|
03 Mar 03 - 11:31 AM (#902411) Subject: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Frankham People ought to see this. It's from the father of a friend of mine who found this information by Thorne Anderson. Frank My 89-year old father up in Boston (a Republican most of his life, now an anti-Bush anti-war advocate), sent this to me. It's a bit long to scroll through because of the spacing format, but well worth reading. Irene This letter is an eye opener as to what is really going on in Iraq. Subject: Whose the agressor here? This letter forwarded by David Hazen is from Thorne Anderson, a former journalism professor, who was in Iraq recently as a reporter.It presents a point of view we see rarely. If you get all your newsfrom the US dominated Media, as I do, the information will surpriseyou. My own experience in Iraq in 1966 tells me that the people there are very much like us despite basic differences in history and religion. Copy of a letter from a mid east reporter to his familyWhat a world we live in..... Dear Friends, Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq but was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time in Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending attack by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh word for me. Iraqis are very good at distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen. Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems to me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines while in Iraq, but thatkind of work has really become secondary for me. I do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of stories those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly worthless at confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the Middle East. I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other corporate media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of my efforts are now going into reaching alternative media and in supporting anti-war groups in the states. I hope I can find some time soon to come to the states for a speaking tour of sorts. There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better named the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the United States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is another no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to protect the Kurds, but while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does nothing to prevent or even to criticize. Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities there. Turkey's bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. hasbeen bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past12 years. There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago, and I'm told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get much or perhaps any press in the U.S. It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999. Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The U.S. has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material in Iraq (30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the DU is further contaminated with other radioactive particles including Neptunium and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all radioactive materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up in ground water samples. I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals. Since U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six fold in the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most severe. The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney, and thyroid cancers associated with poisoning by heavymetals (such as DU). But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime.The toll of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories ofthe past decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the sanctions recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly discredit humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements rather than on the statistics of international agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more than a million* children under the age of five. But lets put that figure aside, for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and let's refer instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions directly for the excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and nearly a million Iraqis of all ages. We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty figures, multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a country with one tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we can get a crude idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted on the Iraqi people in the past decade. The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration from diarrhea caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the intentional destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by the United States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment facilities and suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before the American entry into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of Defense document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great detail about how the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now quite common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and immunities to all types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky children who manage to get a sufficient daily caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhea. Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements. Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of hospitals to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions.In a hospital in Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year-old child. After the boy's circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have a congenital disease which inhibits his blood's ability to clot, which results in excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications when he took a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning his brain in his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take regular doses of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a relatively normal life. But an order for Factor 8 was put "on hold" by the United States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could only watch the child die. Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and the destruction of Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are the weapons of greatest mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad that Dennis Halliday, the former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in Iraq, took the dramatic step of resigning his position in protest at the sanctions. "We are in the process of destroying an entire society," Halliday wrote. "It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." And Halliday isn't alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in protest and went sofar as to describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals. These are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the UN rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the United States. Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a new war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile politics and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S. invasion within Iraq. It's easy to imagine an impending tragedy of enormous proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up and take responsibility for stopping it. Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S. government to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I feel the weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever we can with our individually small but collectively powerful means to change the course of our government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I did nothing at all to recognize or prevent them. I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is already inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more chaotic and violent future. And let's be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction. But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host of other U.S. allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many of us would advocate going to war with Turkey over the brutal repression of its Kurdish minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S. to bomb Israel or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons? Let's remember that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in Iraq had declared that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction capabilities were destroyed. And let's not forget that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On the contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad on the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and he said absolutely nothing about it. That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very little weaponry to actually threaten The United States, they do have oil. According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in southern Iraq, they may even have the world's largest oil reserves, surpassing those of Saudi Arabia. Let's be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in good conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control its oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, reens, Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the place, as I have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes and not simply through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign policy aims. While the American media fixates on the evils of the "repressive regime of Saddam Hussein," both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are we reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000 were killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000). I simply don't believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with the Iraqi people and say from their hearts that they deserve another war. I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly the values that are most imperilled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as a citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to make a difference. |
|
03 Mar 03 - 11:58 AM (#902439) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST Thanks for that letter, it is an interesting read, indeed. If the US/UK go to war, we will be wholly dependent upon independent journalists to provide us with factual information of what is really happening on the ground. The mainstream media will be too worried about ruffling feathers of Gen. Frank and the White House, not to mention whether their reporter fatigue outfits are properly pressed by the hired help, and if their hair blow job will stay put while on camera, to report anything besides US propaganda as The Truth. The mainstream media is the pipeline of official doctrine, nothing more. To do any kind of real reporting, on the ground, would actually require the media whores to leave their hotel bar for more than an afternoon of interviews in the enemy's air conditioned offices. I recommend an excellent, award-winning photojournalist, Kevin McKiernan, as an excellent source for coverage from Northern Iraq. He too has worked for all the "big name" media companies. But he has distinguished himself while working as an independent journalist, beyond the pale of the mainstream media's reach. Kevin made a documentary titled "Good Kurds, Bad Kurds" which has won several awards, and has also worked as an investigative photojournalist in the Philippines and Central America. He was the only news journalist inside the compound when it was taken over by the American Indian Movement during the Wounded Knee occupation in 1973, where he remained for the entire siege. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for that work. He is, as we speak, still working in Northern Iraq. His website is here: Kevin Mckiernan's website |
|
