Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-16-2005, 04:45 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
the truth about iraq you don't see

http://www.dawah.tv/broadcast/iraqfree/iraqfree2.ram

Please, I advise all those who support the Iraq war, and even those who oppose it, to watch this short clip showing the death, torture and destruction the Americans have brought to the Iraqi people. The video is extremely sad and may be disturbing for some as it shows dead innocent Iraqi children as well as others.

People always call me anti-American or a terrorist supporter because I despise American soldiers; here is one video which shows why I hate the scum. As the Iraqi said in the video…”the American soldiers are not better than saddam”.

I hope the Iraqi resistance is successful in defeating the American killing machine. I hope the Iraqis win this war and kick the foreign killers from their country.

I don't need to explain much, as the video speaks for itself. This thread is not meant to be turned into flames, but only personal opinions. It was posted to show you the real truth about "operation Iraqi FREEDOM"...
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 04:52 PM   #2 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
I don't agree with the war either, but you're flat wrong about the soldiers. They're not scum. It's not their fault. They're being ordered to do it. They HAVE to do it.

The few soldiers who abused prisoners and committed other crimes, yes, they're scum. But they are not the majority, and to classify all soldiers as scum because of their actions is no worse than classifying all Muslims as terrorists because of the actions of a few insane people calling themselves muslim.
shakran is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 05:11 PM   #3 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Wow,powerful film.Not gonna say anything else,don't wanna get political atm.

Just wow.
Fohur2 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 06:31 PM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
"People always call me anti-American or a terrorist supporter because I despise American soldiers;"

rdr...this is no surprise to anyone. It's nice that you've finally admitted flatly your despise for our soldiers. I have no idea what is in this video, but this video hasn't changed your thoughts about what america is or what it stands for. It's taken you 2 and 1/2 years to find something that makes you comfortable to be this blunt about your thoughts. Why are you afraid of being anti-american? You are. Pan6467 may interject with his all caps offended type for even suggesting the idea, but you've just admitted it. You hate this country, the lbs on this board will encourage you're "dissention", and play martyr's when it's challenged.

I'll start the trend of honesty here, perhaps you rdr, Pan, etc, will see the big picture. Fuck your ALL CAPS RIDICULOUSLY UNGENUINE respone. There is a large cohort of unrealistic liberals that hate this country, and there are people like you Pan that will encourage that behavior, and will be offended when someone calls them on it. Any liberal that doesn't call rdr on this is just as guilty.

\end rant
\grow up

I'll watch this video tomorrow when i'm on a different computer.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 06:40 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Erm... Why are you bashing on pan when he hasn't even posted on this thread?

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 06:57 PM   #6 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
I gotta say, I don't hate American soldiers. I have a friend who did a tour in Iraq. My cousin is in the Army, although he hasn't yet toured in Afghanistan or Iraq (he'll surely do one or the other soon). They aren't, any more than any other group of people, inherently bad.

I've been staunchly anti-war since the beginning. I believe that the torture that does happen, in Guantanamo or Iraq or Afghanistan or that we outsource to other nations, is abominable and everyone who engages in it should be prosecuted under the law. I believe that many in the Bush administration, from the President to AG Gonzalez, should be prosecuted for encouraging and/or approving torture.

None of this means that I believe that all soldiers are "scum," or even most of them. Remember, it was soldiers who took photos of torture in Abu Ghraib and leaked them. I think the vast majority of the soldiers are as good or as bad as the rest of the American population, and that they are under extraordinary pressure because of the terrible judgement and planning of their superiors. I don't mean to excuse those who commit atrocities, but I truly believe that those are a terrible few.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 06:57 PM   #7 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
"People always call me anti-American or a terrorist supporter because I despise American soldiers;"

rdr...this is no surprise to anyone. It's nice that you've finally admitted flatly your despise for our soldiers. I have no idea what is in this video, but this video hasn't changed your thoughts about what america is or what it stands for. It's taken you 2 and 1/2 years to find something that makes you comfortable to be this blunt about your thoughts. Why are you afraid of being anti-american? You are. Pan6467 may interject with his all caps offended type for even suggesting the idea, but you've just admitted it. You hate this country, the lbs on this board will encourage you're "dissention", and play martyr's when it's challenged.

I'll start the trend of honesty here, perhaps you rdr, Pan, etc, will see the big picture. Fuck your ALL CAPS RIDICULOUSLY UNGENUINE respone. There is a large cohort of unrealistic liberals that hate this country, and there are people like you Pan that will encourage that behavior, and will be offended when someone calls them on it. Any liberal that doesn't call rdr on this is just as guilty.

\end rant
\grow up

I'll watch this video tomorrow when i'm on a different computer.
Flaming, trolling, anything else I missed? I can't get the video to work, so I can't tell at the moment whether the original post has any justification, but you have no right to jump in and drag uninvolved members into the thread. I'm not going to say it again.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 06:58 PM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
because evey time i hint at someone being "anti-americn", he comes in with 5 paragraphs in all caps with "HOW DARE I , WE'RE ALL AMERICANS"
matthew330 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 06:59 PM   #9 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
I'm glad to see someone speaking their mind fully in this subject and not pulling any punches. All of the PC and partisan BS on this war has to go. Every day more deaths pile up and it hasn't changed since the beginning. I don't see why the news agencies don't post what actually happens in this war. How people are walking along one minute, and the next minute they're watching their leg fly 100 feet away, or their child explode in a cloud of blood. How they don't show the real effect of today's bullets.. they dont just hit you and you fall, your body explodes where it hits you and you are put down. You drive along a road and suddenly a device explodes and your car is sent sailing through the air to collapse in a flaming wreck of mangled metal and burning plastic. War is no joke, and im tired of people trivializing what is going on. Most people here who are against the war don't care about "Bush Co." or the other partisan BS this country has been tossing around, they care about the deaths of children and their families. They care abot their houses being destroyed and their lives completely ruined... Their children killed and their parents taken outside and slaughtered.
__________________
We Must Dissent.

Last edited by ObieX; 06-16-2005 at 07:02 PM.. Reason: typos
ObieX is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 07:07 PM   #10 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Ok, I got the video working, and nothing in it justifies blanket hatred of the US military. It shows isolated incidents, some fabricated (notably the kid holding up the cardboard sign,) and shows civilian casualties out of context, mostly without evidence as to who caused them, and certainly without proof that they were intentional murders by US troops. The prisoner torture has been investigated and officials are in the process of prosecuting those responsible.

