The US, UN & Iraq II

Kara

You have a point about leaving out pejorative terms such as malicious propaganda.

If we do, this is what we get:-

Quote:

The war aims are to affirm America's global supremacy in an oil-rich part of the world, and to protect Israel's regional supremacy and its monopoly of weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that is a statement of fact.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I think it will come down finally to the question, who do you believe? Do you believe Saddam, or do you believe the President of the United States? Saddam, or the reporters embedded in Allied fighting units? Saddam, or the Allied Military command? Whose value system is more trustworthy, the values system of the American and British, or value system of Saddam Hussein?

I prefer to "believe" neither. It is very wise not to "believe" anyone who's fighting a war, because by nature they will make thruth subservient to what they need for a victory.

Most credence I give to those reporters and those media who are bravely trying to report from both sides of the front, and from in between the frontlines - who are trying to dig up several of the truths about this war, not just the one "embedded" in living with the US soldiers. Who are independent and stubborn enough to find that beyond the "embedded" news, there is in fact more than just "Saddam" - more than his truth only - there's the truth of Iraqi civilian casualties and their anger or dissapointment, of the Kurds in the North who are waiting for the American soldiers, but scared of the Turkish ones that'll come with them, of the volunteers in Amman enlisting for Saddams war even though they hate the man, of the various stories doing the rounds on who or what had the water supply to Basra cut off - not something you would necessarily want to take the word of Allied Military command on, even if you do also by rule disbelieve everything its counterparts in Bagdad say.

The journalist's mission is to not "believe" the US CenC people out of a sense of having a shared value system, but to control vigilantly to what extent those people are upholding those shared values in war. And the mission of us, media consumers, should be to do the same - to weigh and balance, control and check, seek info from both sides of the fronts, and make up our own mind about who has been defending our value system best and when.

0 Replies

You state the case perfectly, Nimh. During a war of any kind, whether one is in it or an observer of it, one must realize that all bets are off, no one plays by the rules, and the unexpected always happens. We have the advantage of endless sources of information. None of them is gospel, but reading between the lines of many often gives one a sense of what the truth may be.

I'll be out there "demonstrating" (small-scale, rural, local) today and share the gloomy views of our intentions and of the emerging disaster of the invasion raised by Geligesti and Kara.

We're in a situation now which is classic no-win. Worse, we have put the rest of that region in the same situation.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

A filtering method I've found somewhat effective is to watch to see if a rumor or report gets picked up by other outlets. If an item gets wide notice over a short time period, there may well be something there. The next step is to examine the different treatments, and to look for corroborating independent mention. A story carried by several services, some of which have their own correspondants' bylines and perspectives, offering more or less the same facts, gains credence.

I am a bit sceptical about this. Rumours have an immense power, especially in a context where for journalists it is extremely hard to find and corroborate their own data. A story, if launched by a credible enough source and seemingly plausible enough, will make it into the press agency or news networks' reports, and from there into all the national, then local newspapers, for whom the CNN provenance furnishes credibility enough. They will each do exactly what you point out: add their own correspondants' bylines and comments, their own experts' perspectives on what the news may mean, while still repeating more or less the same story.

Politicians from all sides use these dynamics, because they know that the news takes only 24 hours to do the rounds, while the research leading to the refutation will take months. By the time it turns out there was not a meeting between an Al-Qaeda operative and an Iraqi agent in Prague, the news is old hat and the refutation will make page 7 at best. Damage done, mission successful. In the short run, because in the end it leads to an ingrained scepticism about the news we're fed, and from there it's close to dont-wanna-know isolationism.

0 Replies

We are seeing an interesting application of the law of unintended consequences. The pro-Israel warmongers who have had the ear of the President are utterly discredited. Bush has an even higher priority than supporting Israel, and that's to ensure his own re election. He must now turn to others to help extricate him from the Operation Iraqi Freedom debacle. The price of withdrawing with some honour will be the final abandonment of eretz Yisrael, the very thing attacking Iraq was meant to secure. Perhaps there is a God after all.

0 Replies

nimh and tartarin, I agree with you as usual. And I'd like to add that neither saddam or bush made any clear case for or against this war. Had there been any whole-sale truth about motives and weapons and such than I'd feel like I could take a side. That's exatly why I was for letting the inspections continue. Though with politics, leaders of countries and leaders of inspections teams, no one is going to tell the people the truth about everything.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Anyone heard more about this?

Sulaymaniyah, Northern Iraq :: Stuart Hughes :: 1502GMT (BBC)

Not about that, but it reminded me of a story I did hear on the news two or three days ago. Fighting had been noticed in the North, near the Kurdish area, and the (BBC?) correspondent had trekked to the Kurdish front to ask around. The Kurds said they were not involved in the fighting at all, that it seemed to be taking place at or behind the Iraqi front. And indeed, the lines of firing appeared to be parallel to, rather than across the front lines. The story they eventually heard was that Iraqi army units had been trying to desert, and that when still-loyal troops then persecuted them fighting had broken out between them.

0 Replies

lovely

0 Replies

GWBush is now enjoying a favorable rating of over 50 percent for his handling of this war. Doesn't look too good for people who wish to see him disappear in 2004. c.i.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think it will come down finally to the question, who do you believe? Do you believe Saddam, or do you believe the President of the United States?

Asherman's framing of the question is worth remarking on. Nimh did a nice job speaking to why the heck should we believe either of them? The way Asherman sets this up is also precisely the structure of other similar framings, such as "You either want Sadaam to remain in power or you don't."

What's wrong here? Asherman, or others who make such a move, are engaging in what in Logic is termed a false dilemma:

Quote:

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:
Either you're for me or against me.
America: love it or leave it.
Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.
Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.