03 Mar 03 - 12:02 PM (#902443) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Actually, GUEST, the mainstream media in the US has been recruited by the US military to go there and get their propaganda right from the source. They've even put the news correspondents through a kind of "boot camp" to train them in how to conduct themselves in a war zone. I saw this as a featured news story on some news show on TV(can't remember which) a week or so ago. |
|
03 Mar 03 - 12:23 PM (#902458) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Don Firth And the news coverage--if it's anything like the news coverage in the Gulf War--will consist of Wolf Blitzer or some other correspondent dressed in fatigues and standing on a roof-top somewhere hundreds of miles from the action and delivering whatever he or she's told to say. Oh, for the days of Ernie Pyle! Or, for that matter, Bill Mauldin! I once did a television show where I sat in a studio with my guitar and sang before a completely blank screen. What went out over the air was me with my guitar singing on the front porch of a run-down mountain cabin. It's called "back projection." When I see some reporter standing in front of the Capitol Building or the White House while they're delivering their schpiel, I often wonder where they really are! Thanks for posting that, Frank. It's long and it's a bit difficult to read, but well worth the time and effort. Don Firth |
|
03 Mar 03 - 12:43 PM (#902473) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: katlaughing Frank, thank you for this. I've printed it out and will be sharing it with several people. kat |
|
03 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM (#902493) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Amos Frank: I add my thanks. This picture is so different from that being propogated from the captive brains of Bush's putocratic hegemony that the contrast is both shocking and disgusting. A |
|
03 Mar 03 - 01:36 PM (#902515) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Rustic Rebel A powerful letter. Thanks Frank. On the interview with Dan Rather, Saddam did in fact state they were being bombed daily. I don't know if anyone caught any of this, but they had a student interaction between university students from Iraq and US, via satelite. I only caught a little part of it and would like to find the entire text if there's one out there, but one thing I did hear. A young woman from Iraq said- They wished US would just let them live their lives the way they choose to. That they should not be forced to live according to they way we think they should live. Personally that is what I have been waiting to hear. People from Iraq speaking about what's happening and how they are reacting. I hear so much about the people being killed by their own Government, it was good to hear some of their side. One young man from the US said he knew they couldn't say much for fear of their Government and the Iraq students didn't have an answer for that.(at least in what little of the program that I saw) I have still been ralling against the war. Have now got something going right in my home town. My sign- Drop sanctions, not bombs. I had one that said- War begins with 'Dubya', but nobody understood it! Ha! Peace. Rustic |
|
03 Mar 03 - 02:32 PM (#902550) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST "War Begins with Dubya" is freaking brilliant Rustic Rebel!!! Can I steal it from ya for the Women's Day march? Please, please pretty please? I promise to credit you on the sign! :) |
|
04 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM (#903261) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC *refresh* |
|
04 Mar 03 - 12:47 PM (#903276) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR A report from one who shares your views and you enthusiastically embrace it as truth. Surprise, surprise! He really should consider coming to the U.S. and hitting the lecture circuit. But he might become very rich doing so, and would no longer be able to expect support from the masses he identifies himself with. Seriously, this just sounds like a lot of propaganda to me. I'm sure Saddam is very happy about it. The writer might even expect to be invited to lunch with the old man. DougR |
|
04 Mar 03 - 01:10 PM (#903286) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC You talking to me, DougR? Where did I do that? |
|
04 Mar 03 - 01:23 PM (#903292) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Clark Frank, I too am grateful for your post. Thanks very much. My brother alerted me to this Media Alert about a Newsweek story suggesting that Iraqi WMDs have already been destroyed and that our goverment knows this. Interestingly, other news companies haven't picked up the story. - Mark |
|
04 Mar 03 - 01:42 PM (#903311) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC A report from one who shares your views and you enthusiastically embrace it as truth. Surprise, surprise! ...and of course YOU would NEVER do anything like that! ;-) |
|
04 Mar 03 - 03:31 PM (#903397) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the aggressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow But remember Doug, there was never going to be a war. It was all a bluff by Bush to force Saddam into cooperating with the inspection team, you promised us. And you said that people who predicted that no matter what happened Bush and Blair were going to have their war were just being cynical. What puzzles me is that in spite of the fact that the figures indicate that a large majority of people in the USA have internet access, they still seem to depend on the mass media for their information, when at their fingertips they have access to the sources that the journalist use, and the sources they ignore, as well as to the newspapers around the world that often have a very different perspective on things. I think being curious and sceptical, and trying to find out things for yourself are pretty central to the definition of a adult human being. |
|
04 Mar 03 - 03:40 PM (#903404) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC I don't know how it is where you are, McGrath, but here in the US, a lot of internet providers have a page that you automatically go into when you sign on. These frequently have a section in them with news headlines. From the ones I've seen so far, they seem to be pretty much the same stuff that is fed to us through the mainstream media. My guess is that most people think there just isn't anything else out there to look for. |
|
04 Mar 03 - 03:48 PM (#903415) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Rustic Rebel I am still trying to find the transcripts to that program I saw with no luck. Anyone see it? Baghdad students talking via satellite with students from US? I just can't remember what channel I saw part of it on. Here is another article on the subject of how people feel in Iraq towards a US invasion. common dreams Guest- Yes use the sign! But like I said no-one understood it. They said it looked like dooby and therefore should be peace begins with a dooby! Ha! Anyway it is not an original, thanks to a list of signs Daylia posted on, 'who's marching on the 15th' thread. She posted quite a lot of good ones. Peace. Rustic |
|
04 Mar 03 - 04:29 PM (#903449) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Clark Carol, Here is a link to some news and information sources I posted over in another thread. I can dig up more if you like. - Mark |
|
04 Mar 03 - 04:44 PM (#903462) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR McGrath: I still think it was a good guess. I don't believe the inspection process would have gone as far as it did if the U.S. & Great Britain were not constantly keeping the pressure on Saddam. As to the news on the Internet, I think far too many people DO rely on the Internet which contains lots of opinions on multiple website that are not necessarily factual. DougR |
|
04 Mar 03 - 05:15 PM (#903493) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Great links, Mark. Thanks! |
|
04 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM (#903535) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Clark Doug, I agree with your take on Internet sources. There is a great deal of misinformation on the Net, on nearly any subject. When trying to find out what's really going on, you have to ask why any particular story is being presented and try to find out why we should take any of it seriously. Of course we have to do that each time we read a newspaper, listen to the radio or watch a TV news broadcast. The nice part about the Internet is that it's frequently possible to discover that a site may be shading the truth, it's often difficult to do the same with mainstream media. - Mark |
|
04 Mar 03 - 06:08 PM (#903539) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Don Firth When the bulk of the American media (cable and broadcast networks, newspapers and magazines, movie and television production companies, and news services) are owned by five multi-national corporations (Time-Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation), all with interlocking boards of directors, one does tend to get a rather monochromatic picture of the news. I do get a lot of my news from outside sources. I regularly watch CBC news, and our local PBS affiliate broadcasts a half-hour of BBC news, but I get most of my news off the internet--not from helter-skelter partisan websites but from well-known European news services. When they report a story that doesn't make it to the American media, I can at least speculate on why it doesn't. Gives one a whole different picture of what's going on in the world. Don Firth |
|
04 Mar 03 - 07:58 PM (#903612) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the aggressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow In a way that's the good thing about the Internet - it can break people of the habit of thinking that, just because something is in black and white and neatly laid out, it is to be trusted. There's an enormous amount of lies and distortion on the net, but then the same is true of the news media. But it's easy enough, with the Internet, to get back to the sources and check them, rather than just taking the words of the editors and news presenters in our particular corner of the world.. So, for example when all the papers are going on about Resolution 1441 as having authorised war, you can look up the actual words. When you do that you find that it does no such thing, it just talks vaguely about "serious consequences", whatever that is interpreted to mean. And when you look at the actual text of "the Second Resolution", which is supposed to be so important, you find that, after going all round the houses about how unsatisfactory Saddam's actions have been, it ends up as saying that in consequence the Security Council "Decides to remain seized of the matter." Nothing whatsoever about military action or war or indeed anything. A load of flannel. "Nudge, nudge, know what I mean" surely isn't really good enough when it comes to matter of war and peace. Countries used to issue ultimatums with words that said what they meant, such as "if so and so is not done by such and such a date, a state of war will exist between our countries". And countries which went to war without doing that, such as Japan, were regarded as acting in a shameful and uncivilised way. But that's just an example. The process of distorting a report by publishing a twisted summary of it can be done to promote any point of view. The answer has to be to read everything with caution and to be aware of that, and be ready to check the sources. And if there's no time to do that, and it's an important matter, we can compare the different versions available from a range of media in different countries, before coming to a final judgement. |
|
05 Mar 03 - 12:17 AM (#903742) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST,Oldguy McGrath of Harlow: Will you please lay out the text of the 18th Iraq resolution for us? the one that allows the US and it's Allies to blow Saddams ass away? Old Guy |
|