It seems to me that your hatred of our troops is a self-perpetuating blind ideology as you are unwilling to critically analyze a piece of propaganda and realize that it does nothing to defend your opinion to anyone who looks at it rationally.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 07:09 PM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Yeah, editing can do amazing things. Regardless of my feelings on this war, I put no faith in a piece of strewn-together video bites.
analog is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 07:26 PM   #12 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
We already know you hate the military, you have posted so in the past, no point in putting a poorly edited video up to prove it.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 08:17 PM   #13 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
i appreciate the approach rdr4evr takes.

there are plenty who have similar feelings but know that they cannot reveal their true sentiments for fear of isolating themselves. they know that they cannot state their case outright because of how ludicrous it sounds in plain speech.

kudos to rdr4evr for laying it on the table for the world to see.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 08:25 PM   #14 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
I thank you for the video Rdr4evr. At times I become very distant and detatched from the realities of this world. I find myself thinking about statistics or political and social implications. I find myself thinking about how these things are never easy and how sacrifices must be made. I do this from the comfort of my spacious room, sipping a cup of tea, under the same roof as my loved one. I see these images now and then, most of the time I have my guard up and my emotions in check, this time I let it in.

I don't come to the same conclusion as you do Rdr4evr, but I can understand why you might, as analog said, editing can do amazing things.

Those solders were put into this situation by a small group of inidviduals. Those solder are as aware of the deception used to get them there as we all are. Those solders know that half the people of this country don't even wan't them where they are. Those solder know that many people in Iraq don't wan't them either. Most of them are just kids, thrown into hell.
Mantus is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 08:58 PM   #15 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Well said, Mantus.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 09:22 PM   #16 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Since my name has been brought into this I have but 2 things to say:

1) I have NEVER said I do not support the troops..... in fact, I have stated numerous times I do (my best friend from HS is over there, to say I don't support him or the troops is truly slander... I expect an appology), I just feel the war is illegal and wrong and another VietNam and I go further than the GOP does by saying the way vets are treated is an abomination, the GOP dominated government does not honor its promises to the vets. Closing hospitals, taking needed meds off the list that they pay for, not honoring the GI bill.... and so on. So, don't lecture me on what I support or don't.

2) I have a clear conscience about how I feel towards the war, the soldiers and vets, I don't have to argue my position anymore because the facts are coming to light.... the GOP and the neo-cons on here have to bring people who truly had nothing to say into this post and slander instead of arguing the facts..... so perhaps they don't have clear consciences.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 09:31 PM   #17 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
pan,

you talk of slander and false generalizations against your person yet take the comments of a single poster and turn it into "the GOP and neo-cons". seems incongruent...
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 09:34 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
I'm not even going to try. Got suspended the last time I replied to this 12 year olds tantrum. Just hope one day he'll stop the facade and admit he IS anti-US, I just want to hear him admit it.
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 09:34 PM   #19 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
pan,

you talk of slander and false generalizations against your person yet take the comments of a single poster and turn it into "the GOP and neo-cons". seems incongruent...
I'm talking fact tho.... ask vets what has happened to their benefits.

and the second, was opinion based on why they choose to pick fights and not just debate or argue the issue at hand.

I am sorry I didn't mean to imply "all" GOP just as when the right says libs or Dems.... they don't mean everyone of us.

Now I am done posting in this thread. I truly had nothing to post..... just had to defend myself from an attack that was very much uncalled for.

BTW Irate thank you for calling me on my shit , and allowing me the chance to explain it, as best I could. I appreciate that..... like I said I am trying very hard to be more mellow in here and showing me a problem I have helps me examine how better to communicate my opinions.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 06-16-2005 at 09:39 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 10:28 PM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Despite whether you believe this video to be poorly edited or mere propaganda doesn’t change the fact that what is displayed is the reality of this unjust war. What you are witnessing are murdered children and civilians being abused and harassed verbally and physically. Just because a video may not display the truth that you agree with, or the truth you don’t wish to see doesn’t discount its validity.

This video alone is not what led me to the conclusion of my feelings towards the American military, but there are countless more atrocities and disgusting acts of murder and abuse committed by the American soldiers. You know, every time an American atrocity arises, the argument that it is isolated and don’t represent the majority pop up, but that is beginning to hold little water after you see or hear about a new crime every day. There are tons of videos and images displaying the war crimes of the Americans, but at the same time, not all atrocities are caught on tape. It just happens that a few moronic marines decided to videotape or take a picture of their moronic actions not thinking of the consequences if they were caught. Imagine all of the war crimes committed off camera, not everyone is stupid enough to tape themselves murdering innocent people, but that doesn’t mean they don’t.

The “it’s their job” argument is really tired as well. It’s as if they never had a choice besides the military. The truth is, everyone has a choice and free will to join or otherwise, everyone knows that by joining that they are selling their soul (and brain for that matter) to the devil because they may end up going to war and killing innocent civilians. Now, not all military personnel are sick and twisted jarheads who get off on killing, but that doesn’t discount the fact that they knew what they were getting themselves into, and for this, they deserve no sympathy. I don’t care what they thought they joined for, whatever propaganda non-sense they gave into, but don’t expect me to be feeling sorry if you are traumatized because you killed several children and/or innocent bystanders in general. Next time think before getting yourself in an unjust situation in which you are commanded to do something that you know is wrong and may kill innocent people. They deserve the sympathy, not the soldier who murders them. I don’t care what they are told to do; they have the choice not do, despite the consequences.

Also, Mantus regardless of your feelings or my feelings toward the American military, I understand and appreciate your response. We are living our comfortable lives completely oblivious to the hell that is on the other side of the planet. You see, the American media is filled with lies and is completely biased, they never speak the truth. It is important that you see the realities of this god forsaken planet, and if you wish I will provide you with footage.

The truth of this war is that the Iraqi resistance is defeating the Americans, which is why they are still in Iraq fighting, and will possibly be there for another 4 years according to Cheney. You see, the brave Mujahideen will not cower in the face of the enemy, they don’t have much more to live for like Americans, no video games, McDonalds, reality TV, or anything else really, all they have is their God and belief, and for this they will gladly die, while removing as many enemy forces as possible. There is no way in hell that there have only been 1800 American casualties; American graves have been dug up in Fallujah with American corpses to hide casualties.

