A New Low!

sovtek

This is just . sickening

gandalf

Ah tested in Isreal used in Iraq.

But at least the iraqi people are "free of tyranny" :rolleyes:.

Gandalf.

seamus

Ah, long live the American dream.

You are free to pursue whatever career you wish, and make a packet from it.

So long as you don't go against the grain. :rolleyes:

It is sickening tbh. I wonder how the troops are rationalising it to themselves.

mr_angry

Are you guys sure this is true? I'm not saying it isn't, but I hate to be manipulated by the media, regardless of whose side I'm on.

Hobbes

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Are you guys sure this is true? I'm not saying it isn't, but I hate to be manipulated by the media, regardless of whose side I'm on.

Not sure if it is (and I would normally double check commondreams stuff), however I do know Israel were training US soliders on the effective use of bulldozers before the invasion started.

You should check out http://www.thememoryhole.org/

While it doesn't list this it does have news reports (with pictures) of soliders stripping prisoners and making them walk in public and another of arresting a kid for making fun of them.

gandalf

That commondreams story is linked from the UK Independent.

Heres the original story here.

Gandalf.

I can't see anything about this from any other site...But then again that's not to say that this is untrue.

Chances are, if history has taught us anything, that this could very well be true. The soldiers are afraid and so resort to this irrational behaviour, while the irrational behaviour ruins peoples livlihoods and provokes them to join militias etc so : 1 - they can make a living and 2 - they can get some revenge.




Of coarse a few years later the Americans pull out and blame the lack of funding from the UN, while Iraq ends up with an even worse dictator who just happens to friendly with the US.../rant

mr_angry

I'm tempted to take a pro-American stance, simply because nobody else is! There's a serious lack of argument on these forums since Biffa Bacon and other such lunatics were banned.

If so many of us disagree with American foreign policy, why can't we do anything about it? There are 3 possibilities:

a. I am mad.
b. Both myself, and all of you guys are mad.
c. The universe has imploded without my noticing it.

Any thoughts?

In the interests of fairness then Mr_Angry4, I'll mention what Sadam did to the Marsh Arabs with whom he had a disagreement. Let us not forget that Saddam was even nastier to Iraqi Farmers.
Tens of thousands were killed and the rest had their lives and livelyhoods ruined.

It sort of puts Some American actions into perspective.

mm

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Man
It sort of puts Some American actions into perspective.

It still doesn't excuse what the Americans are doing.
What gives them the right to do this sort of thing? And the whole thing of "Oh well Sadam was worse" is a pathetic defense really.
We heard enough of that when the bombs were killing thousands of civilians over there, now they're destroying people's livelyhoods and generally treating them like animals.
But that's ok I guess, when Sadam was in power...

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
It still doesn't excuse what the Americans are doing.

Theres a difference between excusing what happens and putting it in perspective you know;)
It is an undeniable fact that far more terror went on under Saddams regime than is going on now.
I saw a BBC newsnight report recently interviewing some former Iraqi exiles who had just returned from their first visit to Iraq since the fall of Saddam.
They said that, news reporting of these types of incidents paints a sensationalist exageration of what is going on there .
Their friends and family are happy they said.
Undoubtedly many are not( by no means a majority ), but it's not all as black as it's painted.
Indeed there are many parts of the world where far worse is happening and theres little or no reporting because the news is not séxy.
Perspective rather than being carried away with one particular tide, thats all I'm introducing here.
One side of a story is not a story.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I'm tempted to take a pro-American stance, simply because nobody else is!

Good lad. I'd do it myself, but no-one would ever believe me

There's a serious lack of argument on these forums since Biffa Bacon and other such lunatics were banned.

Now now...no insulting other posters...and Biffa hasn't been banned from Politics. So unless he's picked up a boards-wide ban that I don't know of, he's not here by choice.

Originally posted by mr_angry4
It sort of puts Some American actions into perspective.

Yup. It kinda says "we're not as bad as he was, but we're still willing to use strong-arm to intimidate you into doing what we want".

Put it into perspective this way....

If Iraqi dissidents/resistance/whatever started destroying the farms of those who wouldnt't assist them, would it be reported as terrorism or freedom fighting?