05 Mar 03 - 02:18 AM (#903773) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Cohen Doug, just what exactly is it in this article that you call "propaganda"? Here's the text of a speech by Hans von Sponeck, one of the U.N. Coordinators for Humanitarian Aid to Iraq who is mentioned in Thorne Anderson's article. He says basically the same thing as Anderson. So does Dennis Halliday, who preceded von Sponeck. These are not wild-eyed radicals or bleeding-heart liberals, as Anderson says--they're seasoned UN administrators, who each quit the same post: quit because they were sick to death of what the sanctions, so beloved by our government, are doing to the children and families of Iraq. And since those speeches were given, thousands more children have died of dysentery, typhoid, and other diseases that could have been easily treated if it weren't for the sanctions. So show me where the lies are. OK? I'm waiting. Aloha, Mark |
|
05 Mar 03 - 03:27 AM (#903791) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Frankham, Thanks for posting the letter - it made interesting reading - pretty much one-sided reading - also fairly confused. My reason for saying so are: 1. The author sems to think that the United States Government controls the UN and dictates policy to the UNSC - we all know from recent times that that is not the case. The United States of America had to be brutally blunt to the United Nations just to get it to face up to its responsibilities - which fortunately they did manage in part to do. 2. The sanctions, and effect of sanctions, constantly referred to in the letter could have been removed instantly had Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Regime co-operated with the UNSCOM and IAEA inspection teams. The sanctions would have been lifted had Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Regime honoured its obligations to the United Nations under the terms of the resolutions it accepted (matter of record). 3. Use of DU ammunition in the conflicts referred to in the letter. Mention is made of bombs and missiles - while they may exist - the mass of DU munitions used was in the form of 30mm cannon shells, used against tanks and armour. 4. The impression given in the letter is at odds with the fact that the population of Iraq has grown from 18.8 million to just over 23 million in the period we are talking about. (for comparison the population of Germany roughly remained static - marginal increase). 5. No mention of repression, the letter is aimed entirely at the USA. Does that mean that there is no repression? If so it flies in the face of the bulk of eye witness statements made by the thousands of refugees who have fled from Iraq over the past 12 years. Sorry, too one-sided to present any sort of basis for objectivity - pure propaganda. On another subject - a large number of the Human Shields are quitting Iraq for Jordan. They wanted to protect schools, hospitals and mosques - the Iraqi authorities apparently will not let them do that - wonder why? Would all those foreigners notice an unnatural military presence? Would they notice certain high security areas? No-go areas within those facilities? Would they notice the close proximity of what could be termed as legitimate military targets? |
|
05 Mar 03 - 06:59 AM (#903863) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: ard mhacha Fox News is incredible, Doug R we watch it here for a laugh,Hitler and Stalin were only going through the motions regarding lying propagenda. God help the US. Thankfully, judging by the reasoned tone of some of the US Mudcat members, not all of the citizens of the US are brain-washed by this tripe. Ard Mhacha. |
|
05 Mar 03 - 09:38 AM (#903937) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the aggressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow You give us a link to it Old Guy, if you are referring to something other than the one I linked to. Or do I take it that you are implying that there is something unreasonable about the suggestion that, if the Security Council wants to authorise military action or war, it should actually use language that says that. All I've seen are resolutions talking about "serious consequences" and "decides to remain seized of the matter". Even someone who thinks that attacking Iraq is perfectly justified can hardly see expressions like that as carrying any significant weight or authority. They're meaningless flannel. But that was an example I was giving of the way in which the headlines and the sound bites distort things, and how it's often possible, through the internet, to get at the facts and the press releases behind the stories. It would be equally possible to find a similar example in a very different political context. In England at present, for example, we've been having this row over a bill which threatens to drastically restrict the right to make music. We've had statement after statement by ministers and press releases and often the newspaper stories, which have totally distorted facts that are there in black and white in the text of the bill concerned. |
|
05 Mar 03 - 12:02 PM (#904042) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR McGrath: it is possible that Old Guy was commenting, also, on your reference to the #2 Resolution which is in fact the eighteenth Resolution. But who keeps count, right? Mark Cohen: Teribus' comments about the post which I felt to be "propaganda" replies to your question to me more eloquently than I could ever do. I agree with his assessment completely. Mark Clark: well stated about getting "news" off the Internet, but unfortunately too many people, I believe, do not put the time and effort into reasearching the "news" posted on websites that have an axe to grind. To them, what they read is gospel. DougR |
|
05 Mar 03 - 12:33 PM (#904062) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC DougR, I don't see any difference between your own behavior, and that of the people you criticize. |
|
05 Mar 03 - 02:10 PM (#904127) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Clark I have to say that most of the arguments presented in these threads leave me profoundly saddened. I'm old enough to know that people aren't going to change their minds in heat of debate, but is there really no way to consider the factual detail and human complexity of the situation. Are we limited to accepting the will of U.S. officials as a sacred belief system? We're talking about extremely complex problems with social, economic, political and religious history that go far back in time. Nearly any action taken by the world's governments is going to have consequences ranging from serious to dire. We're talking about the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of people, both military and civilian. And yet those who seem to favor an unprovoked attack by the U.S., et al., will countenance no argument or information that contradicts their “faith.” The fundamental canonical philosophy seem to be simply stated as: us… GOOD! them… BAD!… KILL! Anything more complex than that is rejected out of hand. The world isn't a simple game of captain-may-I in which any slight technicality results in a setback for the offending player—unless the offense is unnoticed or purposly ignored by the current “captain.” International relations is a complicated give-and-take process in which the representatives of various national interests work out an arrangement under which all can co-exist with the opportunity to thrive. Very often the best solution is satisfying to no one but it achieves the objective of permitting the world's nations to live together peacefully. Perhaps the word fundamental is the key here. Many sorts of “fundamentalism” seem to be attracting large numbers of followers these days. But in every case, the fundamentalists who claim unbending devotion to their chosen faith—Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism, Militarism—have, in fact, perverted the central idea that made their chosen “faith” attractive in the first place. Fundamentalism of any sort isn't a system that helps to guide our thoughts and actions, it's a system that helps us dominate, directly or passivly, those who do not share our point of view. As the fundamentalists of all stripes rush to hurl the world into a bloody maelstrom of epic proportions, I am left only with profound sadness, lamenting what might have been. - Mark |
|
05 Mar 03 - 02:16 PM (#904134) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST Mark: The problem is indeed complex but you do not have time to do medical research when you are operating on a dying patient. It is human nature to defend yourself. Maybe if we evolve beyond being human we can overcome that reaction. For those that do not react to defend themselves are doomed. Old Guy |
|
05 Mar 03 - 04:36 PM (#904210) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Clark I'm right there with ya, Old Guy. Blood type, schmlood type, right? Suit up and let's operate. They ain't ’murcans anyhow. Oh, wait… did you say defend? Okay then, let me know as soon as Iraq launches their attack. - Mark |
|
05 Mar 03 - 05:00 PM (#904226) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Frankham Hi Teribus, Thanks for your response. Mine to yours. 1. The UN has been weakened by the current US position and they do have an inordinate amount of influence in that body. The UN is the only body that is truly being responsible here and to say otherwise would require some evidence to be presented to the contrary. 2. The sanctions being lifted by Husseins cooperation have nothing to do with the loss of many innocent lives. 3. No, the DU comes from the bombs that are being used, not cannonshells. 4. The fact of the growth of Iraq's population has nothing to do with the people that are being subjected to radiation, cholera, etc. And the children that have died is recorded in the statistics of the WHO and UNICEF. 5. Repression does exist by both Saddam and the US. There will be more refugees escaping Iraq as the US intensifies it's bombing. No, the propaganda is laid at the doorstep of the Bush Administration. It's funny how history evades people nowadays. In the 1980's Ronald Reagan put Saddam Hussein in power as a deterrent to the Ayatollah. In short, the Reagan Administration is responsible for Saddam Hussein. The Bush Administration also fostered the propaganda about Iraqi Soldiers emptying incubators in hospitals. This was later uncovered as a hoax, a publicty stunt. Propaganda is being delivered daily. It was Richard Perle who said that "Terrorism" needs to be "low context". This talk of "Human Shields" is reminiscent of the euphemism of the military today, "collateral damage". Somehow human lives become irrelevant in the arguments presented to make a case for war. I submit to you that the "facts" today on this issue are not being presented because there is a media blackout on what is really happening over there. There are many "pundits" who are speculating about what is going on without being privy to genuine information. The US media today can't be counted on to give an accurate picture. The TV news is a business akin to entertainment and the issues presented are first and foremost to garner ratings and listeners. This is the purpose of posting the information in this thread so that people can really see what is going on and not submit to talk-show-host arguments. Frank |
|
05 Mar 03 - 05:30 PM (#904255) Subject: RE: BS: Who's the aggressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow "The full text of a second draft resolution on Iraq to be put to the United Nations Security Council later on Monday by the United States and Britain" - that was how the link I gave put it. And that's how it's generally being referred to, in virtue of the fact that the previous resolution was generally referred to as "the first resolution" - which of course it wasn't; but then the First World War wasn't really the First World War arguably either, the point is to stick a label on which identifies what is being talked about, rather than getting that label strcitly correct. But however you count them, neither of those resolutions make any mention whatsoever of the use of military force, or of going to war. (The idea presumably being that the countries which reluctantly line up to vote for it can say they never voted for a war, if the war goes pear-shaped, or the people back home start objecting too strenuously.) But the pro-war press and media can be guaranteed to claim that the resolutions do authorise war, regardless of what they actually say. |
|
