0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2003 10:52 pm
Timber wrote:

Unrelated, but interesting; Iraqi Embassies in various countries are reported to be "Burning Papers".

Activities such as "Burning Papers" bring home the fact that we are watching history unfold. It isn't often in a lifetime that we are allowed of observe the collapse of the regime of a major player on the world scene.

It would seem logical that he has crawled back to his birthplace to make his last stand. After enjoying the power of life and death over millions of people and exhorbitant wealth to spend on any whim he knows he could never be content with anything less. He also knows that if we don't find his body it will always be a "hollow" victory and perhaps he will consider it his victory in death.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2003 10:59 pm
Sophia wrote:

AND, News reports say Al-Jazeera has been run out of Iraq. By the US?
no. By Iraqi citizens. They were furious they'd been lied to. Now, that's something to think about.

I believe that's truly a remarkable occurence----here I was so worried the Muslim world would never know the truth. Nice to be wrong about such an important happening.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2003 11:56 pm
perception wrote:
It isn't often in a lifetime that we are allowed of observe the collapse of the regime of a major player on the world scene.


At least we Europeans (some of us) had the opportunity, not only to see but to live in those chances quite often.

Besides, I really would be wondering, if Iraquian diplomats handled their papers over to e.g. the US diplomats.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 02:25 am
Quote:
AND, News reports say Al-Jazeera has been run out of Iraq. By the US?
no. By Iraqi citizens. They were furious they'd been lied to. Now, that's something to think about.


Got some links on that? Because i think this is again a big lie.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 02:49 am
Quote:
..."You'll see the celebrations and we will be happy Saddam has gone," one of them said to me. "But we will then want to rid ourselves of the Americans and we will want to keep our oil and there will be resistance and then they will call us "terrorists". Nor did the Americans look happy "liberators". They pointed their rifles at the pavements and screamed at motorists to stop - one who did not, an old man in an old car, was shot in the head in front of two French journalists...


from:

Robert Fisk: A day that began with shellfire ended with a once-oppressed people walking like giants
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 04:31 am
a
Very Happy cat among the pigeons Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 05:18 am
Still my conflicting emotions continue. I'm so happy for the people I saw tearing down that statue, and so sad for the thousands of dead and injured. And there's still a lot of sick, hungry and thirsty people there. They need to be helped quickly.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 05:35 am
perception wrote:
Dyslexia


Dys
Mexico City is somewhat closer to Panama than your Navajoe Indian dwelling---do I hear an acknowlegement of a more authentic sourse? Credibility??????
challenging me on the basis of residence is stupid-challenging me on the basis of ethnicity is racist.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 06:02 am
Timber doesn't say where this masterpiece of spinning comes from, but it clearly has an agenda all of its own...

"Your task for the day- make the deliberate targetting and killing of journalists sound like an unfortunate accident, and try not to tell any obvious lies"

With my [COMMENTS]

Quote:
An Al-Jazeera correspondent was killed [MAKES IT SOUND LIKE AN ACCIDENT RIGHT FROM THE START], and his cameraman wounded [ONLY WOUNDED? COULD BE A SRATCH], during an engagement [AN ENGAGEMENT? A DELIBERATE ATTACK ON THE AL JAZEERA OFFICES FROM WHERE NO FIRE CAME. AL JAZEERA DIDN'T FIGHT BACK] between US and Iraqi forces [LIKE A PITCHED BATTLE?] yesterday here in Bahghdad [CORRECT,IN BAGHDAD]. A US A-10 Attack Fighter was seen to attack the general location [SPECIFICALLY TARGETTED THE AL JAZEERA OFFICES] at the time of the incident [AT THE TIME? WHY THIS? JUST SOWING A LITTLE MORE DOUBT IN THE READERS MIND], and multiple impacts [MULTIPLE? THEN THE A10 MIGHT NOT HAVE FIRED THE FATAL SHOTS, ALTHOUGH EVERYONE ELSE REPORTS A MISSILE ATTACK] were noted [CASUALLY NOTED!] spanning the facade of the building [SO IT WAS OVER A WIDE AREA IMPLYING AGAIN IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE A10] in which the death and injuries occurred [OCCURRED BY NATURAL CAUSES PERHAPS?].

