Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Propaganda Revealed: 400,000 Iraqis in Mass Graves
Options
Comments
-
Originally posted by cleareyed
a conversation.
Glaspie's comments when confronted in Baghdad by British journalists with the transcript on 2 September 1990 were pretty classic ("Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait")0 -
Interesting article. Does go to show how effective proganada can be. I must say I believed Blair when he said that number of bodies was found and though I was against the war I also believed Saddam had WMD. The only thing I did not believe was the links to Bin Ladens terrorists which was abit too convient.
But a majority of people believed those claims coming from senior goverment officals of powerfull nations. Its amazing what these people can get away. Blair and Bush got off scott free while there intelligence agencys where lambasted. The BBC chair stepped down for making a mistake about exagratted WMD capabilty. The head of that British newspaper that published those fake British abuse photos stepped down for making a mistake (both of there accusations where true just not the way they assumed). I'm convienced both Bush and Blair did everything in there power to push the intelligence agencys for the most pro war point of view and then presented that to the public who believed them. But no doubt if they did and if they where caught they would worm there way out of it (weak opposition parties I guess alot like here)
If Bush gets re-elected I wonder what the new spin will be on the danger posed by whatever country he decides to invade.0 -
Originally posted by cleareyed
You haven't addressed them at all.
Wouldn't want you to think I was dodging questions now, would I?You alleged that the US gave approval for the invasion of Kuwait.You were asked about your presence at a conversation.You were asked about trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.You never answered the criticism of the numbers game implied in my first post.The issues you chose to hear are your own. You are talking to yourself. You haven't dealt with the issues I raised. Why not? Why do you consider it to be direct to talk off the point? In short , no, your attempt to address the issue is not to my taste. But you are far more concerned with your assumptions about my taste and assumptions about my opinions for that to register with you.
Your final paragraph is a mixture of fact and fiction and is woefully unbalanced.
0 -
Well done sparks. You have finally been dragged around to the issues I raised and you have answered them. I know you thought you had the first time but as I explained to you that was because you were too busy making assumptions based on not reading what other ppl write.
So let's see what we're left with it.
You have changed approval to tacit approval. Subsequent questions: Glaspie said that arab-arab wars were not the concern of the US. This sounds like the policy that many in Ireland who opposed the recent war want. They want the US to keep out of other countries and their conflicts. It's the old isolationist policy that took the US out of Europe after WW1 and was a contributory factor to the rise of Hitler.
You weren't at the conversation. Thank you.
You finally answer the question on trade with regimes that are tyrranical etc. You don't think we should. You mention Iraq and China. Well if the US has acted in the despicable manner you believe and Britain has joined them...are you calling for Ireland to stop trading with them? And what other countries would be on that list? In fact what countries would be on the list of acceptable trading partners?
Now to my first post: that was a criticism of the argument that Sadamm only killed 5000 as opposed to x y z who killed whatever. It's a bad game. (Note how to answer a question directly) The fact is that we will never know for sure how many Iraqis were murdered by Sadamm's regime. Have the US killed innocent people in Iraqi deliberately? Have they targeted civilians with the intention of killing them? I doubt that it has been policy to do so (there are always individualas who don't follow policy) There is no gain in such a policy.
Now for your final paragraph:
"the region is unstable": a region made up of tyrranies and oligarchies is unstable. How awful. The "stability" argument is one that really sums up the modern malaise; it is better to be "stable" even if you have no rights than to fight for a better future. It is a belief that conflict is always bad. It's a slave's creed and you are welcome to it.
No WMDs located: fact.
"the newly appointed ruler..charged with murdreing": fiction. It has been alleged that he shot prisoners. He may be charged in a court of law. Which is a pleasant innovation in Iraq. Courtesy of the Americans. Courtesy of conflict.
Infrastructure in tatters: fact. Causes? More than the Americans. Including Sadamm loyalists who want to deny people prosperity and freedom. And Islamic fundametalists who want to impose a theocracy. You didn't mention their contribution. Unbalanced.
Prime targets for recruiters: fact. The US army has had an arrogance that technology wins wars. The British long ago realised (in part because of their experience in the War of Independence here) that you need to win hearts and minds too. I hope the Americans learn that lesson. I doubt they will as long as Bush and Co. remain in power. I doubt Kerry understands it either given his elitist background.
US army war crimes: fact. Well documented. Abu Ghraib. But the thing is we live in a democracy where these things are shown up, are investigated, are followed up through a legal process. You give no credit to that change in Iraq now. Unbalanced.
You claim that the supposed mass graves have been used to excuse all the above. I don't excuse them. I never have. But there is a blindness in your posts: you don't balance it out. I have gone through your final paragraph point by point and shown where fact fiction and imbalance exists. If you still think your cartoon represents anything of the dialogue I have engaged you in here I despair for you. Finally, there are more shades of political opinion than "left wing ppl" and right wing ppl".0 -
Originally posted by cleareyed
You have finally been dragged around to the issues I raisedYou have changed approval to tacit approval.Glaspie said that arab-arab wars were not the concern of the US. This sounds like the policy that many in Ireland who opposed the recent war want. They want the US to keep out of other countries and their conflicts. It's the old isolationist policy that took the US out of Europe after WW1 and was a contributory factor to the rise of Hitler.You weren't at the conversation. Thank you.You finally answer the question on trade with regimes that are tyrranical etc. You don't think we should. You mention Iraq and China. Well if the US has acted in the despicable manner you believe and Britain has joined them...are you calling for Ireland to stop trading with them?
