Those damn 'hearts and minds' - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-30-2004, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Bombs Kill Scores in Iraq — 35 of Them Kids
Thursday, September 30, 2004

King Abdullah: Elections Impossible
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Bombs exploded near a U.S. convoy in western Baghdad on Thursday, killing 35 children and seven adults, a hospital official said. Hours earlier, a homicide car bomb killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.
...
Yarmouk Hospital received 38 bodies — including those of 35 children — and 127 wounded, said Dr. Nibras Hamdan. Hutton said 10 American soldiers were among the wounded.

Resident Samir Abul-Karim said the attack happened during a ceremony marking the opening of a new sewage system in the neighborhood. Body parts were strewn in the streets amid pools of blood, and a U.S. helicopter evacuated some of the wounded while others circled.

Who is it thats not winning the 'hearts and minds'? They are going to reject the US because of THESE people? You know bad things happen in war, and bad things happen in revolutions and a revolution is exactly what Iraq is having. Different groups are trying for power, and outside forces are trying to steer it, but what I don't want to hear from anyone is how horrible the US is and civilian casualties causing them to turn against the US. Are the Iraqi's that stupid that they would blame us for someone killed in a crossfire but give something like THIS a pass?

cthulu23 · 09-30-2004, 06:34 AM

Do you ever source your articles? The use of the term "homicide bomb" definitely outs the source as Fox News or some other conservative organ. In the future you might want to give sources. It really does increase credibility (this assumes that you care about credibility, which may not be the case).

I'm certain that some of the Iraqi people don't support the violent actions of the insurgents but that doesn't mean that they will automatically be understanding of civilian casualties that the US creates. Regardless of the actions of our enemies there we still have to be sensitive to the repercussions of our actions. The universe does not fit neatly into binary categories of "with us or against us." People can be nuanced enough to hate ALL civilian casualties regardless of the source. Whatever the case, we are just speculating wildly here. Assumptions do not equal the truth.

Lebell · 09-30-2004, 06:39 AM

I agree that we need a link, please.

Averett · 09-30-2004, 06:40 AM

The usage of "Kids" is also very strange. It's not often that a credible source uses the term "Kids" over "Children"

Here's the article from MSNBC (Before anyone blasts me for using this article, MSN is my homepage at work, so I tend to use this for links)

Quote:

Multiple bombings kill dozens in Iraq
U.S. soldiers among dead, injured in Baghdad area

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:29 a.m. ET Sept. 30, 2004BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least three bombs exploded near a U.S. convoy in western Baghdad on Thursday, killing 37 people and wounding more than 50, officials said. Hours earlier, a suicide car bombing killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.

It was not known how many of the dead in the Baghdad attack were soldiers and how many were civilians. A U.S. helicopter evacuated some of the wounded while other aircraft circled overhead, an Associated Press photographer reported from the scene. U.S. forces sealed off the area.

In the northern city of Talafar, meanwhile, police and hospital officials said an explosion killed four people and wounded 16.

Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman said two car bombs and a roadside bomb exploded in swift succession as the convoy was passing. The attack happened around 1 p.m. in the al-Amel neighborhood, said Lt. Col. Jim Hutton, spokesman for the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division.

Yarmouk Hospital received 37 bodies and more than 50 wounded in the attack, said Dr. Nibras Hamdan.

Resident Samir Abul-Karim said the attack happened during a ceremony marking the opening of a new sewage system in the neighborhood.

Separate bombing, rocket attack kill 2 U.S. troops
The attack occurred hours after a suicide car bomber struck in the Abu Ghraib area outside of Baghdad. At least two Iraqis were killed and 60 wounded, said Dr. Abbas al-Timimi of Abu Ghraib hospital. Along with the killed soldier, three American military were wounded and were evacuated, said Maj. Philip Smith, spokesman for the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division.

That bomb targeted a compound that houses the mayor's office, a police station and other buildings, police 1st Lt. Ahmed Jawad said. A U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle parked in front of the compound was hit, he said.

Smoke and fire could be seen rising from the scene as U.S. forces sealed off the area. The wounded Americans were evacuated, said Maj. Philip Smith, spokesman for the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division.

Elsewhere on the outskirts of Baghdad, insurgents fired a rocket Thursday at a logistical support area for coalition forces, killing one soldier and wounding seven, the military said in a statement. No further information was disclosed -- including whether it was a U.S. soldier or not.

