The US, UN & Iraq II

Maybe this will help .....

http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm

0 Replies

Wait a minute is too short a time period. Wait a few years, I think, and that's being conservative. c.i.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Nimb wrote (as a quote)

The station approaches the western guests in the same way as its Arabic guests. That, plus the reports on the progress of the American and British forces have led many Arabs to reproach Al Jazeera for choosing the side of the Americans. But Al Jazeera shows the propaganda from both parties, like a sponge that absorbs everything, and lets it all drain again - onto the airwaves.

I read this with great interest but with skepticism that it is true. I can't read Arabic so I don't know if it's true ---can you confirm it for me.

This is how the Volkskrant reporter described the station's approach. I can't speak Arabic myself, so I can't personally confirm it - but the Al-Jazeera footage that the Dutch VPRO re-broadcast with subtitles seemed very much to echo that description, yes. Not that the footage came across as pro-American, but it did look like encompassing the kind of wide range of sources, Western ones too, that you probably don't find much on the Arab state TV stations, and I'm sure that can be interpreted as pro-American by some there. My colleagues at work, who do watch it, maintain as well that Al-Jazeera, if anything, is eclectic and independent - not particularly loyal to any regime or ideology.

Thats the problem Al-Jazeera has had from the start: they've been criticized from all sides for being partisan. The US government criticizes it, Arab governments have pressured Qatar to close it down, militants call it pro-Western, Westerners call it pro-fundamentalist. I think thats a very healthy sign.

I was at a conference where the Europe director of Al-Jazeera and a colleague debated with CNN and BBC counterparts, and they were extremely articulate and insistent about wanting to bring "objective" and "independent" journalism to a part of the world where this has not been a tradition. They were accorded grudging respect by their colleagues, who mostly only criticized Al-Jazeera's inexperience and amateurism, not any specific bias.

That's why I was really surprised to suddenly find Al-Jazeera emerging here on this forum as the new bogeyman - as if it were Iraqi State TV or something. That just came out of nowhere. I think that for 98% it came from the POW controversy. But those POWs were shown on European screens and newspaper photos, too.

I wouldnt call Al-Jazeera exemplary, either. The fierce independence with which it seems to have profiled itself towards the various governments of the region has been criticized by various leftist Arabs as well, as providing a disproportionate exposure for the now predominantly Islamist/fundamentalist opposition. That link has been made, so there is a risk - the station should be critically monitored - but not more than any other, I'd say.

Now concerning Al-Manar ... Shocked

0 Replies

U.S. Hits 'Leadership Target' in Baghdad

Quote:

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The United States struck a "leadership target" in Baghdad Monday, military officials said.

The target was believed to be one or more of the top government or military leaders in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The strike was the result of "time sensitive" intelligence, meaning information which needed to be acted on quickly, the officials said.

This may be a bombshell (sorry, couldn't resist)
"Pentagon Sources" are "Reservedly optimistic, "Intel was very good".

0 Replies

timber, Please keep us posted on the latest news. My wife is watching basketball, and I can't get any of the CNN channels. c.i.

0 Replies

The Leadersahip Target story is a huge buzz worldwide at the moment. Of course, on March 19, "they" were pretty hopeful too. "Sources": " ... We believe leadership principals were in the residence at the time of the strike. There is nothing left of the targe ... ". If nothing else, tomorrow morning's Ministry of Information briefing is greatly anticipated.. Dsaylight will reveal more, and an armored incusion to the site to allow forensic examination has " ... not been ruled out. We are looking at lots of things, lots of options ... ", according to another "Officer"

On a slightly different note:

Quote:

But things are changing and, as the days pass, minds are changing too.

A captured Iraqi colonel being held in one of the hangars listened in astonishment as his information minister praised Republican Guard soldiers for recapturing the airport.

He looked at his captors and, as he realised that what he had heard was palpably untrue, his eye filled with tears. Turning to a translator, he asked: "How long have they been lying like this?"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/waroniraq/articles/4227725
Thought provoking, huh?