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died at the hands of the American war machine, the “liberation” has failed severely and the mission has not, nor will it ever be accomplished. For every freedom fighter killed, 10 more will take his place, for every civilian killed; the family of the innocent will seek revenge. America will not win this war nor will they win the war on “terror”, as not only are they the number 1 international terrorists, but the global community is getting restless and will eventually rise up. Alliance ships will be formed. American foreign policy isn’t helping their cause and karma will eventually hit.

I have tons of stories, videos and pictures (it’s just a shame that we can’t post pics of children, as there are tons of dead ones from Iraq that need to be seen) that I will continue to post displaying these American crimes later on, I must search for them. I will post a few below though. Once again, if you wish Mantus I will show you tons of footage of the resistance destroying the Americans as well, or things you don’t see on TV in general, either PM me or let me know.

I’m going to compile some more videos and post them later on.

And for those who want me to "admit I am anti US"...I won't because I am not. I am anti US govt and all those who support them, which fortunately is about 60 % americans.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 10:39 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObieX
. Most people here who are against the war don't care about "Bush Co." or the other partisan BS this country has been tossing around, they care about the deaths of children and their families. They care abot their houses being destroyed and their lives completely ruined... Their children killed and their parents taken outside and slaughtered.
This is the most important thing to remember. To hell with the politics and bullshit, the fact is that innocent people are dying for nothing. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children. It is these people that are the true heroes of any war, and they should be the ones honored, not those who were responsible for murdering them. The world, especially America needs to see the imagery of the death, perhaps the reality of this war will sway their opinion (although unlikely), and if not swaying the devoted, perhaps it will sway the undecided. Either way, things like this must be shown, the planet needs to know what's happening, not some sugar coated bullshit. Beheadings should be televised, executions should be televised, we don't live in a happy go lucky world, and we must be aware of this.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 10:47 PM   #22 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i appreciate the approach rdr4evr takes.

there are plenty who have similar feelings but know that they cannot reveal their true sentiments for fear of isolating themselves. they know that they cannot state their case outright because of how ludicrous it sounds in plain speech.

kudos to rdr4evr for laying it on the table for the world to see.
you know what's interesting, when I say these same things in public, sometimes more harshly (TFP rules constraint that freedom), I don't get a negative reaction, actually, I probably get more individuals in agreement. It seems to be when these feelings are displayed on the internet, is when everyone gets antsy. Perhaps it's because the city I reside in is largely multi-cultural and anti-war. I doubt I would get a friendly reaction if I displayed these same feeling somewhere in a trailer park in Texas.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 06-16-2005, 11:33 PM   #23 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Rdr4evr, I admit I haven't read everything you said in previous threads, so maybe I'm a bit "innocent" here. But looking at those last three posts, I can honestly say that I think you are blind. Blinded by your hatred of the US government and army, blinded by your opposition to the Iraq war, blinded by the propaganda from anti-US forces.

The war in Iraq may not be clean, but no war has ever been. The American forces in Iraq, by and large, are doing a fine job in the most difficult circumstances. Last time I checked, the insurgents are not winning. Or you must count "killing as many civilians as possible" as winning. Perhaps you think they're winning because they manage to kill a few soldiers? The casualty rate for the US (and Iraqi forces!) is very, very low; it just *seems* to be high, because the US public has been spoiled... As an example of large numbers of casualties, I'd point to pretty much every battle in WW2.

The only place where the insurgents are relatively succesful and get some support is in the so-called Sunni triangle. This just happens to be the place that used to support (and be supported by) the old regime. Everywhere else, the population hates their guts.

The insurgents are not the good guys. Their goal is not to free Iraq, their goal is to take control and supress the rest of the population, just like they used to do before the war. Or perhaps you think that Saddam was actually a pretty nice guy...
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 03:17 AM   #24 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
This is the most important thing to remember. To hell with the politics and bullshit, the fact is that innocent people are dying for nothing. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children. It is these people that are the true heroes of any war, and they should be the ones honored, not those who were responsible for murdering them. The world, especially America needs to see the imagery of the death, perhaps the reality of this war will sway their opinion (although unlikely), and if not swaying the devoted, perhaps it will sway the undecided. Either way, things like this must be shown, the planet needs to know what's happening, not some sugar coated bullshit. Beheadings should be televised, executions should be televised, we don't live in a happy go lucky world, and we must be aware of this.
Your absolutely right in saying everything should be televised including the attack on the WTC. I would even go so far as to say even death penalty executions should be televised. If we as a society are going to support such violence against mankind then we as a society should see exactly what we are supporting. Censhorship sucks.

That being said, I believe that is perhaps all we agree on. The movie clip was very powerful however, it was censored much like the mainstream media news is censored which makes it no better in my book. It was in no way a fair and balanced view of the Iraqi situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonlich
The war in Iraq may not be clean, but no war has ever been. The American forces in Iraq, by and large, are doing a fine job in the most difficult circumstances. Last time I checked, the insurgents are not winning. Or you must count "killing as many civilians as possible" as winning. Perhaps you think they're winning because they manage to kill a few soldiers? The casualty rate for the US (and Iraqi forces!) is very, very low; it just *seems* to be high, because the US public has been spoiled... As an example of large numbers of casualties, I'd point to pretty much every battle in WW2
This is very true. One the first day of Iwo Jima alone we had 2400 casualties and 16000 or so casualties by the 5th or 6th day. If that happened today just think of the brewhaw that would happen in the news. The war would be lost for sure. The first Gulf War spoiled everyone. It made everyone think war was quick and painless. It was the first war we took less than a 100 total casualities for the duration of the war and part of them was FF incidents.
War sucks but unfortunately it's a necessary evil at times.

People bitch about Guantanimo [sp, i'm to lazy this morning to spell check it] but during WW2 we incarcerated every Japanese American. I'm not saying it was right or wrong, it was a different time with a different mindset. What I am saying is when we as Americans entered WW2 we planned on winning at any cost. We as a society do not have that steadfast resolve to win anymore. Hell we are even teaching our children losing is ok all in the name of "being politically correct". The will to compete is a very basic human instinct. To teach our children there is no winners or it's ok not to win is wrong and the American society will pay the price someday. In some respects we are paying the price now. This Iraqi situation has gone on far to long. It should have lasted no longer than a couple months. We have the firepower and the technology to do the job and get it over quickly, and I'm not talking about nukes. The will of the American people to minimize civilian casualties has severely hampered our troops in their quest to fulfill their mission and it has cost us the lives of American soldiers and in the long run it has not nor will it save any civilian casualties. It saves civilians over the short haul but the longer it lasts the more civilian lives it costs.