05 Mar 03 - 09:03 PM (#904397) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Someone posted this to another thread. It seems germaine to this discussion as well: Depleted Uranium |
|
05 Mar 03 - 09:04 PM (#904400) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC (Oops. I thought I fixed that. I meant "germane") |
|
05 Mar 03 - 10:49 PM (#904463) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Cohen Doug, I didn't ask you to reference somebody else's answer. I asked you, "Where are the lies?" Do you believe that the two former UN officials are lying about what they observed in Iraq? Please don't hide behind somebody else's argument. You said, "A report from somebody who shares your views and you enthusiastically embrace it as truth...sounds like propaganda to me." I say it's true, and it's corroborated by von Sponeck and Halliday. I'm asking you to show me why it's a lie. (P.S., Teribus' statement did not do that.) Aloha, Mark |
|
05 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM (#904477) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Peg here's another letter. (It was sent to me in its entirety so that is how I am posting it, sorry--it's not much longer than many of the posts in this thread in any case). The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism (1). Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has 'oderint dum metuant'(2) really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting,and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. (1) Solipsism - The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. The theory or view that the self is the only reality. (2) oderint dum metuant: Let them hate so long as they fear. (A favorite saying of Caligula.) |
|
05 Mar 03 - 11:37 PM (#904487) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Here's an on-line source for that letter of resignation. According to this site, it was published on Thursday, February 27, 2003, in the New York Times: U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation |
|
06 Mar 03 - 12:09 AM (#904509) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Cohen Hey, Doug, I apologize for the hostile tone of my last post. I was in an uncharacteristically bad mood when I wrote it. Tell you what, you go ahead and believe your bullshit, I'll go ahead and believe my bullshit, and next time you're in Honolulu I'll buy you a beer. Aloha, Mark |
|
06 Mar 03 - 01:41 AM (#904540) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR Thanks, Mark, but I'm a wino now. Can you get Charles Shaw Merlot over there? If so, you're on! Carole C: As I've often said, one has a right to one's own opinion. You are no exception. DougR |
|
06 Mar 03 - 08:30 AM (#904694) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Hi Frankham: Regarding your responses to the points I made earlier: <<"1. The UN has been weakened by the current US position and they do have an inordinate amount of influence in that body. The UN is the only body that is truly being responsible here and to say otherwise would require some evidence to be presented to the contrary.">> If you truly believe what you say in your first sentence - then there would be no debate, the UN and Iraq would be actively engaged in hostilities now. The US by its actions forced the UN to live up to its responsibilities. And throughout the US has conducted itself strictly within the rules of UN protocol. One question for you - Would Iraq have invited the weapons teams to return without the intervention of the US at the UN? The second sentence, in which you describe the UN as being the only body that is truly being responsible, I find difficult to believe. You ask for evidence that proves the contrary - how about this, and we are talking about this particular organisation (The United Nations) behaving responsibly. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait - UN resolution passed ordering Iraq to withdraw - Resolution totally ignored by Iraq. After a great deal of political effort a UN coalition led by the US evicts Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A cease-fire is negotiated with the Ba'athist Regime headed by Saddam Hussein. The UN passes a number of resolutions that Iraq agrees to comply with. These resolutions cover WMD (C/B & nuclear), weapons delivery systems and human rights. Inspection teams go into Iraq and after some initial success they run into a brick wall of concealment, evasion and deception. Iraq's non-co-operation is reported and sanctions are imposed (Note: by the UN, not the US). Iraqi co-operation is further reduced and a period of active interferrence is instigated. 1998 the UN pulls out the inspection teams. The UN then sit and do absolutely NOTHING for four years, and would have continued to do absolutely nothing about resolutions passed by the Security Council regarding a state that had ten years previously attacked one of its neighbours - Now if that is your definition of being truly responsible - It most certainly is not mine. Absolutely no progress whatsoever has been made with regard to human rights within Iraq - absolutely nothing - Responsible, you say responsible!! Yeah Bloody right, about as responsible as they were in relation to Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. Perhaps you in turn can provide some evidence that the UN was going to take some form of action to ensure Iraq compliance to those resolutions - I doubt you would ever find any. <<"2. The sanctions being lifted by Husseins cooperation have nothing to do with the loss of many innocent lives.">> By the above it would appear to be your contention that the UN Sanctions have had no effect on the Iraqi population? That is not what the author of the letter you posted believes - only he implies that the sanctions are US sanctions, they are not they are UN sanctions. Further it is a matter of record that the sanctions would have been lifted had Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Regime honoured its obligations to the United Nations under the terms of the resolutions it accepted. Question for you - If the sanctions had been lifted - What do you believe Saddam would have spent the money on? Humanitarian assistance to the benefit of the many and varied ethnic groups within Iraq's borders?? - or would he have rearmed and re-equipped his armed forces and completed their destruction?? <<"3. No, the DU comes from the bombs that are being used, not cannonshells.">> From an article campaigning against the use of DU munitions: "Since 1997 the United States has been modifying and upgrading its missiles and guided (smart) bombs. Prototypes of these bombs were tested in the Kosovo mountains in 1999, but a far greater range has been tested in Afghanistan. The upgrade involves replacing a conventional warhead by a heavy, dense metal one. Calculating the volume and the weight of this mystery metal leads to two possible conclusions: it is either tungsten or depleted uranium." Note the dates Frankham - the Gulf War was when?? The DU munitions used during "Desert Storm" were 30mm cannon shells (Anti.tank air support) and 120mm anti-tank rounds fired by MBT's - No bombs - No missiles. <<"4. The fact of the growth of Iraq's population has nothing to do with the people that are being subjected to radiation, cholera, etc. And the children that have died is recorded in the statistics of the WHO and UNICEF.">> So the population of the country increases by 23.4% in the same period that the author of your letter contends that they are dying like flies!! And its got nothing to do with it!! That population growth is even more remarkable considering the staggering number of Iraqi's who have fled the country. <<"5. Repression does exist by both Saddam and the US. There will be more refugees escaping Iraq as the US intensifies it's bombing.">> Well at least you refer to repression by Saddam's government - That is a damn sight more than your letter writer did - please give us some examples of American repression in Iraq. <<"It's funny how history evades people nowadays.">> Couldn't agree with you more - It seems to have eluded you completely. <<"In the 1980's Ronald Reagan put Saddam Hussein in power as a deterrent to the Ayatollah. In short, the Reagan Administration is responsible for Saddam Hussein.">> I'll put that one above alongside this: <<"The Bush Administration also fostered the propaganda about Iraqi Soldiers emptying incubators in hospitals. This was later uncovered as a hoax, a publicty stunt.">> Presenting the statement that Reagan put Saddam in power is as true as saying that Iraqi soldiers emptied babies out of incubators in hospitals in Kuwait. Both statements are complete and utter hogwash - read any history relating to the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq and in Syria - you will find out only too easily - When, How and Why Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq, the year was 1978 - It had absolutely nothing to do with Ronald Reagan or America. <<"I submit to you that the "facts" today on this issue are not being presented because there is a media blackout on what is really happening over there. This is the purpose of posting the information in this thread so that people can really see what is going on and not submit to talk-show-host arguments.">> I stand by my original opinion of the contents of the letter you claim portrays what is "really going on" over there. Propaganda, pure and simple - totally one-sided - totally unobjective - that flies in the face of known, established and verifiable fact. |
|
06 Mar 03 - 12:43 PM (#904884) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Gosh, thanks, DougR. Teribus, one man's propaganda is another man's "established and verifiable fact". Facts can be used in a lot of creative ways to promote a particular agenda. Yours is no exception. It's easy to point fingers and say "that's propaganda!" But I notice that a lot of your "established and verifiable facts" don't stand up to much scrutiny. |
|
06 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM (#905179) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Frankham Hi Teribus, Thank you for your responses. Here are mine: There is no great love between all the member nations in the UN and Saddam but at the same time the US is pressuring the UN an inordinate amount. It still wields a great deal of influence. If this new resolution is accepted, it will be because of the US pressure and influence. The US has not forced the UN to go to war as of yet. To do so would be irresponsible. So far the US has attempted to abide by the UN decisions but that could soon change. I'm not sure that the UN approves of the Bush Administration bombings. A speculative question as to whether Iraq would have invited the UN weapons teams in at the behest of the US can be answered speculatively only. They might have if Bush hadn't pressed for war. The UN shows great responsibility in keeping the weapons inspections in place. It has deterred Saddam. He hasn't attacked any country since. They should stay in place as long as it takes to deter him. Bush Administration is trying to thwart this. The inspectors are not up against a total brick wall. Saddam has complied with some of the demands. The problem here is that he is as clever as he is vicious and knows that he can create unwilling allies with other Arab nations because the Bush Administration insists on it's war. I believe the sanctions need to be rethought. They are affecting the Iraqi people and not Saddam. The UN has done a great service through it's "nothing" which is restraint from damaging the world community through a senseless and ill-thought out war with no "exit strategy" or concern for the Iraqi people. One only needs to look at the present state of Afghanistan as an indication of Bush foreign policy. We don't really know what's going on in Iraq because CNN, the Fox News and other sources of information are not reporting it accurately, probably because they don't know and receive their information from the White House. As to the comparison with Bosnia, here we have a centuries-old conflict between the Catholic, Serbian Orthodox and Muslim community which has not abated and can't be bombed out of existence. It's not a good idea to bomb Rwanda, either. Rhetorical question: can you bomb a country into a democracy? The UN might be able to supply some concrete