0 Replies

I think most of us already knew about Saddam's palaces, and how the Iraqi people were left in poverty with shortage of food and medicine for the children. I wonder how much longer the Arabs that are supporting Saddam will continue with their support of this monster - after they see all of this unnecessary extravagance. Question

c.i.

0 Replies

Well, you sure weren't kidding about making an extensive reply to my earlier post! Sorry folks, this will by necessity be very long.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
What is the picture emerging from chaos of war? It is that Saddam did secretly retain prohibited missiles, and prepared his troops for operation in a chemical/biological environment.

It was reported at first by the US military that Iraq had fired Scud missiles at Kuwait, yes; but that was actually refuted later. No Scuds have been discovered so far.

There is the proof that there were training manuals on how to react to the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield on the bases of the Iraqi army and irregular groups. This could or could not indicate that the regime itself still has such weapons. It could alternatively indicate that the Iraqi troops used to have chemical weapons (which we know is true); or that they prepared for a possible enemy attack with chemical weapons, such as those the US army has, for example.

Though it remains uncertain what missiles were launched against Kuwait, other missiles not on Saddam's inventories has been discovered. A report earlier today, and already commented upon in this thread, is that missiles armed with chemical warheads have been captured. The large number of chemical suits, antidotes, and manuals for the use of chemical/biological weapons surely weren't produced with the expectation that the United States intended their use. I don't think the U.S. even used chemical weapons in WWI, and certainly not since, but Iraq is notorious for its use of these terror weapons. The equipment is new, and the manuals are up-to-date. As the combat intensity is reduced, and captured intelligence analyzed, I have no doubt whatsoever that large stashes of chemical and biological weapons will be discovered. Prohibited missiles and their launchers will also probably be found.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
It is that Saddam adopted a strategy that is in clear violation of international law and the Rules of War.

Yet it is Bush who started a war that in itself outside the US is generally regarded as a violation of international law.

It was Saddam who broke the conditions of the ceasefire and was responsible for resumption of hostilities. The United States was well within the law and was authorized by UN resolutions dating back to the end of the so-called First Gulf War. Though some may dispute the legality of our actions, I'm confident that we acted within the constraints of International Law. I'm not alone in that conviction, though I doubt that any of the anti-war activists will ever agree.

In any case, Saddam's henchmen are in clear violation of the rules of war as defined by both the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Their violations, under the Rules of War and International Law, release us from our obligation to observe those rules. We have not responded in kind, though we are entitled to.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
The Ba'ath Regime is again revealed as a brutal and despotic organization with absolutely no concern for civilian life, or for the religion they now claim to defend.

As we all knew it would be and nobody here ever refuted.

Well, I'm glad that we at least agree on that. The destruction of the Ba'ath Party and the despotic hold it has exercised over the Iraqi People should in itself be enough to justify the actions of the United States and Britain.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
The best of the Iraqi military forces have shown, so far, that they are incapable of standing against coalition forces.

Although they turned out to stand against coalition forces in practically every city those forces tried to take for longer than had been expected and up to after the coalition armies had claimed they were "secured".

The Iraqi "Military" forces (RA and RG Divisions), have turned in a miserable performance. They have failed to even survive on the battlefield for more than a few hours. The only resistance, and it has been minor, has come from the irregular forces fanatically loyal to Saddam. These forces have only been marginally successful by employing criminal tactics.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
The irregular, and criminal, tactics used by Saddam loyalists has been generally ineffective, though they have greatly retarded the willingness of the average Iraqi to rise against their Masters.

Which is probably exactly the effect the tactics had aimed for, alongside the aims of slowing down the UK/British advance and complicating their communication with the local population from a position of liberators, in which it also seems fairly effective.

I dispute the "effectiveness" of criminal tactics. Their numbers are fast dwindling, and the People themselves will contribute to their destruction. Signs of this are already evident.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
The coalition air strikes have pounded and destroyed at will the enemy's CCC+I capabilities in the heart of a modern city with remarkably few civilian casualties.