Thats my opinion.
\rant
scout is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 04:54 AM   #25 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
This is the most important thing to remember. To hell with the politics and bullshit, the fact is that innocent people are dying for nothing. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children. It is these people that are the true heroes of any war, and they should be the ones honored, not those who were responsible for murdering them. The world, especially America needs to see the imagery of the death, perhaps the reality of this war will sway their opinion (although unlikely), and if not swaying the devoted, perhaps it will sway the undecided. Either way, things like this must be shown, the planet needs to know what's happening, not some sugar coated bullshit. Beheadings should be televised, executions should be televised, we don't live in a happy go lucky world, and we must be aware of this.

But we have to assign blame where blame is due. Sergeant Average Joe did not order this war. Bush and his henchmen did. It's them that deserve the blame (or praise from the people who for some reason still support the war).

As to your comment about hearing every day about a new abuse.. . Well I don't hear that every day but let's say that you're right.

Every day it's easy to find a news article from somewhere in the country about a crime that's been committed by a black guy. By your logic, this means ALL black people are criminals. Let's just arrest them all.

There are 140,000 + soldiers in Iraq alone. The war's been going on for over 2 years. If you're generous then one atrocity per day works out to 2,000 soldiers IF you assume more than one soldier per day commits an atrocity. Blaming 138,000 people for the crimes of 2,000 is not fair, it's not just, and it's frankly disgusting.

Your words sound very much like the anti-government words of the crackpots here in the US who like to blow up federal buildings or send bombs to judges, yet I do not accuse you of being one of them merely because something about you resembles them.

To do so would be no different than you blaming all soldiers for the actions of a few simply because they wear similar uniforms.

The soldiers who committed these atrocities should be punnished very severely. But it is not just to also punish the ones who did not do these crimes, and instead are over there doing a job they were told to do and with which they may not agree.
shakran is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 06:38 AM   #26 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i am and have been completely opposed to the war in iraq.
i tend to be suspicious of the military in general, both as a matter of politics and experience (watching the experience of friends and relatives who have gone through the machine), looking at the unfortunate history of "excesses" in modern warfare....

were i a pacifist, i would doubtless link the two above together and see in the "excesses" that have unfolded, were funding and will unfold on the ground in iraq as a kind of reflection of the illegitimacy of the war itself, and an inevitable outcome of war as such--and the latter would be the real point.

i do not see the problem with such pacifist arguments as such, even though i do not share the same premises.

what i find interesting is that a pacifist argument issued today floats into a strange tactical situation.

a significant aspect of the marketing of the war in iraq hinged on the line that "we" should support "our" troops. this is the most ubiquitous gesture of support for the iraq debacle--those goofy huge yellow ribbons you see stuck on the back of cars (mostly suvs it seems, but no matter) purchased from 711 etc etc etc. it has seemed to me from the outset that this support "our" boys line was floated first and foremost to create problems for opponents of the war.

this line is a direct reflection of the power the mythology of the vietnam period as it circulates in rightwingland--the myth of the returning soldiers being spat on, etc etc etc. which later turned into the delusion that the "real" america had been "stabbed in the back" by opposition to the war, that without it the americans would have won the war in vietnam.
which is self-evidently false on all counts.
but no matter. it is effective as a therapeutic narrative for conservatives. at least for those who are in a position to directly shape marketing campaigns.

that the military in vietnam committed horrific atrocities is not in doubt.
that the military--a bureaucratic system centered on the exercize of political power through the rationalization (in the weber sense) of killing as an extension of politics---would tend toward--let's say--excess--is evident as well.
that this tendency toward excess would seem to call out for feedback loops--be they political or journalistic--that would expose and seek to understand the conditions of possibility for such "excesses" would seem evident.
that the present tactical situation is designed to shut down these loops is also obvious.
that is a problem.

the idea that "we" should support "our" troops gets in the way.
if you are bothered by atoricity, and try to understand how they are possible--what kind of situations enable otherwise decent people to commit these acts--how exactly do you justify separating the military apparatus itself form consideration?

that "excesses" have occurred in iraq is not surprising.
that the response to "excess" would be the isolation of those who commit them from the logic of the system itself is clearly self-defense on the part of the military above and beyond anything else.
this is not to say that the inidividuals responsible should not be held to account: they obviously should--but it is absurd to pretend that these individuals on the ground can be seperated from the rest of the chain of command as a matter of principle. it would seem to me that this seperation would have to be demonstrated in war crimes trials. there is no a priori separation.


this is a much thornier problem than would be indicated by the response
tsk tsk tsk you are saying bad things about "our boys"
it is as if the systemic tendencies of any military apparatus toward "excess" is understood, but you can't say it.
tsk tsk tsk, you are not supporting "our boys"

i wonder about this.

a seperate question or two:
how did the conservative suspicion of state bureaucracy get diverted away from the military?
how is it that a conservative might understand something like--say--the welfare system as irrational because it is a state function does not get mapped directly onto suspicion of the military on the same grounds?
i dont understand--it seems inconsistent.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 06-17-2005 at 06:42 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 09:11 AM   #27 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I personally can't get the movie to work.

Realtime player?

Anyway, I think my general view is already known.

I'm sorry that some people use blind hatred to justify...blind hatred.
__________________
"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!
Lebell is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 12:51 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
I'm going to post a bunch of victims of car crashes together and claim it was al quaeda.

I'm not saying these people were not legitimately injured because of the war. There is just nothing saying which of these were killed because the "brave" insurgents rode their car into a busy marketplace and blew it up, or which were "atrocities" committed by our own troops.
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 01:03 PM   #29 (permalink)
Gentlemen Farmer
 
j8ear's Avatar
 
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
There is no truth about Iraq that you don't see...or can't find, imho.

Here's the truth I find:

1. Brutal dictator overthrown and to be tried for crimes.
2. 58% of the country particpated in a legitamte election. Most for the first time in their lives, and this percentage exceeds the percentage of US participation in it's last national election.
3. Minimal loss of civilian life.
4. Minimal destruction of national and civilian infrastructure
5. Minimal loss of Military personel.

As far as I'm concerned I am very pleased and proud of my brothers, and of the US military in general.

I could care less, personally about some fringe hate monger who does nothing but complain and offers no solutions.

-bear

edit: word ommision and speeling error
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Last edited by j8ear; 06-17-2005 at 01:38 PM..
j8ear is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 02:43 PM   #30 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Is are actions 3, 4, 5 and I'll add a 6 (the cost of $200+ billion) justified by 1 and 2 though?