U.S. strikes militant 'safe house' in Fallujah
Meanwhile Thursday, the United States targeted a suspected terrorist safehouse in Fallujah, killing at least four Iraqis. The military said in a statement that intelligence reports indicated the house was being used by followers of Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to plan attacks against U.S.-led forces and Iraqi citizens.

"Significant secondary explosions were observed during the impact indicating a large cache of illegal ordinance was stored in the safe house," the statement said. Explosions continued in the northeastern side of the city for hours.

At least four Iraqis were killed -- including two women and one child -- and eight wounded, said Dr. Ahmed Khalil of the Fallujah General Hospital. Witnesses said two houses were flattened and four others damaged in the strike.

American jets, tanks and artillery units have repeatedly targeted al-Zarqawi's network in Fallujah in recent weeks as U.S.-led forces seek to assert control over insurgent enclaves ahead of elections slated for January. The military says the attacks have inflicted significant damage on the network, which has claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, kidnappings and other attacks.

Doctors say scores of civilians have been killed and wounded in the strikes.

Hmm... notice the difference in word usage?

onetime2 · 09-30-2004, 06:53 AM

I actually think the terrorists' decision to target (and/or attack in areas that are guaranteed to kill) other Muslims helps us in the war on terror. There hasn't been much of a backlash against terrorist groups from their Muslim brethren. Of course there have been denouncements of the actions for years and we are seeing more cooperation from states like Saudi Arabia but active help in rooting out terrorist networks and destruction of their operations has been lackluster to say the least. Killings of truck drivers supporting the US invasion and the like are accepted as legitimate targets by many who lean towards understanding of the terrorists' goals. The deaths of children and complete innocents (the "good" Muslims who aren't helping the infidel Americans) will only serve to drive a wedge between those who just months or years ago would look the other way as a terrorist organization recruited or campaigned for their beliefs and the terrorists who need such help to effectively blend into the general population.

martinguerre · 09-30-2004, 07:00 AM

whatever you say about saddam...there weren't car bombs on a daily basis. as fucked up as it is...that's probably a pretty relevant standard that we're being judged by. Not having enough troops to do the job right is killing us, and them... Why as a nation, we ever thought that occupiying a middle eastern country could be done on the quick, on the cheap, and on the easy... It blows the mind. Our invasion has brought the end to a terrible regime. Our invasion has also brought the beginning of a period of chaos. Sucks...but if all we can offer is a well intentioned sewer system, with strewn body parts in it...then we're probably losing support among the people.

onetime2 · 09-30-2004, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

whatever you say about saddam...there weren't car bombs on a daily basis. as fucked up as it is...that's probably a pretty relevant standard that we're being judged by. Not having enough troops to do the job right is killing us, and them... Why as a nation, we ever thought that occupiying a middle eastern country could be done on the quick, on the cheap, and on the easy... It blows the mind. Our invasion has brought the end to a terrible regime. Our invasion has also brought the beginning of a period of chaos. Sucks...but if all we can offer is a well intentioned sewer system, with strewn body parts in it...then we're probably losing support among the people.

On what basis do you think we don't have enought troops? How will more troops stop car bombs?

Rodney · 09-30-2004, 07:09 AM

It's not that the Iraqis are choosing the insurgents. It's that they're choosing not to actively "out" them to American forces (which they could) because:

*They don't trust us.
*They don't think we're there in their best interests
*They don't think we know what the hell we're doing
*They _know_ we can't protect them, especially those who cooperate with U.S. forces

150,000 troops cannot "occupy" a country of 20 million effectively unless the 20 million feel it's in their own best interest, and cooperate both passively (following the rules) and actively (informing about problems and proselytizing our position among themselves). That isn't happening. America hasn't convinced the Iraqis that we're there on behalf of their own best interests. Hell, America hasn't even convinced _me_ that we're there primarily for the Iraqis.

But I'd really rather believe that we were there on behalf of corrupt oil-based power politics, which I could at least understand, than because of half-baked ivory tower conservative ideology that held that we could take Iraq painlessly with just a few troops, be greeted with a rain of flowers by joyful Iraqis, and have a modern, secular democracy in place in a year in a country where they have _never voted_ and may have different ideas about how things should be done. That's scary. Saw Seymour Hersch on the Daily Show last night and he did a little talk on the groupthink mindset at the White House, and it scared the hell out of me.

edwhit · 09-30-2004, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

whatever you say about saddam...there weren't car bombs on a daily basis. as fucked up as it is...that's probably a pretty relevant standard that we're being judged by.