A few hours later, as the battle continued to escalate and expand [THINGS WERE GETTING OUT OF OUR CONTROL, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN], the chaos of combat [LOVELY PHRASE. IT WASN'T THAT CHAOTIC, JOURNALISTS WERE MAKING THEIR DAILY REPORTS FROM THE ROOF OF THE PALESTINE HOTEL] resulted [RESULTED NOTE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEONE ELSE WHO DID IT] in the deaths of two other cameramen and the wounding of three staffers, as US fire fell [FELL, BY ACCIDENT PRESUMABLY LIKE A METEORITE] on the building housing [THE PALESTINE HOTEL WHERE EVERYONE IN BAGHDAD KNEW THE JOURNALISTS WERE STAYING] the Baghdad Bureau Office of Rueters [THATS GOOD, MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THE ENEMY]. Whether the US units were directly returning hostile fire [THERE WAS NO FIRE DIRECT OR OTHERWISE FROM THE PALESTINE], or not, as alleged [NOT ALLEGED, CATEGORIC STATEMENTS] by journalists on the scene [SOUNDS LIKE JOURNALISTS WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE THERE NOT VICTIMS OF THE ATTACK ITSELF], is disputed by US officials [CONTRAST JOURNALISTS AND OFFICIALS.. DISPUTED.. SOUNDS TERRIBLY EVEN HANDED].


"Well done lad, we whopped their ass good. They'll believe us in future when we say we don't guarantee their safety like an embed"
"Thanks Sir, any vacancies in Ari Fleischer's office?"
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 06:24 am
Quote from NYT:

"
In New Orleans today, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed suspicions that journalists had been deliberately attacked as "totally false."

"You'd have to be an idiot to believe that," he told a questioner during a meeting of American newspaper editors.
"
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 06:25 am
Frolic wrote:
Quote:
AND, News reports say Al-Jazeera has been run out of Iraq. By the US?
no. By Iraqi citizens. They were furious they'd been lied to. Now, that's something to think about.


Got some links on that? Because i think this is again a big lie.

I don't know where Sophia got her report but I heard it on FOX NEWS----the only source that predicted the early collapse of the Iraqi regime. You might want to check in with them once in a while but only if you want the truth.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 06:46 am
Wilso, I'm with you in those thoughts. I am trying to think only of some Iraqis who might find a better life. Surely, that is the only good to come out of this adventure.

There is a piece in the NYTimes Op-Ed today, by Mamoun Fandy whom I saw on C-Span a few days ago. He writes for Al-Ahram in Cairo and also for an Arab paper based on London. He ends the piece with this squib about an e-mail and cell phone message being circulated in the Arab world: "Young Assad of Syria sent Bush a message telling him that if he wants Assad to go, he doesn't have to go through that much trouble. He can just send a text message on his cell phone."

I know that some will see the ironic joke as a bit of profound truth: we showed 'em, Boys. Ain't gonna be no heads poking up out of gopher holes after that round we just fired off.

For good or for ill, that is the way we are going to be seen from now on. It is exactly what our administration wanted, planned for years, and now has. I am thinking of moving to New Zealand. (I know, perception...good riddance, huh?)
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 06:47 am
truth
Perc wrote:

"I don't know where Sophia got her report but I heard it on FOX NEWS----the only source that predicted the early collapse of the Iraqi regime. You might want to check in with them once in a while but only if you want the truth."


Ge wrote ahhhh yeah right





PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 7:28 am Post subject: Reply to this topic (use quote to reply to a specific post) Reply to this post with quote Edit/Delete this post ierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time


On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:00 am
Has anyone stopped to think WHY "embedding" journalists is deemed to be so important? Why so many veteran and respected journalists refused to be embedded? Why did Tommy Franks gave a warning to non embeds before the war? And why was Terry Lloyd killed within a day or so of the invasion? Only asking, sorry Mr Cheney if you feel uncomfortable with these questions.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:07 am
Will American forces get a summer break before they are ordered to march on Damascus?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:15 am
More like Christmas with Bush at the helm ..... if we can afford Christmaas that is.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:23 am
Dyslexia wrote:

perception wrote:
Dyslexia


Dys
Mexico City is somewhat closer to Panama than your Navajoe Indian dwelling---do I hear an acknowlegement of a more authentic sourse? Credibility??????
challenging me on the basis of residence is stupid-challenging me on the basis of ethnicity is racist.