Idiology payed for with the corporeal. A strange concept, my mind has no trouble accepting this but somewhere deep inside it just seems a little odd, if not wrong.
Mantus is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 03:25 PM   #31 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by j8ear
Here's the truth I find:

1. Brutal dictator overthrown and to be tried for crimes.
2. 58% of the country particpated in a legitamte election. Most for the first time in their lives, and this percentage exceeds the percentage of US participation in it's last national election.
3. Minimal loss of civilian life.
4. Minimal destruction of national and civilian infrastructure
5. Minimal loss of Military personel.
6. Minimal regard for the sovreignty of nations who don't happen to have a government we approve of.
7. Minimal regard for telling the truth when justifying the war
8. Minimal regard for the wishes of the rest of the world.
9. Minimal regard for the safety of US citizens everywhere (yeah, like THIS war isn't gonna piss the terrorists off more)
shakran is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 03:34 PM   #32 (permalink)
Gentlemen Farmer
 
j8ear's Avatar
 
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
I'll take six, but really don't care. It should be singular not plural (nation~s~) but that's just symantics. I still don't care.

As far as number 7, We are lied to up and down by politicians of every ilk. I've grown jaded by that.

Eight is plausible, I guess, but nine I find absurd.

Perhaps they're truths. I'm not particularly swayed or bothered by them.

-bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.
j8ear is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 04:16 PM   #33 (permalink)
Knight of the Old Republic
 
Lasereth's Avatar
 
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Uhh..the video just showed footage from what happens in every war in the history of mankind. Innocents get killed, people suffer, and the battles are vicious/gruesome. What did you expect, the soldiers to be shooting nerf guns at each other with the civilians holding "I'm innocent" signs above their heads? The video didn't portray anything but the exact atmosphere that comes with war. War is ugly, plain and simple. If innocents are shot, it's most likely because they were becoming hostile.

The bastards that tortured the POW's are being taken care of. If anything, this video showed how hard the US troops are working over there and seeing the ignorant treatment they get from Iraqi people who lost a family member that was probably associated with hostility. This reminds me of PETA and Michael Moore all at once. They don't care about the facts: they care about the extremities and gaining political power from shock values.

-Lasereth
__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert
Lasereth is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 06:20 PM   #34 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
you know what's interesting, when I say these same things in public, sometimes more harshly (TFP rules constraint that freedom), I don't get a negative reaction, actually, I probably get more individuals in agreement. It seems to be when these feelings are displayed on the internet, is when everyone gets antsy. Perhaps it's because the city I reside in is largely multi-cultural and anti-war. I doubt I would get a friendly reaction if I displayed these same feeling somewhere in a trailer park in Texas.
no one gets antsy... don't allow yourself that conceit. people, such as myself, naturally object to being called scum. surely you can understand that. it's a surreal experience to put in 11-12 hours a day in uniform to come home and read that in your spare time.

being from the bay area probably increases your chances of finding like-minded persons on this issue. saying those things (or even the more vicious versions you hinted at) would probably get you tossed out of a bar in texas... if they were feeling charitable.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Last edited by irateplatypus; 06-17-2005 at 06:22 PM..
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 08:22 PM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
  • Why do you specifically hate the american fighting man?
  • You don't seem to grasp the full range of implications of old adage, war is hell.

I'm also reminded of why asking someone, "Why do you hate freedom so much?" can actually be funny.

Last edited by Xell101; 06-17-2005 at 09:33 PM..
Xell101 is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 09:18 PM   #36 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Lebell: so you admit that the Americans are led by blind hatred? You state that I’m displaying blind hatred to condemn blind hatred…so you agree with me?

Shakran: I could state the same towards you in terms of being blind to the realities of the Iraq massacre. And although Bush and his comrades should be held accountable for their war crimes, so should those who are weak and fight for a cause they don’t believe in. It goes back to my point of free will, no matter what consequence these soldiers face, they have a choice, and if they fight simply because they are mindless drones, sorry. Being a propaganda induced puppet isn’t the key to attaining sympathy. You know, it’s pathetic to see maimed, wounded and amputee American soldiers come home and expect the world to feel sorry for them. It’s all fun and games killing others, and when you receive the same thing that you went out to dish, and did dish, you cry like a little coward. Karma is indeed a bitch, and maybe now they will think about their crime against humanity when they look in the mirror and see their disfigured face. You try to hand out death and torture; you’re bound to get the same treatment, tough shit.

J8ear: minimal destruction of civilian infrastructure? What is the definition of minimal…Iraq is now a complete anarchic wasteland. The Americans are cowardly fighters, they don’t like to face them enemy. You know what they do to get a lone freedom fighter in a empty building? They call in an $50,000,000 air strike, as they do with vehicles. I will post you the videos. And once they waste the tax payers money, they cheer like little cowards while screaming and chanting racist remarks. I don’t see the minimal destruction, their war methods are over kill. They destroy schools, mosques, entire cities (fallujah, mosul, baghdad), mostly with complete disregard of how many innocent civilians may still be occupying the premises.

Now, minimal loss of civilian life? Another joke, first off, there is no such thing as “minimal” loss of civilian life, secondly, it is estimated that between 30,000 – 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been murdered. The drains of the city literally flow with the blood.

Minimal loss of military personal? There shouldn’t be a minimal loss if your “boys” are dying for an unjust cause. A cause that will accomplish nothing but produce more death and misery in this already hate-filled planet.

Brutal dictator overthrown: yeah, and replaced with a pathetic puppet govt. filled with traitors that will be overthrown once the mission of the islamic resistance is complete.

Lasereth: yes, war is ugly, war is hell, so on and so forth. Doesn’t justify the death. And I hate to break it to you, but not every one of those tens of thousands of innocent that were destroyed by the American war machine were being “hostile”. 2 year old children aren’t hostile, the elderly are not hostile…I fail to see the “ignorance” the Americans were treated with. What I see is several cowards cursing at innocent woman while beating and pushing them. What I see is cowards grouping together and beating a civilian. What I see is a inept moron stating to an Iraqi that if he doesn’t shut his mouth, they will detain him. What’s interesting about that is that the Iraqi civilian was telling him that he doesn’t need some thug helping him be “free”, and the American soldier said without me here, you wouldn’t have the right to say what you’re saying, and when the civilian disagreed with him, he immediately told him to leave or he’ll take him in. Why? Because he fears the truth, and because the American soldiers are “do as I say, not as I do” people. I can kill your family, I can abuse your woman, and I can detain your innocents, but don’t you dare put your filthy Muslim hands on me.