There was no need for car bombs by saddam's supporters. They simply needed a pistol and a bullet. Or a knife. Or a Sheet Metal Shredder. Whatever was handy. Why blow up a perfectly usable car? A rebel to Saddam would be more likely to have used a car bomb as I see it. But then again, any family or friends or associates he had once had would likely be tortured and killed as a result.

roachboy · 09-30-2004, 08:26 AM

there has been a flurry of contradictory stories in the press since last weekend about whether present troop levels are adequate. obviously this is caught up with the debates, such as they are, around the bush/allawi apperance before congress and the advancing of the pollyanna reading of the situation in iraq, which will doubtless only go away after the elections.
on indication of the contradictory nature of these stories is here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9EBB064787.htm

a matter that was quickly displaced onto that of the feasibility of holding elections in january. on this a riot of stories have appeared.

it is interesting that a decontextualized story from an obviously conservative source sits at the beginning of this thread, which plays to an equally decontextualized view of the situation in iraq, one oriented toward tv viewers, framed doubtless by fox news talking heads.

only from this viewpoint would the impression of a "double standard" make any sense. only from this viewpoint, of someone watching tv in america somewhere, would the idea be even rational that you can discount the fact of occupation and the meanings attributed to american occupation in particular when thinking about what is going on in iraq.

if you factor that in, even in the abstract, it should be easy to see how people there might understand resistance actions and american actions using very different scales, maybe the inverse of those used by the tv viewing analysts who try to explain away civilian casualties inflicted by americans whenever reports of them appear.

i hope that it is clear that none of this operates as justification for anything, simply as an explanation for how it might be that the non-problem at the origin of this thread might be understood.

as for the matter of chaos--it would follow as justification for opposing american occupation, not as cause, it seems to me.

martinguerre · 09-30-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwhit

There was no need for car bombs by saddam's supporters. They simply needed a pistol and a bullet. Or a knife. Or a Sheet Metal Shredder. Whatever was handy. Why blow up a perfectly usable car? A rebel to Saddam would be more likely to have used a car bomb as I see it. But then again, any family or friends or associates he had once had would likely be tortured and killed as a result.

point taken. but despite the obvious human rights abuses of the former regime...there was basic order being maintained. despite the hardships imposed by the sanctions, and saddam's abuse of the sanction relief programs, i would venture a guess that daily life for the average Iraqi was more or less tolerable. Now that he's gone, there seems to be little love lost...but what use are "democracy" and "freedom" if it means to the freedom to be blown to pieces? is that fear "better" than the fear of saddam's regime? As an occupying power, we have a responsiblity not to let things go to shit...and i think we're failing pretty badly at that.

smicer · 09-30-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Averett

The usage of "Kids" is also very strange. It's not often that a credible source uses the term "Kids" over "Children"

Headlines www.cnn.com

"Kids waiting for candy killed by Iraq bombs"

CNN is a fairly credible source.

cthulu23 · 09-30-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smicer

CNN is a fairly credible source.

Only if it's stating something that the American right wing agrees with....otherwise it's a biased, liberal orgainization

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-30-2004, 02:54 PM

Sounds like a mirror "Faux" news.

smicer · 09-30-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Only if it's stating something that the American right wing agrees with....otherwise it's a biased, liberal orgainization

Only if it's stating something that the American left wing agrees with...otherwise it's a biased, conservative organization.

This goes both ways, please don't politicize the post. I was merely showing the headline as provided by a news source.

edwhit · 09-30-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

point taken. but despite the obvious human rights abuses of the former regime...there was basic order being maintained. despite the hardships imposed by the sanctions, and saddam's abuse of the sanction relief programs, i would venture a guess that daily life for the average Iraqi was more or less tolerable. Now that he's gone, there seems to be little love lost...but what use are "democracy" and "freedom" if it means to the freedom to be blown to pieces? is that fear "better" than the fear of saddam's regime? As an occupying power, we have a responsiblity not to let things go to shit...and i think we're failing pretty badly at that.

From what I've heard, day to day life always included the possibility of being killed or worse. I'm sure they were used to it. I'll grant you that. But the average person was not safe. You can tolerate what you can not stop I suppose.

He needed removed from power I have no doubt in my head. The correct and most efficient way of doing this however eludes me. I have heard countless arguments on both sides. But I'll grant you this, there is no peace and serenity there yet.