I know where my money would go.


jc

Éomer of Rohan

The talk about putting things into perspective makes me think - are we really saying that the power wielded by Saddam Hussein over his people is any less than what the US government through it's own army (hint; parallel) wields now?

I hadn't heard about the bulldozing of farmers crops and other such items until there now because I have been off my game recently.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from bonkey
If Iraqi dissidents/resistance/whatever started destroying the farms of those who wouldnt't assist them, would it be reported as terrorism or freedom fighting?

I know where my money would go.

There is an underlying principle here that no one has yet worked out outside of the most obvious "It's all right when I do it but not for you" in terms of the definition of a terrorist or freedom fighter. If armed Iraqis destroy large numbers of Iraqi farms then it is to be concluded that they do not have the support of the Iraqi people and would therefore be terrorists to their own population. Was this where your money was JC?

Excuse the double post by the way but I couldn't be bothered editing lol.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The talk about putting things into perspective makes me think - are we really saying that the power wielded by Saddam Hussein over his people is any less than what the US government through it's own army (hint; parallel) wields now?

Nope, it's just that there is a mechanism for to bring those that are acting in such fashion in the U.S or British Army to court martial.
But no such redress existed under Saddam for the Marsh arabs.
I doubt Tony Blair's first item on the agenda for instance each morning he goes into number ten is how many crops can we destroy in iraq today...
Whereas Saddams agenda may have included such items and a lot worse on a regular basis.
Thats the perspective I mean.

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
If Iraqi dissidents/resistance/whatever started destroying the farms of those who wouldnt't assist them, would it be reported as terrorism or freedom fighting?

Both the American action and this hypothetical dissident/resistance action would both be classed as terrorism as would Saddam's treatment of the Marsh Arabs. I would have thought this would be fairly obvious.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Both the American action and this hypothetical dissident/resistance action would both be classed as terrorism as would Saddam's treatment of the Marsh Arabs. I would have thought this would be fairly obvious.

Yes, I would have thought this would be failrly obvious as well.

I fully expect that it is so obvious that the papers will "mis-report" the US actions as anything but terrorism, though.

I would also fully expect that were any faction the Iraqis to start intimidating any other Iraqis in a comparable manner that the papers would not miss the obviousness of the terrorism.

Funny that.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Whereas Saddams agenda may have included such items and a lot worse on a regular basis.

I would be willing to bet that the manner in which both Hussein and the US deal with their agendas is pretty similar - you see what is happening, you decide which of these events requires intervention, and you decide on the intervention that you wish to use.

There is little question that Hussein was worse than the US, but such comments always remind me of the joke about the two people who drove off the Cliff on a motorbike. Police said that had they been wearning crash-helmets, they wouldn't have been killed so badly.

At the end of the day, being "better than X" doesn't say much, when X is what you're trying to villify. After all...would the pro-US camp accept the argument that replacing Saddam was wrong because he was "not as bad as Stalin was"??? If not, then why is "not as bad as Saddam was" such an important perspective?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

At the end of the day, being "better than X" doesn't say much, when X is what you're trying to villify. After all...would the pro-US camp accept the argument that replacing Saddam was wrong because he was "not as bad as Stalin was"??? If not, then why is "not as bad as Saddam was" such an important perspective?

jc

Thats a fair point, but the perspective to my mind, only becomes more important depending on the context of who is doing the complaining.
If the complaints are all one sided without introducing the other side of the equasion, then surely, the introduction of a little perspective, (notwithstanding the idiocy of each sides case in the campaign) is important.

mm

growler

more importantly collective punishment is illegal under the Geneva convention, so if it were true then these soldiers could be tried for war crimes.

can't see that happening.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
I fully expect that it is so obvious that the papers will "mis-report" the US actions as anything but terrorism, though.

I would also fully expect that were any faction the Iraqis to start intimidating any other Iraqis in a comparable manner that the papers would not miss the obviousness of the terrorism.

Funny that.

OK you were making a general point about the reporting in newspapers. I thought you were responding to something Man said specifically.