There's been some 600-700 civilian casualties in the war so far. (nobody seems to be counting deads iraqi soldiers anymore). That could be described as surprisingly few, though it should be remembered that the yugoslav war (less than 1,000 casualties in months of bombing) set a new standard there. As of the actual damage done to the enemy's capabilities, it's likely to be big, of course, but basically, its still anyone's guess.

Events have borne out my contentions. Given the scope of the operations, the amount of ordinance expended by all sides, the number of casualties all around has been kept to the minimum. The Iraqi military doesn't count, they can reduce the casualty lists by throwing away their arms and surrendering. Keep a weapon, point it in our general direction and die.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
This is a time of maximum risk that Saddam will utilize chemical/biological weapons, and we watch with interest to see what the short-term outcome will be.

Something to await in fear, though it should be added that the "this would be the dangerous point in time" argument has been made several time already, but still no WMD have been either used or even discovered anywhere.

We will indeed watch with interest if they ever turn out to have been there in the first place. Problem is that the US insist on excluding the IAEE from the loop and relying only on its own "inspections" - which will mean that, should they 'unearth' evidence of WMD after the war, nobody in the Arab world will believe they didnt put it there themselves. Its pretty much the capital issue for the Bush case for war, after all.

I believe that the risk that Iraqi forces will actually use terror weapons is rapidly decreasing. They no longer have the capability to deliver the amounts necessary to be effective. There remains a grave danger that some of our forces may be killed, or terribly harmed, by those weapons. The risk will come during the time when we seek out the caches, and destroy them. Our troops may become careless, and even a small accidental spill could be catastrophic. We will find prohibited chemical agents without out doubt, and the prohibited weapons would never have been discovered and destroyed if our forces were not in place.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
I've said several times that this would be a short war with minimal casualties. Every indication is that those predictions were correct, but I do not gloat.

practically every analyst i have seen on tv or in the paper this week has said that it's turned out 'more difficult than expected'. several of those have been copied into these here threads. i dont know much about purely military affairs myself. for me, its just the words of all those "outsiders" versus the opinion of timber and you.

Timber and I are not alone, you just aren't listening to the right folks. At the end of the day, I think you will find that Timber, George, and I have given you better information than any of the commentariat that folks are so fond of quoting.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
There will be a period following the victory where chaos will still reign, but that period will also I think be relatively brief.

I hope so. Depends on how it'll be arranged. The professional international aid organisations have already expressed their exasperation about the apparent US intent to do all the aid + food distribution under its own authority - noting that the chaos in safran and elsewhere was unnecessary, and that it also was fundamental to the 'rules of war' that the humanitarian aid should be taken care of by a neutral organisation.

I'm sure that the United States and Britain will welcome all the humanitarian aid that the UN, France, Germany, Belgium, and Russia would like to contribute. Who pays the piper, calls the tune. The United States, Britain and some others were willing to assume all the risks of enforcing the UN conditions, and now they are entitled to determine how the victory shall be administered.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
Others have claimed that the President is conducting a religious war to impose fundamental Christianity on the whole world.

I havent heard that one, not in earnest; I have heard it argued, quite eloquently at times, that Bush's rhetorics is infused with a Christian sense of messianism; and that the suspicions about this in the Arab world have surely been encouraged by his use of words ("crusade" and the like).

Please! These threads are clogged with the wildest accusations against the President of the United States.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
The second group of anti-war people are not U.S. citizens, and some of them are even more virulent in their anti-American statements. Frolic, who appears to be either French or Belgian, is a mouthpiece for Al-Jazeera.

Al-Jazeera being the only medium in this war to bring the world some crucial images about what was really happening in Basra and Bagdad - while on the other side, the US/British troops have actually been under orders to do everything they can to obstruct the work of non-embedded journalists.