I am reminded of somewhat similar accurances in Russia. Similar at least in the fact that they were afraid to say the wrong thing in public for fear of being shot. They were afraid almost all the time. They got used to it but they were afraid. It was a way of life. Perhaps fear is not even the right word. They constantly had to look over their shoulder and attempt to avoid drawing attention to themselves for fear the KGB would decide they should be punished for whatever bogus idea they could make up.

When the wall came down and the KGB split up there was a lot of problems. Economic and violence not being the least of these problems. But when talking to my friends in Russia I kept hearing the same thing, "We will not go back to a dictator. We will not allow it!"

Of course a couple of major differences in these two scenarios is that the people wanted change and were willing to do something about it and we were not occupying the country.

I do believe that as long as we are occupying the country there will be increased violence. However, I'm not sure I see an alternative right now. Unless you want to argue to take more troops for the moment. Regardless, I see no easy answers now.

cthulu23 · 09-30-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smicer

Only if it's stating something that the American left wing agrees with...otherwise it's a biased, conservative organization.

This goes both ways, please don't politicize the post. I was merely showing the headline as provided by a news source.

It was a silly post and I wasn't attibuting that belief to you. It's just been so long since I've seen someone refer to CNN as a credible news source that I couldn't resist. My apologies and please carry on.

host · 10-01-2004, 10:32 PM

Ustwo, do you access any reporting about Iraq from none-American
sources? Have you seen the film titled "Control Room"? Here are some
reviews of the film, and a link to all Control Room reviews at imdb.com:

Quote:

leighs73
Philadelphia

Date: 25 July 2004
Summary: Moving

Two things moved me very much about this film:

The first was Lt Rushing, one of the US military media liaison officers at Centcom. His open-mindedness, fairness and plain decency are very rare to find in any spin doctor, let alone one working for an army during a war. He is a credit to himself, his family and his country, and I sincerely hope he hasn't suffered any professional repercussions for his honesty in this piece.

The second was the man who was the head of Al Jazeera. It was funny when he said he would accept a job at Fox News the second it was offered. But it turned out to be heartbreaking when he said as soon as his children are old enough, he'll send them to the US for education, in order to escape the "Arab nightmare" and live the "American dream". It's so sad that that part of the world is such a mess that even people who love it and have grown up there and are rooting for it recognise that there is little hope there for their children. If only that sentiment could be channelled into finding a solution for the problems in the Middle East.

thegreenmnm8
Shrewsbury, MA

Date: 20 July 2004
Summary: The broader picture

I went into the theater tonight expecting to see a dry, albeit informative, documentary about Al Jazeera and the atrocities carried out against the Iraqi citizens. Much of the film was about this (though certainly not dry in the least), but it went beyond a mere recounting of events from a different viewpoint.

Instead, I saw a film on the broader influence of media on the perception of war. The way the film is structured, and the fact that its location is centered in a journalism hotspot that was home to the US Army, CNN, NBC, Al Jazeera, and the BBC, allows for a true comparison between the shades of truth of war.

This was not a commentary solely on Iraq-- nor was it an anecdotal exploit of recent events. Rather, it is a more general glance at media and war... a glimpse into the biases and misleading nature of all journalists. It shows humanity, the essence of all war, and examines the way that certain images can be seen entirely differently by different eyes.

jreinhart-1
Massachusetts, USA

Date: 20 July 2004
Summary: a very important film

Control Room is an exceptional documentary about Aljazeera, the independent Arab news network. It is a far more important film than Fahrenheit 9/11. In comparison, it could be said that F9/11 provides an overview while Control Room hits at some specifics. However, it is more than that. Control Room presents viewers with a glimpse of the war in Iraq from the vantage point of Aljazeera. Because Aljazeera is the most watched news source in Arab societies, the film is an opportunity for the viewer to put themselves in the shoes of the average Arab citizen.

The film is around 80 minutes of interviews. The contrast between the representatives of Aljazeera and the American journalists and soldiers was striking. While the people from Aljazeera are intelligent and thoughtful, the Americans come off as sadly misinformed to the extent that they have no concept of why the reporter from Aljazeera would ask combative questions.