0 Replies

I'm skeptical about that 50 percent.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Actually Nimb---when the 4th Infantry division finally get their tanks off loaded in Kuwait from those ships that the Turks wouldn't allow to dock and off load, and they start rolling north.with their high tech epuipment.......they (the Turks ) may reevaluate their cards and may slip quietly back across the border into Turkey.

Now there's one thing I'll join with you in hoping for - wholeheartedly!

0 Replies

Poll results at any time are to be taken with enough salt to unfreeze a state highway mid-winter, but a poll at this point in the procedings seems rather like checking with a couple who have just headed out the door on their first date, to see what they are going to name the bouncing baby.

But if, two or three months from now, the polls start to move to 70% favorable, then I will get into real estate here in Canada to accomodate the inflow of Americans who haven't painted a flag on their foreheads, and are no longer welcomed by neighbors.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Still, I think France has overplayed her hand already, and I suspect she. whether blithely or defiantly, intends to continue to buy into the pot.

News yesterday was of a German plan to start working more closely together with France, Belgium and the Netherlands in (finally) expanding a more impressive/self-supporting core European military force.

0 Replies

blatham, thanks for the discussion of Asherman's choices. I, too, spotted the logical fallacy in that premise but hadn't taken the time to post my thoughts. You did it better than I would have, anyway.

Re Bush's favorable rating: isn't much of this rallying around the flag? It remains to be seen what happens to his post-war favorability rating.

0 Replies

There is little doubt that a lot of posts on this thread hint at some glee with reports coming from Iraq that the U.S. has "miscalculated", "underestimated", or has "stalled" in its advance. Since none of us can claim the least bit of knowledge of the allies' War Plans these claims are at best subjective despite the fact that they have issued from the lips of outside "experts".

As has been said "No war plan survives contact with the enemy" and nobody is more cognizant of this than the Coalition planners.
As an aside: I was listening to an expert ex CIA guy on Charlie Rose last night who, when questioned about street fighting in Baghdad, responded that if it comes to that, it will not be like the Germans at Stalingrad. The Americans have a different plan that has been practiced for years for just such an occasion so we must wait and see.

For those Americans and others who wish to free Iraq from Saddam take heart in Timberlandko's post of Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:01 am and Asherman's post of Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:58 am. The underlying message is that there is no question that Saddam's forces will be defeated. Make no mistake, this is a given.

Once the Iraqi people see that Saddam and his thugs are neutralized we will finally see their true beliefs about Saddam and his regime and the scales will begin to fall from the nay Sayers eyes. We will also see some different reactions from neighboring Arab states in the long-term future. The U.S. has no colonial aspirations so the Administration of Iraq is what we should be looking towards. How can we quickly return a stable Iraq to be governed by its people is the question now before us not how badly coalition plans have "gone awry".

Respectfully,

JM

0 Replies

The majority of the German population is still against a war in Iraq, according to a recent poll. Only 12 percent say a war is justified, while 83 percent reject military action in Iraq, according to a survey commissioned by public state television MDR. The number of those opposed to war was even higher in East Germany, reaching 91 percent, while in Germany's western states, 82 percent said they were opposed to war. However, 61 percent of those questioned said that Germany should contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq, with 36 percent against participation. (from www.mdr.de)

And here's a link to a report about the actual political debate of Germany's participation after the war:

Debate Rages on German Role in Post-War Iraq

0 Replies

When I did a follow-up survey in conjunction with an NPR-Kaiser poll, we were instructed to follow each question with an opportunity for the interviewee to expand on his response. I found that, in each case, their original answers to the questions were significantly modified.

Although I wasn't polling when I talked to some Republican friends last week, their "support for the war" became "great uneasiness about the invasion of Iraq but support for the troops" when they discussed their reactions. The responses really depend on the wording of the question and how much room it gives in the answer. If asked right now, "Do you support America? Answer yes or no," I'm the type who'd say straight out, "NO!" But given the opportunity to explain, I might say: "Not what the government is doing now, but otherwise, yes." Many others will say "yes" because it's the best way of getting rid of the question(er!).

0 Replies

Ketamine wrote:

Blair quoted the statistic that 400,000 Iraqi children have died over the last ten years as an example of Saddam's cruel regime. The reason these children have been dying is because of an abject lack of medical supplies thanks to US economic sanctions.

Nonsense. The sanctions provided for humanitarian needs. Saddam thwarted those measures to benefit himself and his power structure. Your argument is specious. BTW ... the sanctions were UN imposed. The US lobbied persuasively but The UN voted the sanctions.

Quote:

have another Big mac and fires and Coke instead.

Not my taste, thanks. I prefer venison, wildfowl, fresh fish, garden fruits and veggies, and homebrew. I'm not real big on supermarkets or restaurants.

Quote:

Their is a world outside the US and many of that world don't like you.

Perhaps not so many "Don't like" The US as you perceive. Apart from that, the quest for justice is not a popularity contest. The job needs doing. Those who chip in and help do the job will encounter none of the inconvenience which awaits those who did not. France, Germany, Russia, and the UN have squandered any opportunity they had to influence global politics. Those who most vigorously opposed the growth and extension of US dominance have ensured it.

0 Replies

frolic wrote:

trespassers will wrote:
I thought you only listened to what Al Jazeera says regarding this war.

My advantage is that i understand more than one language. This gives me the opportunity to check, double check and triple check the news i read/watch.

I know you are not happy with the pictures Al Jazeera shows to the public.

I am neither happy nor unhappy about them. Al Jazeera is of no consequence to me.

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know