solutions if the Bush Administration gives up it's imperial view of the world. Let the weapons inspectors do their job. It's working. Saddam's goals are to mobilize his dictatorship. No question about that. Any rational person would not support this. The inspections are a valid deterrant. Sources for anonymous articles determining the use of DU in weaponry should be disclosed and analyzed for it's propaganda value. It is apparent that today, neither shells or tanks are being used by the Bush Administration in Iraq, but bombs are containing DU. The sources for the statistics submitted as to the population growth of Iraq have not been submitted. It stands to reason that the statistical data is questionable as it always is when used to foster a specific agenda. The 500,000 children who are being horribly anhilated in Iraq is something that is hard to refute. Forms of the Bush Administration's repressive actions include as the article stated, bombing water treatment plants leaving the Iraqi people to suffer disease and death, the use of DU in bombs and the complete disregard for any concern about these people after a protracted war has been conducted. Muscling the UN to comply with the Bush Administration's war is repressive. Teribus I said "<<"It's funny how history evades people nowadays.">> You said,"Couldn't agree with you more - It seems to have eluded you completely." This is an ad hominum (or more correctly contra-hominum) argument that wins no points. As to Reagan's involvement with Saddam one has only to look at the Iran-Contra hearings to see how Reagan lied to the American people about funneling money from South America to support Saddam in the 1980's as a deterrant to the Ayatollah in Iran. Military technology such as biological warfare was shared with Saddam at that time. In this way, Reagan put Saddam on the military map. The Bush Administration is actively engaged in a propaganda war to bolster a physical war in Iraq and is attempting to sell it to the American people. Any information deemed to "fly in the face of known, established or verifiable fact" has yet to be rebutted by concrete evidence and citation of sources. These sources also must be examined as to their propaganda content. Frank Hamilton |
|
06 Mar 03 - 07:19 PM (#905199) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Frankham, can you point me in the direction of some good sources of information about what's happening right now in Afghanistan? |
|
06 Mar 03 - 07:19 PM (#905200) Subject: RE: BS: Who's the agressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow I see that the spelling of "aggressor" has been corrected in the heading of this thread - how about the "whose" as well? |
|
06 Mar 03 - 10:05 PM (#905269) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Forum Lurker Frankham-you can bomb a country into democracy. When there's only one guy left, he has majority rule. I wouldn't be surprised if that's Dubya's plan, as long as he picks that one guy. |
|
10 Mar 03 - 11:53 AM (#906597) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Hello Frank to continue our discussion: The US has put pressure on the UN, there is absolutely no doubt about that. It needed doing, because left to their own devices the UN would have continued to do nothing. 1. Do nothing with respect to the resumption of weapons inspections. 2. Do nothing with respect to the UNSC Resolutions already in place regarding Iraqi disarmament 3. Do nothing with regard to Iraqi human rights abuses - still notice in any of these threads, nobody except the Old Guy has ever raised the subject of the 602 Kuwaiti citizens who still remain missing to this day - they have now been held in Iraq for 12 years - if they are still alive that is. The other side of the arguement is that if the new resolution is not adopoted, it will be because of pressure applied by France, Russia and China (Saddam's main trading partners when it comes to armament sales) That I take it is perfectly understandable - even laudable - it keeps Saddam in power because that is what suits them best. Indeed, the US has not forced the UN into going to war - nor have they ever tried to. The matter rests entirely with Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq - pure and simple - disarm and embrace the principle of disarmament and there will be no war. The US has abided by UN decisions to date - there is no "attempted to" about it. Regarding the bombings you refer to, there was no UN objection to "Desert Fox", the establishment, and maintenance of the "no-fly-zones" by the US and UK have prevented Saddam Hussein from inflicting genocide on the Shia and Kurdish elements of his population. It is generally recognised that without the US pressing for a new resolution to give Iraq one last final chance, the weapons inspectors would never have been invited to return to Iraq. The run of things went something like this: 1. US presses the UN to take action to get inspectors back into Iraq. For this they want a new UNSC Resolution, threatening military intervention if Iraq does not comply. 2. France and Russia see no need for a new resolution after Saddam invites the inspection teams back. The US and Britain maintain that this is useless as Iraq will resort to lack of co-operation, evasion and deception (they had played that game with remarkable skill from 1991 to 1998) 3. US gets it's new resolution (1441) accepted unanimously by the UNSC. 4. The inspectors go back to Iraq. - It would not have happened without the US getting involved as it did. The limit of deterrence with regard to Saddam is that he cannot openly continue to develope his weapons and weapons delivery systems. His plans with respect to his neighbours I do not believe have changed one jot - all that has happened is that his timetable has been extended. The weapons inspectors must report back to the UN that Iraq has disarmed and that they have verified beyond doubt that it has done so - without a dead-line that will never happen - what does the UN do then? The Bush administration wants to see that dead-line in place, the Bush administration is doing nothing to thwart the work of the weapons inspection teams. So, "Saddam has complied with some of the demands." That is not what is required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - it has no "pick-and-mix" option - total compliance - total and active co-operation. That is what is demanded of Saddam Hussein by the aforementioned resolution. At no time have either Dr Hans Blix or Dr Mohamed AlBaradei ever come close to stating that that is what they are receiving from the Iraqi authorities. What they get are concessions conveniently timed to stave off the realisation by the UN that Iraq is still playing the same old game. Saddam too believes that the sanctions need to be rethought - he is now asking that they be removed completely as Iraq is in full compliance. France, Russia and China won't go along with that just yet as they are making $10 on the $ with the present sanctions in place. Of course if the sanctions are lifted, with the current regime in power in Iraq, the entire population will immediately see the benefit - somehow I don't think so. The UN through its business as usual approach shows as much concern for the Iraqi people as it showed for the people of Bosnia and Rwanda - Kofi Annan was the UN Special representative with the reponsibility of overseeing those crisis as well - did a damn good job of it didn't he? You honestly mean to tell this forum that the broadcasting stations you refer to have no reporters in Iraq. My main source of news from the region is the BBC who have been more than slightly biased in Iraq's favour in their reporting. With regard to Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo - the comparison was of the two former where UN inaction led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the latter where NATO acted unilaterally and thousands of lives were saved. At no point did I ever advocate the bombing of Bosnia or Rwanda - but those situations did demand more of the UN than just sitting back and talking about it. Those situations required direct intervention with force to protect - unfortunately the UN charter does not permit this in what are seen as internal disputes. As to the UN providing some concrete solutions - I would very much doubt it going by their track record. You say, "Let the weapons inspectors do their job. It's working." What is working exactly? A little bit here a little bit there - while yer man in Iraq waits until the next world crisis diverts the attention of the UN - then it's back to business as usual - that's not working that is a cop-out. "Saddam's goals are to mobilize his dictatorship. No question about that. Any rational person would not support this. The inspections are a valid deterrant." The deterrant value of the inspections is precisely zero - they see what Saddam wants them to see, no more, no less. Their (UNMOVIC's) biggest coup todate has been the staged destruction of Saddam's Al-Samoud 2 missiles - these Dr. Blix was told about in the JIC Dossier, Tony Blair presented to the House of Commons months ago. Dr. Blix referred to those missile systems in his very first report to the UNSC - it them took Saddam the best part of two months to agree to do something about them - and when he did it was only partial compliance. So, we arrive at the point that any information/figures used to further your arguement are 100% correct and any that are use to counter your arguements are pure invention or propaganda. The deaths indirect and direct that you originally attributed to the use of DU munitions occurred at a time when the munitions you say were used were not in fact in existence. Yes it is apparent that today, neither shells or tanks are being used by the Bush administration. Ah! but bombs are!! Bombs containing DU - there conclusive cast iron proof - because you say so??? The targets most commonly engaged in the Southern and Northern no-fly zones are anti-radiation missiles - used to destroy mobile air defence radars and surface to air missile launchers - DU munitions being developed are for use against hard targets - neither of the targets described above are hard targets. Statistics for the population growth in Iraq are a matter of record - you can access them in exactly the same way as myself or Wolfgang. Your arguement that statistical data is questionable when used to foster a specific agenda, seems only to apply to statistical evidence produced by those countering your arguements - your statistics are of course totally correct, totally true and verifiable, therefore totally believeable. When the subject of the 500,000 deaths attributable to the use of DU munitions first was discussed there basis was a claim that 5000 children a month were dying in Iraq. That figure, that statistic has never been proved, substantiated or verified. "Bush Administration's repressive actions": 1. Bombing water treatment plants leaving the Iraqi people to suffer disease and death..." Details please, are you talking about Bush Snr., or Bush Jnr. ?? If the former that was done under the auspices of a UN sanctioned operation called "Desert Storm" I do not believe Bush Jnr., has bombed any water treatment plants - Most of suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people comes from the hands of Saddam Hussein. 2. "...the use of DU in bombs.." Not used to date. If you dispute that then provide details. 3. ".. and the complete disregard for any concern about these people after a protracted war has been conducted." As no war has been conducted there iare no grounds for this statement, let alone presenting it as an example of repression. The people who are showing complete disregard for any concerns about the Iraqi people are their current government and the anti-war activists - no surprise with the latter - if driven by their desires there would not be a single ethnic Albanian left alive in Kosovo. 