All the lies I've seen have come out of Bagdad and the Arab Media. The western press has been delivering pictures from the front in real time. Reports from the embedded press would be very hard to censor, and I've seen no sign of censorship. The war correspondents with our forces have been sometimes quick to make judgments above their rank and grade. Rumors have been reported as fact, and little facts have sometimes been blown into mountainous misunderstandings. Getting a clear picture of what is happening during a battle is difficult, and often the actual "facts" may never be known. On balance, I trust any of the western media more than any of the Arab press. They seem to be in denial, rather like many of the anti-war crowd.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
Many also have predicted a war lasting years, huge casualties among the troops, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) civilian casualties, and destabilization of the world.

I've been following the discussion here quite intensely, but I have heard very few posters predict a war of years - most of them having stated from the beginning that they believe the US, with its overwhelming military force, would win in the end - though a great many have predicted difficult years of winning the peace.

I have heard no-one predict millions of casualties, while - talking about inappropriate references to millions of victims - I've seen many a pro-war poster compare Saddam's regime with those of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.

As for the destabilisation of the world - well, the institutions of international law and order already have been destabilised, and as for the Middle East and international terrorism - the next few months and years will tell, won't they?

Sorry, I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig out each of the many dire predictions of what would happen if war were to break out in Iraq. Try going back and looking at the first few hundred pages of part one of this thread - I'm sure you will find many posts from many people whose predictions came close to the apocalyptic.

You are correct in saying that the middle-east is, and has been for some time, destabilized. Repeated efforts by many administrations, and world leaders have tried to bring stability to the region without success. This operation may finally provide an opportunity for productive change. Only time will tell, and it may take many decades before a clear understanding of the issue is hammered out by historians.

Quote:

Asherman wrote:
Both American and foreign anti-war forces cling desperately to any negative report about the war, and deny every positive report coming from the field, coalition command, or from coalition governments. They seem to prefer bad news to the good news.

You will have seen nobody cheer at bad news on the war front. What you have seen is many posters infuriated at news of casualties and bloodshed caused by a war they considered both illegal and unnecessary. What you have also seen is an admirable critical attitude towards the media, and the competence to weed out which of the initial 'good news' turned out to actually be true or not later.

You say toe may toe, I say toe ma toe.

0 Replies

I am cognizant of the "sources" reporting reliable info that turned out to be mistaken, but the noises on this one are loud and confident.

Reports also state that larger and larger numbers of Iraqis are out in the street, assisting US forces. Of course, the Iraqi propaganda is that we are not in Baghdad. Shocked

Wonder what the poor propaganda-fed Iraqis will think when they hear how they've been lied to, over and over again.

I wonder if the anti-war Americans will believe the Iraqis, when they begin telling their stories? I wonder if they will believe American GIs, when they say they have found WMD? I hope those who said Bush was making the whole thing up will admit they were wrong. Will any of them be convinced he did the right thing? (Not that its necessary. It would just make them credible.) I mean, how can they effectively argue that they knew better than the Iraqis?

0 Replies

Sofia, With thousands dead, I'm not sure how anybody can come to the conclusion this war was justified. c.i.

0 Replies

c.i.--
A couple of questions/points...
1) Thousands? Do we have the have the numbers. Of course, any innocent civilian life is valuable, but I don't think we've reached thousands.
2) People die in war. Some wars are justified. People dying in them doesn't negate that point.
3) WMD was the disputed justification for this war.
4) Do you think a sensible person, who was against the war may change their mind when Iraqis begin telling how they lived in sheer Hell, and prayed for someone to free them--and when the WMD that were laughed about and denied as a reason to prosecute this war are found?

Not attempting to be inflammatory. Was just wondering if there was a person whose mind might be changed by these things.

0 Replies

If an American military outfit, or an embedded reporter, were to discover a warehouse-sized camoflaged, fortified bunker crammed floor to cieling with clearly labled, loaded, delivereable WMD warheads on live television, there wiould be those who would contend The US planted the evidence.
The "Sources" seem uniformly upbeat about the Saddam Strike. That is encouraging, as is the speed with which the story "Leaked" all over the world.
On the other hand:
We've missed before, on "good intel"
It would be unwise to the point of unlikelyhood for an assembly of senior regime figures to be called outside a totally secure facillity.
The neighborhood apparently involved is just blocks from current 3ID positions in and around Downtown Baghdad. Security in the area would be at best uncertain.
It would be equally improbable that a number of "Senior Figures would gather in a single location in any event.
Saddam, an Intel specialist, has not survived and prospered by being stupid.
There are other contraindications as well; I see some cause for hope, but far more to expect disappointment. It does rather force the Iraqi Regime's hand, though. Interesting either way it goes.