Sparks

If the complaints are all one sided without introducing the other side of the equasion, then surely, the introduction of a little perspective, (notwithstanding the idiocy of each sides case in the campaign) is important.

You would think so - so why doesn't anyone introduce perspective by saying "well, Iraqi terrorists/resistance killed three american soldiers today, but hey - you have to remember that the US killed ten thousand innocent civilians and an undisclosed number of soldiers during the invasion, many with illegal or near-illegal weapons" ?

Originally posted by Sparks
You would think so - so why doesn't anyone introduce perspective by saying "well, Iraqi terrorists/resistance killed three american soldiers today, but hey - you have to remember that the US killed ten thousand innocent civilians and an undisclosed number of soldiers during the invasion, many with illegal or near-illegal weapons" ?

But they do many times and you just have done again;)

mm

mr_angry

I don't think "perspective" is what's called for here - I think action is. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything I can personally do, and that means leaving it in the hands of our politicians, which almost certainly means nothing will be done.

Hooray for the world.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
But they do many times and you just have done again;)

I've never seen any media put it that way actually Man.

mr_angry

Does anyone know off-hand who Ireland's representitive in the Security Council is, and an appropriate e-mail address?

Originally posted by mr_angry4
that means leaving it in the hands of our politicians, which almost certainly means nothing will be done.

They're working on it as we speak "The new draft showed "progress", said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin."

Originally posted by sparks:
I've never seen any media put it that way actually Man.

In fairness to Robert fisk of the Independent, he'd have a fair stab at wording it like you do

mm

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Does anyone know off-hand who Ireland's representitive in the Security Council is, and an appropriate e-mail address?

We are not on the UNSC at the moment

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
If the complaints are all one sided without introducing the other side of the equasion, then surely, the introduction of a little perspective, (notwithstanding the idiocy of each sides case in the campaign) is important.

i see what you're driving at, but I am more of the opinion that when most people talk about "perspective", they mean "spin".

From what I can see, people calling for perspective fall almost singularly into one grouping - those advocating that US actions should be put in perspective (i.e. what they are doing is not so bad when compared to Saddam). Iraqi resistance (or previously, Saddam) actions don't need to be put in perspective - they are just atrocious and should be condemned.

This isn't perspective - its trying to deflect the argument to a moot point.

For example, I have never once suggested that the US is not better for the Iraqis than Saddam was. I just feared - and still feel - that they would not be as good for the Iraqis as they should be.

Yet initially, I had my stance criticised by the "if you ain't with the US, then you support Saddam" line of thought. Now that seems to have moved to "but the US is better than Saddam, and we should not lose sight of that".

I have never argued against either of those points, but time and time again these are supplied as stock answers to answer (or avoid answering) the issues that I have been concerned about....and it doesn't address any of them.

jc

mr_angry

Originally posted by Man
They're working on it as we speak "The new draft showed "progress", said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin."

They're working on an overall agreement to the future of Iraq. However, I don't seem them doing much about this particular issue, do you?

As a side note, I don't hear too many Iraqi people voicing thie opinions on when the country should be a soverign nation once again. Does anyone else notice this? Of course, they don't have an elected leadership yet, which explains it a bit.

From what I can see, people calling for perspective fall almost singularly into one grouping - those advocating that US actions should be put in perspective (i.e. what they are doing is not so bad when compared to Saddam). Iraqi resistance (or previously, Saddam) actions don't need to be put in perspective - they are just atrocious and should be condemned.

Ah yes I agree with you, in relation to the spin.
Indeed throughout this particular discussion, I was playing the role of being the {to coin a phrase} "introducer" of perspective in response to mr_Angry 4's cries that there was none.
I think it's important not to run away on one side or the other with a morsel of information or a singular event demanding condemnation, waving it in the air and shouting "Aha!"
mind you we are all human and it's difficult to stick to a worthy hard and fast rule like that without failing often within the smoke of what we would clearly define ourselves as an atrocity or a shamefull event.
Given what's going on at the UNSC at the moment, I'm willing to continue to wait and see, in the longer term if a workable solution can be dredged up from all of this.
That solution may have had no connection on the original reason for some to justify what brought us to this point but the outcome may yet be acceptable.

mm