4. "Muscling the UN to comply with the Bush Administration's war is repressive." Whether there is a war or not is entirely in the hands of Saddam Hussein. "Teribus I said "<<"It's funny how history evades people nowadays.">> You said,"Couldn't agree with you more - It seems to have eluded you completely." "This is an ad hominum (or more correctly contra-hominum) argument that wins no points." I disagree, and you give aperfect example of it below - I do not object in any way shape or form to someone who couches their arguements based on accurate fact. "As to Reagan's involvement with Saddam one has only to look at the Iran-Contra hearings to see how Reagan lied to the American people about funneling money from South America to support Saddam in the 1980's as a deterrant to the Ayatollah in Iran. Military technology such as biological warfare was shared with Saddam at that time. In this way, Reagan put Saddam on the military map." The following you will find in the Pink Noise Web Site and relates to the "Iran-Contra Affair": "In October and November 1986, two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed, potentially implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations were the provision of assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels during an October 1984 to October 1986 prohibition on such aid, and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in contravention of stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls. In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials announced that some of the proceeds from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to the contras." Now that does not sound like, "...funneling money from South America to support Saddam in the 1980's as a deterrant to the Ayatollah in Iran." as you contend - it sounds like the opposite to me. In other words the history of what you elude to has escaped you completely. The Bush Administration is actively engaged in diplomatic means to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with Iraq's obligations under the terms of past and recent UN Security Council resolutions. That is having effect because the US and the UK have convinced Saddam Hussein that if he does comply a very credible and capable force is mustered on his borders to ensure that those resolutions are complied with. "Any information deemed to "fly in the face of known, established or verifiable fact" has yet to be rebutted by concrete evidence and citation of sources." These sources also must be examined as to their propaganda content." Lets take a look at the established and verified facts I have introduced in contention to matters accepted by yourself: 1. UNMOVIC and IAEA Inspection Teams back in Iraq due to the US bringing the matter of outstanding resolution defiance on the part of Iraq to the attention of the UNSC - even France, Germany, Russia, the inspectors themselves and Kofi Annan accept that. You however do not. 2. Bombs and missiles formed the DU munitions used during "Desert Storm" in 1991 - when even their makers state quite clearly in their literature that such munitions were not developed until Kosovo (first and very limited use) in 1999 and again in Afghanistan. Please provide me with some fact that supports your contention - my source is the makers of those munitions and a host of articles warning of the dangers of using such munitions. 3. That Ronald reagan had nothing to do with putting Saddam Hussein in power. Saddam Hussein assumed the Presidency of Iraq in 1979 as the result of an internal Ba'athist coup. That is a matter of historical fact and is very well documented - the contention that Ronald Reagan was involved in putting Saddam Hussein in power is therefore incorrect, totally incorrect. 4. That the US was primarily responsible for keeping Saddam Hussein in power during the Iran-Iraq War is also incorrect - the US provided Iraq with intelligence, France and Russia supplied Iraq with military hardware. Their reason for doing so was certainly not out of any affinity with Saddam Hussein or the regime in power in Iraq - the aid was given solely to prevent Iran from winning the war that Saddam Hussein had started. "These sources also must be examined as to their propaganda content." And of course Frank - yours do not. I will stand by my facts - I have yet so see any of yours. |
|
10 Mar 03 - 12:22 PM (#906624) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus My apologies, some corrections to the above: "The targets most commonly engaged in the Southern and Northern no-fly zones are anti-radiation missiles - used to destroy mobile air defence radars and surface to air missile launchers - DU munitions being developed are for use against hard targets - neither of the targets described above are hard targets." The first part should of course read: The targets most commonly engaged in the Southern and Northern no-fly zones are engaged using anti-radiation missiles - etc And: "The Bush Administration is actively engaged in diplomatic means to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with Iraq's obligations under the terms of past and recent UN Security Council resolutions. That is having effect because the US and the UK have convinced Saddam Hussein that if he does comply a very credible and capable force is mustered on his borders to ensure that those resolutions are complied with." The second sentence should read: That is having effect because the US and the UK have convinced Saddam Hussein that if he does NOT comply a very credible and capable force is mustered on his borders to ensure that those resolutions are complied with. CarolC: to paraphase your post above - "Teribus, one man's propaganda is another man's "established and verifiable fact"..... I notice that a lot of your "established and verifiable facts" don't stand up to much scrutiny." I haven't seen any of them challenged successfully to date - you are welcome to try. |
|
10 Mar 03 - 12:29 PM (#906628) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC I have challenged them successfully several times, and I note that you have gracefully bowed out of the debate each time you have been proved wrong. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 04:29 AM (#907120) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Examples please Carol, On the improvement of the lot of women in Afghanistan, your original contention was that subsequent to the fall of the Taliban things had not changed. I challenged that saying that things had improved albeit slightly. I gave you examples in areas where the international organisations operate freely - not one of those examples were proven by you or anyone else to be wrong. You did however counter that in the rest of Afghanistan things had not got better, that of course is true, and I commented that things do not change over-night. Your example relating to threats to parents not to send their daughters to school, I think it was in Khandahar - more or less proved my point - under the Taliban there would have been no question of girls being allowed to go to school, the option was just not there, it didn't exist - it does now. That to me is an improvement. At this point someone else came in saying that part of the job of the assisting international security forces were actively pursuing programmes directed at humanitarian aid and other community projects. You questioned this and the person promised to PM you on the source material - after that we heard no more about it. On Israeli-Palestinian agreements/obligations fulfilled I promised you a reply and you will get one. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:32 AM (#907146) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow Another side to what's happening in Afghanistan. Every silver lining has a cloud - "A terrible tradition is back in Afghanistan" ...fears that the sexual abuse of children is on the increase in the wake of the war |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:17 AM (#907313) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Cup's half empty again Kevin - I take it you are not taking that gig in Kandahar then?? |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM (#907326) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC There have been several threads where I challenged your assertions successfully, Teribus, and you posted nothing in reply to my challenge. It'll take me a bit of searching in my posting history to find them, but I'll get working on it. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:33 AM (#907327) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC P.S. The person who said he would send me material on Afghanistan did, in fact send me a link to an on-line military forum, but I have, so far, not been able to find any of the information he was referring to in it. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 11:16 AM (#907372) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Mark Clark If the U.S. isn't the agressor they seem unusually anxious to stifle the free flow of information when things get underway. The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. The story is here. - Mark |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:38 PM (#907719) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR So, Kevin, are you suggesting that the new government in Afghan re-institute the practice of placing those found guilty of molesting young boys by a wall and a tank toppling it over on them? That's rather extreme for a compassionate liberal thinking man like you to suggest isn't it? I think in Teribus reply to Carol C. (I think it was her)that improvements in Afghan will take some time, and that makes sense to me. DougR |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:45 PM (#907726) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC I think my point is that we shouldn't be pointing to Afghanistan as a success story and as proof of why it's a good thing for us to force regime change in Iraq, until the situation has improved in Afghanistan a lot more than it has so far. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM (#907790) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Frankham Hi Teribus, Again thanks for your response. Hello Frank to continue our discussion: It is conjecture to suggest the UN would have done nothing to bring inspectors in. If the Bush Administration had shown less beligerence and more statesmanship and diplomacy, the inspections might have been facilitated faster. Again, this is all under the presumption that we know the answer. We don't. 1. The weapons inspection was a joint decision by member of the UN. The Bush Administration is now in the position of sabotaging this decision. 2. The disarmament is taking place gradually. Not all at once but Saddam is consierably weakened by the process and so I would have to disagree that nothing was done. What wasn't done was to follow an arbitrary and narrow decision handed down by the Bush Adminstration and for this I can see why the UN is reluctant to follow it. 3. In order to address the problem of Iraqi rights abuses we have to consider who are the parties to the abues. At present, the Iraqi people are being abused by sanctions and bombing which is going on right now regardless of the propaganda that we get from the state department that we are not at war yet. It suits the Bush Adminstration to plan for a post war Iraq that is amenable to allowing certain US firms to rebuild it such as the one Cheney is involved with. Also, the conquerors hold the oil leases. France, China and Russia may not like that. "Indeed, the US has not forced the UN into going to war - nor have they ever tried to." This is indeed incorrect. They are trying to now. They want UN involvment in supporting Mr. Bush's war. The truth is that even if Saddam should completely disarm, Bush has painted himself into a corner. If he doesn't avenge his father's assailant, he will be perceived as weak by his constituency. He has gambled that his credibility lies in going to war. The Bush Administration is attempting to block the UN decisions regarding the inspections. The "Desert Fox" has not prevented Saddam from inflicting genocide of Iraqis today. The Kurdish have more to fear from Turkish occupation now then they do Saddam. Many things are generally accepted that are incorrect because of their propaganda value. As we know from the logical fallacies of argument, there is a term for that which is generally accepted and assumed to be true when in fact it might be the opposite. I'll have to respond to the rest of your statements later. Cordially, Frank Hamilton |
|