At a time when it is imperative that Americans take a step back and humbly survey the world, Control Room is an important start. The film is valuable viewing for anyone from university professors of media or who study the Middle East, to 14-year-old conservative children, to journalists of every level, to stay-at-home parents. It's message goes beyond the current situation in Iraq. It is a universal message of trying to understand the other people we share this world with and the continual striving for truth.
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391024/usercomments">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391024/usercomments</a>

One positive outcome of the making of "Control Room" was the honesty of
U.S. Marine Press Liason Lt. Josh Rushing, a 14 year career Marine. Rushing
and the friendship he ended up establishing with Al Jazeera reporter Hassan Ibrahim. <br>Imagine the positive potential of that relationship, in regard to
getting an improved image of Americans and their intentions beamed to Arabs.

Quote:

A military spokesman is silenced after candid comments in a movie on Al Jazeera and Iraq war.
by Mark Mazzetti, LA Times
August 2nd, 2004
WASHINGTON — For most of the central figures in the documentary film "Control Room," the grisly images that emerged from last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq were no cause for a change of opinion.

Over the length of the film, director Jehane Noujaim's inside look at the war through the eyes and lenses of Al Jazeera's journalists based at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, the chasm only widens between the U.S. military officials who speak about the "liberation" of Iraq and the Al Jazeera reporters skeptical of the invasion.

The exception is a young Marine lieutenant named Josh Rushing.

Rushing, a Central Command spokesman assigned to escort the documentary makers during their time in Qatar, is among the film's most sympathetic characters, portrayed as a thoughtful young man moved over time by the grim reality of war.

At no point is he shown doubting the justness of the U.S. effort in Iraq, yet the film documents a budding friendship between Rushing and Al Jazeera reporter Hassan Ibrahim, and moments on camera when Rushing is wrestling with the film's central themes: war, bias and the Arab world's most powerful media outlet.

The Marine's role in the film turned him into a minor celebrity among the art-house-cinema crowd. But the candid comments he made in the documentary and in interviews after its release ran afoul of his superiors in the Marine Corps, which he now plans to leave.

On camera midway through the film, Rushing spoke of being disturbed that footage Al Jazeera, an Arabic-language satellite television channel, broadcast of civilian Iraqi casualties had not affected him as much as images shown the following night of dead American soldiers.

"It upset me on a profound level that I wasn't bothered as much the night before," Rushing said. "It makes me hate war. But it doesn't make me believe we can live in a world without war yet."

Rushing, now a captain assigned to the Marine Corps Motion Picture and Television Liaison office in Los Angeles, has been prohibited from giving any more interviews about his part in the film.

Marine officials at the Pentagon have even asked Rushing to keep his wife, Paige, from giving interviews after she made comments critical of how the military handled her husband's situation. Because of this, several of Rushing's friends say the 31-year-old Marine plans to leave the military in October.

Rushing declined to be interviewed for this article. His situation has angered many in the military public affairs community who say Rushing has been a passionate spokesman for the U.S. armed forces and is being punished for appearing in a film that portrays Al Jazeera — a bete noire of the Bush administration since the Sept. 11 attacks — in a positive light.

"Here's a guy who represents the very best of public affairs in the Marines," says a senior military official who worked with Rushing at Central Command, speaking on condition of anonymity. "For whatever reason, it didn't play well with some of the senior brass in the Marine Corps at Pentagon. They're losing one of their finest."....................................

...................................
As for Rushing, friends and associates say the Marine has yet to figure out his plans for life after the military.

"I think it's too bad for the Marines he's moving on," Noujaim said. "He convinced a lot of skeptical people in the Arab press that there are those in the U.S. military coming from the right place."
<a href="http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6144">http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6144</a>

Chalk the Lt. Josh Rushing story up as one more example in a litany of
instances where the Bush administration has shown a remarkable consistancy
in it's ability, at every turn, to snatch a new defeat from the jaws of
victory. Josh Rushing could have been a great asset in the assumed priority
of winning over Iraqi and Arab "hearts and minds", because he earned the trust,<br> respect, and friendship of the very people with the most credibility
in the Arab world, coupled with their power to bring words and pictures to
the very people Bushco claim that they are trying to positively influence.

Try as I might, I have a much easier time understanding the mindset of
the "Arab in the street", than I do the mindset of Bushco supporters in my
own country. I am very discouraged that I may be living in a society where
the issues are all either black or white, but I can only process shades of
gray............