And no, the Americans are not winning this war, they lost it when they invaded, and they are being destroyed by the mujahideen and brave fighters by the minute, as are the traitor Iraqi police who are cooperating with the enemy. This war will never end because the resistance will never die, this is a fact. The Americans thought they would be welcomed with open arms and flowers? Sorry, people don’t like being illegally invaded, told how to live and have their loved ones killed. They are not terrorist’s, insurgents, or murderers. They are brave fighters who have the guts to stand up and fight the cowardly enemy. Bless them.

LET FREEDOM SHINE!!!


Last edited by Rdr4evr; 06-18-2005 at 03:09 AM.. Reason: spelling
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 09:45 PM   #37 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Out Of My Mind
Rdr4evr: no we don't see everything that happens, just as we don't see all the "bad" things that happen, we also do not see all the "good" things that happen, we see exactly what the media want's us to see, while i do not support the war ( never been a big fan of war in general) i support the solders 100%. they are there becuse they beive it is right, just as i suport their right to do what they believe, i suport your right to belive what you want,
__________________

The latest survey shows that three out of four people make up 75% of the population.
ChrystalRainne is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 11:36 PM   #38 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
And no, the American are not winning this war, they lost it when they invaded, and they are being destroyed by the mujahideen and brave fighters by the minute, as are the traitor Iraqi police who are cooperating with the enemy. This war will never end because the resistance will never die, this is a fact. The Americans thought they would be welcomed with open arms and flowers? Sorry, people don’t like being illegally invaded, told how to live and have their loved ones killed. They are not terrorist’s, insurgents, or murderers. They are brave fighters who have the guts to stand up and fight the cowardly enemy. Bless them.
I could post hundreds of pictures of slaughtered *innocent* civilians. Slaughtered by your "brave fighters". I could post pictures of innocnent children, blown to bits by your "brave fighters". I could show you stories from normal Iraqis that don't view the Iraqi police as traitors, but as heroes. I could show you stories from normal Iraqis that actually support the Americans and their actions. In short, I could show you tons of information to prove that you are wrong.

...But I very much doubt that you'd belief me. I'd say that you're just as bad as the people you're complaining about. You know, the people that support their troops 100% without questions. You support murderers and terrorists, ignore the evil things they do, and claim they're "brave".

You're so lost it's not funny anymore.
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 11:44 PM   #39 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by j8ear
There is no truth about Iraq that you don't see...or can't find, imho.

Here's the truth I find:

1. Brutal dictator overthrown and to be tried for crimes. .............

.......I could care less, personally about some fringe hate monger who does nothing but complain and offers no solutions..................

-bear

edit: word ommision and speeling error
Some more truth, and a proposal for everyone who resorts to posting the last vestige of justification for the unprovoked and "pre-emptive" invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to U.S. national security, and, in it's weakened state, after heavy damage inflicted on it by coalition forces 12 years before, a "no fly zone" enforced for 12 years in the skies over two thirds of Iraq's total land area, and a trade and economic embargo, as well as a secret bombing campaign conducted by U.S. and British air forces for a full year before the invasion......if you stop posting that the justification for the invasion was to "depose a brutal dictator, who gassed his own people", I will stop posting the "gray" that goes hand in hand with your "black or white" justification for this illegal intrusion on Iraq's sovereignty.

Are you aware that the U.S. even sold Saddam the crop dusting helicopters that he used to "gas his own people", and that the Bush '41 admin. continued to maintain full diplomatic relations with the "brutal dictator", as well as military advice and the approval of sales of sensitive and dual use, strategic technology. When the U.S. was selling Saddam the startup materials and providing the tech and military support for the manufacture and deployment of illegal chemical and biological WMD, ole President Reagan was secretly selling Iraq's enemy Iran, thousands of anti-tank missles and other military weapons.
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...632566,00.html
The Sunday Times - Britain

May 29, 2005

RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war
Michael Smith
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.

The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal.

Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”.

The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.

During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%. ...........
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
"We're Taking Him Out"
His war on Iraq may be delayed, but Bush still vows to remove Saddam. Here's a look at White House plans
By DANIEL EISENBERG

Posted Sunday, May. 05, 2002
...........Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week. ...........
Quote:
<p>

Given all the indignant neoconservative
“outrage” over the financial misdeeds arising
from the UN’s socialist oil-for-food program during
the 1990s, when the <a href="http://www.fff.org/whatsnew/2004-02-09.htm" target=new>UN embargo</a> was killing untold numbers
of <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp" target=new>Iraqi children</a>, one would think that there would be an
equal amount of outrage over a much more disgraceful
scandal — the U.S. delivery of weapons of mass
destruction to Saddam Hussein during the Reagan
administration in the 1980s.
</p>

<p>
After all, as everyone knows, it was those WMDs that U.S.
officials, from President Bush and Vice-President Cheney
on down, ultimately used to terrify the American people
into supporting the invasion and war of aggression
against Iraq, a war that has killed or maimed thousands
of innocent people — that is, people who had
absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New
York and Washington.

</p>

<p>
In an October 1, 2002, article entitled “<a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/4185241.htm" target=new>Iraq Got
Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in ’80s</a>,” Associated Press writer Matt Kelly wrote,
<blockquote><small>

[The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants
to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two
decades ago, according to government records that are
getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war
against Iraq.
<br>
<br>

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent
samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons
inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s
biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records
from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples,
saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

<br>
<br>

The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American
Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs
Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the
bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that
cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got
samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile
virus.
<br>
<br>

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States
backed Iraq in its war against Iran.
</small></blockquote>

In a December 17, 2002, article entitled “<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html" target=new>Iraq Used
Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</a>,” the Associated
Press stated,
<blockquote><small>

Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States
and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam
Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to
Iraq’s 1996 accounting of its nuclear program....
<br>
<br>

Iraq’s report says the equipment was either sold or
made by more than 30 German companies, 10 American
companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss,
Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms.
It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear
program.
<br>
<br>

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the
Gulf War and contains diagrams, plans and test results in
uranium enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and
warhead construction....
<br>
<br>

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the
knowledge of governments. In 1985–90, the U.S.
Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion
in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential
military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for
its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as
the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.
</small></blockquote>

In a September 26, 2002, article entitled “<a href="http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html" target=new>Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail</a>,” columnist Robert Novak
wrote,
<blockquote><small>