So tell me cleareyed, do you think we should trade with nations that have proven, documented practises that violate human rights?Now to my first post: that was a criticism of the argument that Sadamm only killed 5000 as opposed to x y z who killed whatever. It's a bad game.The fact is that we will never know for sure how many Iraqis were murdered by Sadamm's regime.Have the US killed innocent people in Iraqi deliberately? Have they targeted civilians with the intention of killing them?"the region is unstable": a region made up of tyrranies and oligarchies is unstable.
Even the Iraqis have made that point.How awful. The "stability" argument is one that really sums up the modern malaise; it is better to be "stable" even if you have no rights than to fight for a better future. It is a belief that conflict is always bad. It's a slave's creed and you are welcome to it."the newly appointed ruler..charged with murdreing": fiction. It has been alleged that he shot prisoners. He may be charged in a court of law. Which is a pleasant innovation in Iraq. Courtesy of the Americans. Courtesy of conflict.Infrastructure in tatters: fact. Causes? More than the Americans.I doubt Kerry understands it either given his elitist background.US army war crimes: fact. Well documented. Abu Ghraib.But the thing is we live in a democracy where these things are shown up, are investigated, are followed up through a legal process. You give no credit to that change in Iraq now. Unbalanced.You claim that the supposed mass graves have been used to excuse all the above.you don't balance it out.I have gone through your final paragraph point by point and shown where fact fiction and imbalance exists.
Why, I'd almost have to say your post was "fair and balanced"....0 -
Advertisement
-
you just pointed out that you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about
Exactly.
I note with some weariness that you continue to evade (trade, change in Iraq if press can report abu ghraib), change the goalposts (exclusion of oil pipeline for civilian infrastructure), attempt to dismiss on the basis of condescension (possible trial of Iraqi leader), and show a basic ignorance of the difference between intention and effect in an ethically based analysis of a situation (Franks and casualties).
We do agree on some issues.
You have come a long way from the start of this. I congratulate you on learning to listen and to read what other people write. For your further development I ask you to drop the tone of assumed superiority; it doesn't suit you and it gets in the way of communication. If you need to use your posts on a message board to feel superior and make you feel better...well, you know.
My last word: the public debate in ireland on the war in Iraq has been distorted and dominated by anti war voices. It is time for balance.
It's the weekend.0 -
Originally posted by cleareyed
My last word: the public debate in ireland on the war in Iraq has been distorted and dominated by anti war voices. It is time for balance.
The public debate in Ireland on the war in Iraq only came about because of the anti-war people, the pro-war people were very happy to keep everything quiet and almost-under-the-table, as shown by the shananigans at Shannon - an attitude that speaks volumes to those who believe that anything that's morally correct has no problems with the media spotlight....0 -
Originally posted by cleareyed
For your further development I ask you to drop the tone of assumed superiority; it doesn't suit you and it gets in the way of communication. If you need to use your posts on a message board to feel superior and make you feel better...well, you know.
(no offence cleareyed but the paragraph quoted is evidence enough)0 -
Dear sceptre,
a little poem for you
sceptre and crown must tumble down
and in the dust be equal made
with the poor crooked scythe and spade.0 -
Is this the part where we observe the intrinsic properties of latex and adhesive are respectively shared by ourselves and our verbal assailants, and comment on the subsequent consequences for the statements of said assailants?0
-
Advertisement
-
Thanks cleareyed - I think anyone who ever did the Inter Cert is familiar with that excerpt from Death The Leveler, even if it's got a lack of relevancy at the top of the scale.
Moving back to the actual point of the thread, obviously the idea that families came and removed a whopping 395,000 bodies is pretty laughable. I don't think it affects the rights or the wrongs of the war in any major way, except the usage by Bl;air of the large figure to partly justify the incursion. Basically, and the reasoning's a bit simplistic here, if it was important enough for Blair to part-justify the war by mentioning almost half a million bodies found (not suspected to be there, actually found), it should be important in some way for us to think a little more than "Oh, just 1.25% of the professed figure then, OK". Despite the rampant whingey hair-splitting up the page, someone lied to someone about this as well. Relatively speaking, it's only a twig, but it still gets added to the pile.0 -
I find it slightly hypocritical that Blair would use the 400,000 dead issue as a reason to invade in order to kill more. He uses it like he thinks it's a tragedy that 400,000 are dead, but if he really did then why go in and invade and kill more? Really, why?
To kill Sadam of course
Then kill him and not the Iraqi people.
To tackle terrorism
Of course invading a country has always been a most fantastical and wondorous way of reducing terrorism.
Nick0 -
Lad's who care's if they lied stuff Saddam an his cronies. So they lied about something else big wow since the whole thing was fabrication whats one more at the end of the day. Ye know it's just possible that every one was convinced they were there just because he was Saddam. A theory gaining ground now is that many of saddams WMD programmes were pure lies by generals and scientists lining there own pockets. False reports and results sent to higher ups for funding etc etc CIA intercepts and swallows the lot. It's not too far off the mark I bet afterall Werner Von Braun involved himself in research of rocketry during WW2 to eventually go to the moon and stuff. The result was the famous V1/V2 rockets which were pants militarily after the war what happens he goes to US and continues the research make's ye think doesn't it what might have been going on in Iraq eh.0
Advertisement