09-30-2004, 06:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I agree that we need a link, please. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-30-2004, 06:53 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I actually think the terrorists' decision to target (and/or attack in areas that are guaranteed to kill) other Muslims helps us in the war on terror. There hasn't been much of a backlash against terrorist groups from their Muslim brethren. Of course there have been denouncements of the actions for years and we are seeing more cooperation from states like Saudi Arabia but active help in rooting out terrorist networks and destruction of their operations has been lackluster to say the least. Killings of truck drivers supporting the US invasion and the like are accepted as legitimate targets by many who lean towards understanding of the terrorists' goals. The deaths of children and complete innocents (the "good" Muslims who aren't helping the infidel Americans) will only serve to drive a wedge between those who just months or years ago would look the other way as a terrorist organization recruited or campaigned for their beliefs and the terrorists who need such help to effectively blend into the general population. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-30-2004, 08:26 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there has been a flurry of contradictory stories in the press since last weekend about whether present troop levels are adequate. obviously this is caught up with the debates, such as they are, around the bush/allawi apperance before congress and the advancing of the pollyanna reading of the situation in iraq, which will doubtless only go away after the elections. on indication of the contradictory nature of these stories is here: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9EBB064787.htm a matter that was quickly displaced onto that of the feasibility of holding elections in january. on this a riot of stories have appeared. it is interesting that a decontextualized story from an obviously conservative source sits at the beginning of this thread, which plays to an equally decontextualized view of the situation in iraq, one oriented toward tv viewers, framed doubtless by fox news talking heads. only from this viewpoint would the impression of a "double standard" make any sense. only from this viewpoint, of someone watching tv in america somewhere, would the idea be even rational that you can discount the fact of occupation and the meanings attributed to american occupation in particular when thinking about what is going on in iraq. if you factor that in, even in the abstract, it should be easy to see how people there might understand resistance actions and american actions using very different scales, maybe the inverse of those used by the tv viewing analysts who try to explain away civilian casualties inflicted by americans whenever reports of them appear. i hope that it is clear that none of this operates as justification for anything, simply as an explanation for how it might be that the non-problem at the origin of this thread might be understood. as for the matter of chaos--it would follow as justification for opposing american occupation, not as cause, it seems to me. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-30-2004, 02:54 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Sounds like a mirror "Faux" news. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-30-2004, 06:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Do you ever source your articles? The use of the term "homicide bomb" definitely outs the source as Fox News or some other conservative organ. In the future you might want to give sources. It really does increase credibility (this assumes that you care about credibility, which may not be the case). I'm certain that some of the Iraqi people don't support the violent actions of the insurgents but that doesn't mean that they will automatically be understanding of civilian casualties that the US creates. Regardless of the actions of our enemies there we still have to be sensitive to the repercussions of our actions. The universe does not fit neatly into binary categories of "with us or against us." People can be nuanced enough to hate ALL civilian casualties regardless of the source. Whatever the case, we are just speculating wildly here. Assumptions do not equal the truth.

09-30-2004, 07:00 AM	#6 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	whatever you say about saddam...there weren't car bombs on a daily basis. as fucked up as it is...that's probably a pretty relevant standard that we're being judged by. Not having enough troops to do the job right is killing us, and them... Why as a nation, we ever thought that occupiying a middle eastern country could be done on the quick, on the cheap, and on the easy... It blows the mind. Our invasion has brought the end to a terrible regime. Our invasion has also brought the beginning of a period of chaos. Sucks...but if all we can offer is a well intentioned sewer system, with strewn body parts in it...then we're probably losing support among the people.

09-30-2004, 07:09 AM	#8 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	It's not that the Iraqis are choosing the insurgents. It's that they're choosing not to actively "out" them to American forces (which they could) because: They don't trust us. They don't think we're there in their best interests They don't think we know what the hell we're doing They _know_ we can't protect them, especially those who cooperate with U.S. forces 150,000 troops cannot "occupy" a country of 20 million effectively unless the 20 million feel it's in their own best interest, and cooperate both passively (following the rules) and actively (informing about problems and proselytizing our position among themselves). That isn't happening. America hasn't convinced the Iraqis that we're there on behalf of their own best interests. Hell, America hasn't even convinced _me_ that we're there primarily for the Iraqis. But I'd really rather believe that we were there on behalf of corrupt oil-based power politics, which I could at least understand, than because of half-baked ivory tower conservative ideology that held that we could take Iraq painlessly with just a few troops, be greeted with a rain of flowers by joyful Iraqis, and have a modern, secular democracy in place in a year in a country where they have _never voted_ and may have different ideas about how things should be done. That's scary. Saw Seymour Hersch on the Daily Show last night and he did a little talk on the groupthink mindset at the White House, and it scared the hell out of me.