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that
disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under
U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during
the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the
American-exported materials were identical to
microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors
after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite
allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against
Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official
U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.
</small></blockquote>

In a September 18, 2002, ABC article entitled “<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html" target=new>A Tortured Relationship</a>,” reporter Chris Bury
wrote,
<blockquote><small>

Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam’s
regime as “a grave and gathering danger,”
it’s important to remember that the United States
helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration
officials are now citing as justification for
Saddam’s forcible removal from power.
</small></blockquote>

In a March 16, 2003, article entitled “<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml" target=new>How Iraq Built Its Weapons Program</a>,” in the <Cite>St. Petersburg
Times,</cite> staff writer Tom Drury wrote,

<blockquote><small>

Yet here we are, on the eve of what could turn into a
$100-billion war to disarm and dismantle the Iraqi
dictatorship. U.N. inspectors are working against the
clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and
biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the
capacity to manufacture them.
<br>
<br>

And here’s the strange part, easily forgotten in the
barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments
and businesses that helped build that capacity in the
first place. From anthrax to high-speed computers to
artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful
products of a long list of Western democracies flowed
into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of
Kuwait.
</small></blockquote>

Unfortunately, the U.S.-WMD connection to Saddam Hussein
involved more than just delivering those WMDs to him. In
an August 18, 2002, <cite>New York Times</cite> article
entitled “<a href="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html" target=new>Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas</a>,” Patrick E. Tyler wrote,

<blockquote><small>

A covert American program during the Reagan
administration provided Iraq with critical battle
planning assistance at a time when American intelligence
agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical
weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq
war, according to senior military officers with direct
knowledge of the program.
<br>
<br>

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the
condition that they not be identified, spoke in response
to a reporter’s questions about the nature of gas
warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and
Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq’s use of gas in that
conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this
week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice,
as justification for regime change in Iraq.
</small></blockquote>

As writer Norm Dixon put it in his June 17, 2004, article “<a href="http://counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html" target=new>How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons</a>,”

<blockquote><small>

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

</small></blockquote>


Immediately prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam
Hussein delivered a WMD declarations report to the United
Nations in an attempt to avert a U.S. invasion. Do you
recall that U.S. officials intercepted the report and
removed special sections of it, based on claims of
“national security”? Well, it turned out that
the removed sections involved the delivery of those WMDs
by the United States and other Western countries to
Saddam Hussein, information that obviously caused U.S.
officials a bit of discomfort on the eve of their
invasion.
</p>

<p>
In a February 3, 2003, <cite>Sunday Morning Herald</cite>
article entitled, “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122258580.html?oneclick=true" target=new>Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have
Sown</a>,” writer Anne Summers wrote,

<blockquote><small>

What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to
be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According
to the German news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000
pages, these nations — including Germany, which this
month became president of the Security Council —
were given only 3,000 pages.
</p>

<p>

So what was missing?
</p>

<p>
<Cite>The Guardian</cite> reported that the nine-page
table of contents included chapters on

“procurements” in Iraq’s nuclear program
and “relations with companies, representatives and
individuals” for its chemical weapons program. This
information was not included in the edited version.

</small></blockquote>
</p>

<p>
In a June 9, 2004, article <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122258580.html" target=new>“Reagan Played a Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein’s Survival in Iran-Iraq War</a>,” Agence France Presse points out,

<blockquote><small>

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad
from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing
the way for aid and trade.
<br>
<br>

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in
the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor
of Iraq over the next year.
<br>
<br>

“Soon thereafter, Washington began passing
high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the
war, including information from US satellites that helped
fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah
that proved important in Iran’s defeat in the next
month,” wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently
published book “The Threatening Storm.” ...

<br>
<br>

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad
export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its
weapons of mass destruction programs, according to
Pollack.
</small></blockquote>

In his June 8, 2004, article “<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/dawoody06082004.html" target=new>Reagan and Saddam: The Unholy Alliance</a>,” Alex Dawoody states,
<blockquote><small>

By 1982, Iraq was removed from the list of terrorist
sponsoring nations. By 1984, America was actively sharing
military intelligence with Saddam’s army. This aid
included arming Iraq with potent weapons, providing
satellite imagery of Iranian troops deployments and
tactical planning for battles, assisting with air
strikes, and assessing damage after bombing campaigns.
</small></blockquote>

One of the most fascinating parts of this entire sordid
U.S. foreign-policy episode is that none other than <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm" target=new>Donald Rumsfeld played a key role</a> in it. Yes, the same
Donald Rumsfeld who, as U.S. Secretary of Defense, scared
the American people to death with the thought that Saddam
Hussein was about to employ the WMDs (which the U.S. had delivered to him) against them.

</p>

<p>

A December 31, 2002, CBS story entitled “<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml" target=new>U.S. and Iraq Go Way Back</a>,” put it this way:

<blockquote><small>

Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports.
</p>

<p>
It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.

</small></blockquote>

In an August 18, 2002, MSNBC article entitled
“<a href="http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=228&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported" target=new>Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift</a>,”
Robert Windrem wrote,
<blockquote><small>

State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth
of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the
1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is
in the words of key participants, including Donald
Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense.
<br>
<br>

The new information on the policy shift toward Iraq, and
Rumsfeld’s role in it, comes as The New York Times
reported Sunday that the United States gave Iraq vital
battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of
a secret program under President Reagan — even
though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would
unleash chemical weapons.

</small></blockquote>

In a February 24, 2003, article entitled “<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/green02242003.html" target=new>Who Armed Saddam?</a>” writer Stephen Green wrote,
<blockquote><small>

And he’d probably read the front page Washington
Post story (“U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq
Buildup,” 12/30/02) based upon recently declassified
documents, which revealed that it was Rumsfeld himself
who, as President Reagan’s Middle East Envoy, had
traveled to the Region to meet with Saddam Hussein in
December 1983 to normalize, particularly, security
relations.
</small></blockquote>

In her article “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122258580.html?oneclick=true" target=new>Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have
Sown</a>,” Anne Summers reinforced this point:

<blockquote><small>

In December 1983, Rumsfeld, then a special envoy to the
Middle East appointed by President Reagan, travelled to
Baghdad to inform Saddam Hussein that the United States
was ready to resume full diplomatic relations with Iraq.
A lengthy report in the Washington Post on December 30,
2002 — based on analysing thousands of pages of
declassified government documents and interviews with
former policy-makers — said that “US
intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role
in shoring up Iraqi defences” following
Rumsfeld’s visit.
</small></blockquote>