12 Mar 03 - 07:22 AM (#908086) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Hello Frank, Thanks for responding You claim that: "It is conjecture to suggest the UN would have done nothing to bring inspectors in." I believe that it is a matter of record, held by the UN and no doubt accessable through the UN order of business on their web-site, that no line has been actively pursued by the UN in relation to getting weapons inspection teams back to work in Iraq post 1998 - Until the US brought the subject to their attention. I believe it is also a matter of record that Iraq made no attempt to invite the Inspection teams back until the US insisted that the inspection teams had to go back under the terms of a new resolution. This was resisted initially by France, Germany and Russia. The new resolution was however passed unanimously by the UN Security Council. It may be conjecture as you say - but extremely well founded conjecture. "1. The weapons inspection was a joint decision by member of the UN. The Bush Administration is now in the position of sabotaging this decision." The weapons inspection programme was a UN condition and requirement dating back to the end of the "Desert Storm" hostilities. The US is not sabotaging this effort in any way - their take on the situation is that Iraq, having failed to comply with existing UN resolutions (pre-1441) were to be given one last final opportunity UN SC Resolution 1441 - Iraq has failed to comply with the letter and intent of 1441, in that it can be argued that they are in material breach of 1441 and as such should be compelled to disarm. That is an interpretation of Iraqi conduct and events - not sabotage. "2. The disarmament is taking place gradually. Not all at once but Saddam is considerably weakened by the process and so I would have to disagree that nothing was done. What wasn't done was to follow an arbitrary and narrow decision handed down by the Bush Adminstration and for this I can see why the UN is reluctant to follow it." Yes disarmament is taking place gradually - Iraqi disarmament should have been completed 90 days after the signing of the cease-fire agreement in 1991 - how gradual do you want it to be. This is something that the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq signed up to in order that they could remain in power - They have failed to do so - the only reason they are doing so now is because parked on their doorstep are US & UK forces who pose a credible military threat to that Regime's existence. The UN Security Council issued 1441, so far the Iraqi's are not complying with either its letter or intent - serious consequences are the result of such non-compliance, according to the wording of the resolution - what does "serious consequences" mean? - that is up to the UN, in making that decision it either acts, or it consigns itself to irrelevance. I say that, because if it does not act, it need never pass another resolution for as long as it exists, knowing full well that it has, by its own actions, allowed Saddam Hussein's Iraq to set the precedent for others to follow with regard to the UN. "3. In order to address the problem of Iraqi rights abuses we have to consider who are the parties to the abues. At present, the Iraqi people are being abused by sanctions and bombing which is going on right now regardless of the propaganda that we get from the state department that we are not at war yet." So sanctions and bombing of military targets, tracking and firing upon US & British aircraft in the no-fly zones are the only "human rights" abuses the Iraqi people have to contend with? Somehow I don't think that you have looked at the full picture. Or do you believe that all this talk about Saddam's Regime being the most repressive in the modern world is just so much propaganda - The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc, are all deluded - they've got it all wrong? I certainly do not think so - Why do the No-fly zones exist Frank? - was it just a whim on the part of Britain and United States - or was it to offer some form of protection to Iraq's Shia and Kurdish citizens from the worse excesses of Saddam's retribution post-Desert Storm. Somewhere in the UN Charter there is an obligation to ensure that minimum casualties are to be inflicted on civilian populations - It should be remembered that this is an obligation on both sides - The Iraqi trick of hiding air-defence radars and missile launchers close to civilian areas is in contravention of this principle. Again no mention of concern or curiousity about the 602 Kuwaiti citizens abducted from Kuwait 12 years ago - they don't seem to feature - obviously to those opponents of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, 602 Kuwaiti's don't matter a damn, you've just wiped them off the board in order to conveniently ignore them. Hell's teeth if it had been one American held under similar circumstances, he'd have been released 11 and a half years ago - or Baghdad would have been flattened in order to know why. The UN sanctions, under which the Iraqi people suffer daily, could have been lifted at any time during the past 11 years simply by Saddam complying with UN Resolutions, he, presumably on behalf of his people, refused to do that - Nothing to do with the US or UK. "It suits the Bush Adminstration to plan for a post war Iraq that is amenable to allowing certain US firms to rebuild it such as the one Cheney is involved with. Also, the conquerors hold the oil leases. France, China and Russia may not like that." So America has commercial interests in altering the current situation in Iraq!! - And France, Russia and China haven't??? The major point of difference between the two is that with the former (US) the Iraqi people as a whole stand a chance to gain something priceless - their freedom. With the latter (France, Russia and China) they can only expect continued repression and suffering, because France, Russia and China's interests are best served with Saddam continuing in power. <<"Indeed, the US has not forced the UN into going to war - nor have they ever tried to.">> "This is indeed incorrect. They are trying to now. They want UN involvment in supporting Mr. Bush's war." The US THROUGH the UN are trying to get Saddam Hussein and Iraq to disarm in a manner that is verifiable beyond doubt. Plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less. Subsequent to the passing of UNSC Resolution 1441 - it is the perception of the US & UK that Saddam Hussein is not going to disarm, he is not pro-actively co-operating as is required by the resolution - therefore Saddam and his regime must be replaced in order that Iraq will disarm and renounce the use of WMD. Last time I checked they were still trying to do this, as they always have, THROUGH the offices of the UN. "The Bush Administration is attempting to block the UN decisions regarding the inspections." No it is not - What the US is saying to the UN is, "That you, the UN, have given Iraq one last opportunity to comply with the wishes of the international community. Iraq is failing to do what is required, as it has done with all previous UNSC Resolutions - now what are you, the UN going to do about it - are you going to talk or are you going to act." "The "Desert Fox" has not prevented Saddam from inflicting genocide of Iraqis today. The Kurdish have more to fear from Turkish occupation now then they do Saddam." No but it did slow him down a bit - gave him pause for thought - evened the playing field by eliminating the possibility of using air-power to drop CB weapons. As to the Kurds having more to fear from the Turks - then maybe you can explain why a recent Arab summit held in Turkey and hosted by the Turkish Government was called expressly to guarantee Iraq's current borders irrespective of whether there is a war or not. They don't fear Saddam because of the protection offered by Operation "Enduring Freedom" and what is available to back that up - Not out of any change of heart on the part of Saddam Hussein. Yours cordially, Teribus. |
|
12 Mar 03 - 07:34 AM (#908098) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Bagpuss "Or do you believe that all this talk about Saddam's Regime being the most repressive in the modern world is just so much propaganda - The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc, are all deluded - they've got it all wrong?" I doubt that the organisations you mention make such a claim at all. They list the repressions and abuses found in the country - and there are many, but I have never seen a statement from any of them that Iraq is "the most repressive in the modern world". I am sure that there are many countries which abuse their citizens in equal measure, but the world seems happy enough to leave them alone (or quite often support them) unless they have another reason to attack - and all of a sudden human rights abuses become extremely important. |
|
12 Mar 03 - 08:04 AM (#908115) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Bagpuss Just did an admittedly quick search, and found just one site that attempted to rank countries according to their political freedoms and civil rights. Doesn't go into any detail about how it calculates its scores, but it does say: "The most repressive govts in the 2002 were: North Korea, Iraq, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Equatorial Guinea". I wonder when the world will start making a fuss about the other countries mentioned here. When will Bush declare Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan to be part of his "axis of evil"? |
|
12 Mar 03 - 08:09 AM (#908120) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Thanks Bagpuss - I stand corrected - wasn't too far out though second most repressive regime in the world, ranked behind North Korea. Bush appeared to get it right though. |
|
12 Mar 03 - 08:23 AM (#908126) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Bagpuss I don't think they were ranked in any particular order. I think it was meant to be read that they are equally repressive. |
|
12 Mar 03 - 11:15 AM (#908227) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Teribus-if North Korea is more oppressive AND has a much more developed nuclear weapons program, why are we practically ignoring them? |
|
12 Mar 03 - 01:59 PM (#908339) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow I wa sure I poste a response to what Doug said there, but it's nowhere to be seen. Anyway, the point about linking to that story about Afghanistan was to remind us that human rights issues aren't always as straightforward as they appear. You win some, you lose some. For example, you get the KGB off your back, and the Russian Mafia takes over. I remember Tony Blair eloquently promising how this time Afghanistan would be different - "We won't turn our bqck and walk away as we did last time". But helping the people of Afghanistan to clear up the social disaster that has enveloped their country over the past few decades doesn't seem to be the top priority these days. |
|
12 Mar 03 - 03:13 PM (#908386) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Terribus, I'm not going to do what I said I would do in my 11 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM post. I notice that as a part of your strategy to win debates, instead of just arguing the facts, you have begun to resort to making personal attacks on my integrity on other threads. I'm not going to play your dirty little game with you. You're on your own with that one. |
|
13 Mar 03 - 08:21 AM (#908977) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus CarolC, That's fine by me. As to me, "making personal attacks on (your) integrity" - I believe you are referring to a passage in a post of mine in the Arafat thread. That was not a personal attack on anyone - that was sarcasm, in response to an inference made by yourself that was simply ludicrous. However,if you want to see a good example of a personal attack within this forum - have a read of your own contributions on the same thread. There appears to be a tendency on your part with regard to two particular subjects where you are completely incapable of standing back and looking at those subjects from different angles - one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right. This approach to any discussion is ridiculous and displays a bigotry that should be self evident. |
