were ENCOURAGED TO REVOLT BY THE 1st BUSH ADMINISTRATION and we PROMISED them military assistance and air support.  But we ended up abandoning them to Saddam

Then why in the early 90's there were no mass protest to do something because he made a promise?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wait. We have repeatedly heard Americans on this forum say that the government has no influence over media, since you got freedom of speech. Its not like that no more? Or hey, maybe it never was...

I think you mean freedom of the press?

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]Please remember that these groups were slaughtered because WE BETRAYED THEM.   They were ENCOURAGED TO REVOLT BY THE 1st BUSH ADMINISTRATION and we PROMISED them military assistance and air support.  But we ended up abandoning them to Saddam

Then why in the early 90's there were no mass protest to do something because he made a promise?

There was a fair amount of criticism for this in the press.  But once again you fail to read what I wrote or just happily ignore it.

Protests do not form overnight.  It takes quite a bit to get protests all over the US to start up.  If anyone should have been protesting it should have been the Republican "Let's kill Saddam" crowd.  You need to ask them why they weren't out in the streets protesting.  

What Republicans don't protest unless its about God or against Abortion?  

Seriously, the fact of the matter is that even though the media did cover this issue quite a bit, most of the coverage was on PBS and NPR and not so much on the main network news.  Most of the public didn't have a clue to what was going on.  The only reason why you saw protests against the invasion of Iraq was because of the MASSIVE media coverage of this war.  It was impossible for most Americans NOT to know what was going on because it was in their face 24/7.

Contrast that to the first Gulf War where most Americans (on both sides of the political spectrum) were happy to forget about Iraq in the afterglow of victory and the focus on the recession after the first Gulf War.  Most Americans simply didn't care enough about what was going on in Iraq or it simply was not enough to cause them to invest the huge amount of energy, time, and money to rally people to protest many of these issues.   That's not to say that nobody protested...maybe some people did and just didn't get anything more then local coverage.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SpongeBob 0]

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/13915/fuglyteeth.jpg

If I was him, I'd have that fixed.  

Where would he have it fixed though? The hospital that has no power, the clinic that has a contaminated water supply, or the surgery thats run out of anaesthetic?

Maybe when he visits Iran?

[booradley60 0]

What Republicans don't protest unless its about God or against Abortion?

It is more efficient to wait for a new administration than to go out in the street and be inconvenient for a little while.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

U.S. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt leans onto a microphone after appearing briefly lose consciousness at a Baghdad news conference April 17, 2004. Kimmitt briefly left the podium and returned a short time later. REUTERS/Reuters TV

Hell I must admit, that guy has a hard job!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please remember that these groups were slaughtered because WE BETRAYED THEM.   They were ENCOURAGED TO REVOLT BY THE 1st BUSH ADMINISTRATION and we PROMISED them military assistance and air support.  But we ended up abandoning them to Saddam

Then why in the early 90's there were no mass protest to do something because he made a promise?

Because we were too busy slapping ourselves on the back for liberating Kuwait and overall not getting into a sandy Vietnam.

[ozanzac 0]

Hell I must admit, that guy has a hard job!  

Is it a possibility that he'll lose it?

[miles teg 1]

What Republicans don't protest unless its about God or against Abortion?

It is more efficient to wait for a new administration than to go out in the street and be inconvenient for a little while.

That's what both political parties in the US want voters to believe. But the fact is that public protest gets media attention and it can serve to unify organizations into powerful grass-roots political movements...something both the Democratic and Republican parties fear. Instead most Americans think their only voice is through these two parties and that they must sit and hope that one party voices their views... this is utter nonsense. Americans have the WONDERFUL freedom to go out and make their voices heard and get involved in politics in a direct manner.

I don't think that the Civil Rights movement would have succeeded without large scale protests. Ditto for the end of the Vietnam War.

Conservatives in the United States know just as well that protesting has real power. They just choose to protest different issues then liberals most of the time.

But its true that most Americans are either too lazy, or too cowardly to get involved in politics by public protest... either that or they think that they are too weak and that its not worth the effort... and that its just easier going with the flow.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]I think you mean freedom of the press?

And I think freedom of press comes from the freedom of speech. Doesnt really matter, it boils down to the citizens being allowed to express their opinions freely.