So, what is Rumsfeld’s response to all this?
Unfortunately, he suffers a malady that commonly afflicts
Washington officials when a whiff of scandal is in the
air: selective memory lapse. According to Matt
Kelly’s <a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/4185241.htm" target=new>article </a> (cited above),

<blockquote><small>

The disclosures put the United States in the position of
possibly having provided key ingredients of the weapons
it is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert
C. Byrd (D., W.Va.), who entered the documents into the
Congressional Record last month.
<br>
<br>

Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the
germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam
Hussein in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Ronald
Reagan’s Middle East envoy.
<br>
<br>

“Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of
reaping what we have sown?” Byrd asked Rumsfeld
after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the
transfers.
<br>
<br>

“I have never heard anything like what you’ve
read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt
it,” Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the
Defense Department and other agencies to search their
records for evidence of the transfers.
</small></blockquote>

Or as Robert Novak put it in his <a href="http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html" target=new>column</a> (cited above),

<blockquote><small>
Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch
witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a
provocative question last week: Did the United States
help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological
warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate’s
84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a
paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.
</small></blockquote>

According to the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122258580.html?oneclick=true" target=new>article</a> by Anne Summers (cited above),

<blockquote><small>

These days Rumsfeld likes to downplay or even deny his
role in helping arm Iraq with the makings of weapons of
mass destruction. He has been quoted as saying he had
“nothing to do” with helping Iraq fight Iran in
the ’80s. However, the <cite>Washington Post</cite> says, “The
documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer
US-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts.”
</small></blockquote>

</p>

<p>

Given that the WMDs that were used to justify the
invasion and war against Iraq never materialized, one
would think that the neoconservatives who pushed and
misled America into the war, and those members of
Congress who complacently rubber-stamped the
president’s actions, and those members of the press
who served as the administration’s cheerleaders
would be at least mildly outraged over how Saddam Hussein
acquired his WMDs in the first place — from the
United States and other countries during the Reagan
administration. Unfortunately, the response has been the
standard ho-hum one hears whenever <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303h.asp" target=new>the rot at the center of the empire</a> surfaces: “It was just a policy
mistake; it happened a long time ago; we need to put it
behind us; and it’s now time to move on.”
</p>

<p>
It is that mindset of denial, however, that is certain to
doom our nation to increasing conflicts, crises, and
turmoil. To restore political, moral, and economic health to our country, it is necessary to excise the cancer associated with the unrestrained — and oftentimes secret — exercise of government power. In order to excise such a cancer, however, it is first necessary to acknowledge and confront its
existence.
</p><p>
<I>Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him <a href="mailto:jhornberger@fff.org">email</a>.</i>
</p>
<br>
even after Rumsfeld's highly publicized Dec., 1983 visit with Saddam, the <h5>relationship and the support</h5>, the U.S. turning a blind on what you and others, today, claim as justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, after all of the initial justifications emphasized over and over by the Bush administration were revealed to be misleading, deceptive, or false,
continued, and went on and on for nearly another seven years......note the U.S. non-reaction to the 1988 reports of the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq....business as usual. Your argument today is as empty and hypocritical as any advanced by Bush or Cheney to justify the invasion of Iraq,
Quote:
http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm
1983:

The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

- Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.

- Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).

In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]

1984

In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.

1985

The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.

This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.

Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.

Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)

1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody." [2]

1988

The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

In March, the Financial Times of London reported that Saddam had recently used chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, using US helicopters bought in 1983.

Two months later, an Asst. Secretary of State pushed for more US-Iraq economic cooperation.

In September of that year, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons.

The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. [3]

1989

In March, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world.

The State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles

The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

One US firm reportedly contacted the Commerce Dept. two times, concerned that its product could be used for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Bush's Commerce Dept requested and received written guarantees from Iraq that the equipment was only for civilian use.

1990

Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq's weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

So when US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam the US did not have an official position on disputes between Arab countries, is it any wonder that he thought the US would look the other way when he invaded Kuwait? After this close and very supportive relationship with the Republican administrations throughout the 1980s?



We all know about the Gulf War. But I want to bring in one more piece of history here, from after the Gulf War.

Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, was CEO of Halliburton Corp. from 1995 until August 2000, when he retired with a $34 million retirement package.

According to the Financial Times of London, Halliburton in that time period sold $23.8 million of oil industry equipment and services to Iraq, to help rebuild its war-damaged oil production infrastructure. For political reasons, Halliburton used subsidiaries to hide this. [4]

More recently, the Washington Post on June 23, 2001, reported that figure was actually $73 million.

The head of the subsidiary said he is certain Cheney knew about these sales.

Halliburton did more business with Saddam Hussein than any other US company.

Asked about this by journalists by ABC News in August 2000, Cheney lied and said "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." [5]

The US media never followed up on this.
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...4314%2C00.html
When US turned a blind eye to poison gas

America knew Baghdad was using chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988. So why, asks Dilip Hiro , has it taken 14 years to muster its outrage?

Sunday September 1, 2002
The Observer

When it comes to demonising Saddam Hussein, nothing captures the popular imagination in America better than the statement that 'he gassed his own people'. This is an allusion to the deployment of chemical weapons by Iraq's military in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, and then in the territory administered by the Tehran-backed Kurdish rebels after the ceasefire five months later.

As Iraq's use of poison gases in war and in peace was public knowledge, the question arises: what did the United States administration do about it then? Absolutely nothing. Indeed, so powerful was the grip of the pro-Baghdad lobby on the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan that it got the White House to foil the Senate's attempt to penalise Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons to which it was a signatory.....
This seems like "tough love", illegal use of napalm type bombs that have killed civilians, aggravated by "bombs lack stabilising fins, making them far from precise."
Quote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=647397
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

..............Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."...............
host is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 12:10 AM   #40 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Um... about that "Fuck Iraq" picture on the carrier?

..

Yeah, that's photoshopped if you cant tell. They actually spelled out E = MC2 (squared, dont know how to type that). It was celebrating the worlds first nuclear carrier, the USS Enterprise. They carry on the tradition on the anniversary very often, this one CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln, wasnt even in Iraq, it was stationed assisting in Afghanistan.

Nice job there pointing how hateful the military is, when it was some guy on his computer. But keep fishing.
Seaver is offline  
 

Tags
iraq, truth

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360