|
13 Mar 03 - 10:07 AM (#909049) Subject: RE: BS: Who's the aggressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow Maybe I haven't been following the threads too carefully, but I don't think that Carol C's posts generally do seem to say "one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right". Rather they appear to concentrate on pointing out faults on the side that gets the most favourable media coverage, which isn't the same thing at all. There's a quote I came across the other day, and it strikes me that it says something which we would do well to hold to in our exchanges ion the Mudcat, especially when we are getting angry. It comes from a detective story writer who died a couple of years ago, Ellis Peters. She is writing here in the voice of the protagonist in her books, Brother Cadfael, a 12th century monk: "The simplest and most temperate words are the best to express complex and intemperate feelings." |
|
13 Mar 03 - 10:57 AM (#909085) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Forum Lurker has asked me this question: "if North Korea is more oppressive AND has a much more developed nuclear weapons program, why are we practically ignoring them?" I don't think that the US is particularly ignoring North Korea - the US wants multi-lateral talks, North Korea wants bi-lateral talks with the US. |
|
13 Mar 03 - 12:09 PM (#909142) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Teribus Kevin, If you had read my post I said, "with regard to two particular subjects where you are completely incapable of standing back and looking at those subjects from different angles - one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right." Those two particular subjects are: 1. George W. Bush - always totally wrong; whoever else always right 2. Israel/Palestine - Israel always wrong; Palestine always right |
|
13 Mar 03 - 12:59 PM (#909186) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Teribus, the post from me on the Arafat thread that you call a personal attack on you, was indeed me ripping you a new asshole. And you deserved it. It was in response to a personal attack from you on my integrity. You did something similar on another thread where the subject of DU is being discussed. And you did it again with this paragraph in your 13 Mar 03 - 08:21 AM post on this thread: There appears to be a tendency on your part with regard to two particular subjects where you are completely incapable of standing back and looking at those subjects from different angles - one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right. This approach to any discussion is ridiculous and displays a bigotry that should be self evident. I notice that when you are losing a debate, you resort to personal attacks. Most of the time, I can see this behavior for what it is, and respond accordingly. Yesterday I didn't do that. Do I think it was a mistake? Probably not. But I think in the future I'll take personal attacks from you as a sign that you are losing the debate, and I'll just stick to using facts to make my arguments. |
|
13 Mar 03 - 01:11 PM (#909202) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC George W. Bush - always totally wrong; whoever else always right Israel/Palestine - Israel always wrong; Palestine always right The only conclusion I can possibly draw from this one from you, with regard to Bush, Teribus, is that you simply haven't been reading my posts. In the case of GW Bush, I hardly ever post anything about him at all. Now, In the case of Israel/Palestine, well, in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, what would you say? Sharon is a war criminal on the same order as Milosevic, as are many other members of the Israeli government, past and present. This is well documented by Israeli Jews themselves. Do you have any good things to say about Slobodan Milosevic? Or how about Saddam Hussein. Do you have anything good to say about him? And yet everything you criticize him for, can also be said about Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Government. Why aren't you more open minded about Saddam Hussien, Teribus? |
|
13 Mar 03 - 01:38 PM (#909228) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST,Forum Lurker CarolC- Sharon and Milosevic are not "on the same order." Regardless of what you might think of Sharon's intent, and even should you have evidence that Sharon engaged in deliberate massacres of civilians, you will find orders of magnitude of difference in the scale. And even if he were as bad as you claim, that doesn't mean that the government he currently heads is always wrong. |
|
13 Mar 03 - 01:44 PM (#909233) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Sorry, Forum Lurker. I can't agree with you on that. And there is ample documentation available to back up what I have said. Even with regard to orders of magnitude and differences in scale. |
|
13 Mar 03 - 02:03 PM (#909247) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow Yes I read your post Teribus, and I still stand by what I said in mine. It appeared to me that what you wrote did serioiusly misrepresent what Carol C has posted. People often seem to imply that, since in some situation (pretty well any situation as it happens) both sides are in some measure at fault, this means that it is impossible to say that justice lies on one side or the other. It doesn't need much thinking about to see that that is a fallacy. In the case of Israel and Palestine it seems to me that the balance of justice does clearly lie on one side rather than the other, in the present situation. But this is in no way is equivalent to saying "one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right". |
|
13 Mar 03 - 02:20 PM (#909264) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: GUEST,Forum Lurker McGrath- which side do you think is in the right? |
|
13 Mar 03 - 09:54 PM (#909559) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Frankham Hi CarolC, Most of my information comes from sporadic reading in various columns that are not representative of the propaganda the media is spewing out these days. Occasionally on the back pages of the New York Times or articles in the Nation give an alternative perspective on Afghanistan and Iraq. Other newspapers might have some information that is not in the headlines.One of the articles i read indicated that Karzai has literally had to beg Bush for help in maintaining order and getting enough money to repair the damage the bombing did. Bush has turned his back on Afghanistan in favor of creating new damage in Iraq. You can expect a lot of vitriol coming from those defenders of the Iraq war. It's so highly charged that there is little reasonable debate on the subject coming from anywhere. It certainly isn't coming from the US Congress. One of the most disconcerting aspects of Israel, these days, is that Sharon and the Likud have destroyed conscientious objection to war in their country. This is not democratic but autocratic. The "refusniks" have been incarcerated and punished for their convictions. All I can say about the present xenophobia being spewed by pro-war folks is Vive La France! They may be saving us from Bush's War. Frank Hamilton |
|
13 Mar 03 - 10:22 PM (#909576) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Thanks Frank. I've been having difficulty finding much of any sort of information about how things are on the ground in Afghanistan these days. I'll keep looking though. Re: the people fighting for justice in Israel/Palestine... I agree that the Israeli government has had a devastating effect on the numbers of people participating in the human rights movement there (with the help of Bill Clinton), but I notice that the Israeli human rights websites are still operating (or were last time I checked). I have profound admiration for the ones who haven't given up and are still fighting for human rights there. |
|
14 Mar 03 - 12:32 AM (#909638) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR So Frank, you moving to France? McGrath: I have read and re-read Teribus' statement about Carol C's posts regarding Bush and the Israel/Palestinian conflict. I can't possibly see how you come up with your interpretation. Are you saying that Carol C. has not been consistently critical of Israel and Bush? DougR |
|
14 Mar 03 - 06:39 AM (#909769) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC I'd say McGrath is pretty much right on the money there, DougR. But then, he actually reads my posts ;-) |
|
14 Mar 03 - 09:02 AM (#909869) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Forum Lurker CarolC-The only Israeli leader I've never heard you criticize is Rabin. If that means you're not consistently critical of Israel, I guess DougR was wrong. |
|
14 Mar 03 - 12:15 PM (#910027) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: DougR FL: you must not have been around when debate about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict was a hot topic. DougR |
|
14 Mar 03 - 04:11 PM (#910235) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Forum Lurker, of the Israeli government officials I know enough about to even have any opinions, there have been two whom I have praised. One was Rabin. The other was Yossi Beilin . I now know more about Beilin than I did when I praised him, and because of what I have learned, I take back my praise of him. I will readily admit that there are many government leaders of Israel that I don't know enough about to have any opinion of them one way or the other. I don't post anything about them because I don't know enough about them to have an opinion to post. I hope I will learn about some more Israeli leaders to whom I will feel I can give my praise. When I do, you may be sure that I will post my positive comments whenever the oportunity arises. |
|
14 Mar 03 - 04:22 PM (#910239) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC I just noticed something Forum Lurker. I'm going to put it here for you. Take a good look at this sentence, and then tell me what is wrong with it: CarolC-The only Israeli leader I've never heard you criticize is Rabin. |
|
14 Mar 03 - 07:59 PM (#910395) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow Being consistently critical of the Israeli Government is just not the same as saying "one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right". |
|
14 Mar 03 - 08:31 PM (#910409) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Forum Lurker CarolC-Yes? Is there something you would like me to know, or do you prefer being cryptic? The sentence is fine grammatically, and while it is a slight exaggeration, I know of no Israeli leaders you have ever mentioned besides Rabin that you have never criticized. |
|
14 Mar 03 - 09:17 PM (#910435) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: CarolC Never mind, Forum Lurker. I was just inviting you to play with me a bit. You strike me as an intelligent person. I thought you might have been able to have some fun with that sentence as I did. |
|
14 Mar 03 - 09:37 PM (#910442) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: Bobert So, like George Bush today says he's for a resolution to the Isreali/Palestianian war. Yeah, right?!?!?! And I'm a Martian alien sent to spy on Mudcat! Will all of you who believe that, raise your hand... (Ahhh, no hands, Bobert...) Yep, normal day for Bush. He speaks and the entire world thinks he's *leiing*! Like I said...... normal! Bobert |
|
15 Mar 03 - 06:17 PM (#910942) Subject: RE: BS: Whose the agressor here? From: McGrath of Harlow Now in a sane world Bush and Blair would put the Iraqi stuff on the back-burner, while the inspectors go round doing their stuff, and the troops go scuba-diving in the Persian Gulf, and instead they'd concentrate on getting the Israel Palestine situation sorted out. And when that was done, if there was still some reason to have a war oin Iraq, there's be a few more people in the region who'd think that maybe these guys aren't such cynical bastards as we thought. And a lot of people in Palestine and Israel who'd have good reason to be a lot happier. And no more pregnant women killed by having her house bulldozed flat on top of her, as happened the other day, or 95 year old ladies shot dead at checkpoints; or kids killed by suicide bombers. But we don't live in a sane world. |