0 Replies

Sofia - it's hard to say, but here's an article from the BBC which gives estimates.

Death toll

0 Replies

Thank you, littlek.
One civilian death is a tragedy, but I am thankful our forces work hard to spare civilian life, and have not suffered or caused death tolls like previous wars.

I hope it is almost over.

0 Replies

Nimh

Thanks for your appraisal of Al Jazeera---the outcome of the clash of the civilizations will depend greatly on who wins the information war and I don't mean just the war of words but the war for the truth. Contrary to what many people believe---Americans are not afraid of the truth and as a matter of fact we welcome it.

0 Replies

Timber quoted

Quote:
But things are changing and, as the days pass, minds are changing too.

A captured Iraqi colonel being held in one of the hangars listened in astonishment as his information minister praised Republican Guard soldiers for recapturing the airport.

He looked at his captors and, as he realised that what he had heard was palpably untrue, his eye filled with tears. Turning to a translator, he asked: "How long have they been lying like this?"

How can even the critics of this war not take note of this---I believe there will be thousands of stories similar to this in the coming days.

0 Replies

The estimated over 3,000 dead will never tell their story. c.i.

0 Replies

Why? Because one nut case refused to comply with UN Resolutions? c.i.

0 Replies

Who amoung you can say that if the past twenty days had gone by in the pursuit of peace instead of war there would have been the same amount of dead and dying.in the world ..... who amoung you can stand up to those wasted lives and say that.

Hoow many can say at this point why..... regime change or wmd ...

0 Replies

What will Iraq look like in 18 months?

Daniel Beilin and I recommend this piece on al-Jazeera - its beginnings, its aims and its influence. In defense of al-Jazeera by Michael Moran of MSNBC.

'An office worker in Sydney' recommends The place where the walls are shooting in iraqwar.ru. An extract:

In December of 1979, when Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, the official goal of the operation was "to remove the anti-people regime of Haffisulla Amin and to defend the achievements of socialism in Afghanistan, and to stop the genocide of the reactionary regime against its own people". Certainly, it was rather difficult at the time to accuse Kabul of hiding weapons of mass destruction. One can argue that the Soviets' goals in Afghanistan were wrong because they were "godless communists", while the US is bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed Iraqis. But this is not the point. The point is that in both cases Moscow and Washington were trying to impose their values, their vision of the world on peoples who did not ask them to do so and, moreover, were not ready to accept those values and visions at all. And in both cases, the leaders of Russia and the US sacredly believed that they were waging a kind of a crusade against evil for the better future.

The main similarity of the two wars is that neither Afghans nor Iraqis truly want to experience the greatness of socialism or Western-type democracy - they simply do not know what it is. For centuries, those peoples have been living within a very specific system of Muslim values mixed with their own cultural traditions. During the last millennium, dozens of foreign invaders came and went, but this unique system survived all the invasions - it just does not accept any alien political-cultural systems. It happened in Afghanistan and it will imminently happen in Iraq. The great Russian writer Anton Chekhov wrote in 'The Lady with the Dog': "The easiest thing in the world for a man is to undress a woman - all real difficulties usually start after it." I believe that to take over Baghdad for the US troops will be just to "undress a woman", exactly as with the Soviets when they took over Kabul in 1979.

Max Phillips: Exactly one year before he was assassinated, Rev. Martin Luther King delivered a speech against the Vietnam war and American militarism and imperialism. In it he condemns America's "liberation" of Vietnam and calls for protest to save both the Vietnamese and America: hartford. Compare King's words with the false moralising of Blair, Bush and Howard. Why is there such a dearth of intelligent and eloquent leaders today?

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know