Your comments are meaningless to me----It's your credibility that you might want to worry about.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:30 am
Exclusive: Bush's Body Language Speaks Volumes
Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed, [email protected]

Watching George W. Bush deliver his speeches is becoming more alarming as his diction and body language become ever so transparently arrogant. Only people who are oblivious to the Other as a living concept are capable of such behavior. The President issues statements that polarize and divide: "You are either with us or with them" is the most obvious. There are plenty of such declarations that an elected official is not supposed to contemplate, let alone utter. This diction is the linguistic realm of the dictator who has to answer to no one.

When it comes to body language, Bush speaks volumes. The fixed stare in his eyes is boyish, as he declares something as Biblical as "the day of reckoning is near." He awaits the applause from the "safe" crowds of servicemen and women as a little child awaits the teacher's commendations. The posture seems to say, "How did I do in this recitation of my Sunday school homework?" Not bad, Mr. President. But then, we are not in a Sunday school. The forced spring in his step and his quasi-military salute to the Marine by the helicopter tell us that the man is getting too confident in his performance. This sort of confidence is usually of the strutting type, which means it comes from the inability to step back and look at one's actions.

Some people might think this is simply confidence and the ability to lead without hesitation. But a leader who does not reflect is a leader who falls on his face. That is a historical fact. The force and weight of the position should make one rethink before uttering such statements. If we take this war as an example, the President waxed Biblical like the prophets of the Old Testament before the war started. While the prophets could call on divine inspiration, the President had only Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Perle to fall on. Hardly divine anything. Had this sort of behavior been evident after total victory, one might pass it as immodesty. But when you get it before any engagement or even a bullet fired, it is nothing but arrogance.

When the American administration thought it might need Spain as another vote in the UN, Spanish Prime Minister Aznar was invited to the Azores for talks he had nothing to add to. When the war was being decided, Bush and Blair met at Camp David alone. The Spanish opposition took the Prime Minister to task, shredded him for the arrogant and ungrateful behavior of his supposed allies, and taunted him as no more than a fool for having been manipulated. Is this the way to reward a "faithful" ally?

Arrogance is infectious. Rumsfeld was telling the world, in his own inimitable way, that finding piles of chemical suits belonging to Iraqi soldiers was proof positive they have chemical weapons and intend to use them. I have never heard reasoning so absurd. He said that the Iraqis "knew we would not use chemical weapons." Is that so, Mr Secretary? The fact is that the Secretary is on record saying he favors the use of non-lethal chemical agents that temporarily incapacitate. It is illegal to use such chemicals as provided in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States and 139 other countries are signatories.

Surely the Iraqis heard him and took measures to protect themselves. Now I don't know whether the Iraqis have these weapons or not, but I sure know when someone is taking the world for a ride. That complete disrespect for human intelligence is alarming. Do these people think they can get away with such declarations? Do they really believe that such one-sided argumentation is valid? The voices of reason and dissent have been quashed in America. There is no one who can come out and declare for the side of logic and reason. The fury of Church, Network, and the rabid columnists is unleashed to silence such voices.

Sen. Daschle suggested that Bush's diplomatic failure made war inevitable. He was attacked as if he were a refusenik during the Soviet era. Senator Kerry, a man who fought for his country and was decorated for it, urgently calls to vote this president out of office only to find himself fighting a war of survival as a politician. Sen. Kennedy, an elder statesman whose American lineage needs no proof, was clear that Bush did not make a convincing case for a war in Iraq. Al Gore, who actually won the popular vote in 2000, did not see any reason to go to war to achieve the objectives of the UN resolutions. We all know where President Carter, who perhaps is the most deserving of the Noble Prize winners this past century, stands.

These people and many more are neither Arab nor anti-American. They are the leaders (chosen and elected) of the United States. They have been silenced, sidetracked, and even accused of being un-American. The one-dimensional clique that rules the White House these days is not only killing our children in Iraq but also polarizing America in a dangerous precedent that might set that country on a track of belligerence, conquest, and lethal unilateralism.

This Administration has played a dangerous game of appealing to the base instincts of the masses. Fear of the other has been utilized in way that is changing America and the world. While American arms are being used to kill Iraqis, the real danger is lurking in a cave somewhere. Bin Laden is safe and enjoying the fiasco.

He is the ultimate winner in this dangerous game. Instead of concentrating the world's efforts to get rid of him, President Bush has been led to fulfill the long-standing agenda of people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle.

If only the President left his Bible for a little while on the desk and read Spinoza and Rousseau instead; he might ultimately find out how he is being led down a dark crevice. He might also tread lightly on the face of this earth, salute the marine like Eisenhower (a real soldier) did, and encompass the broad spectrum of humanity within his vision. All three religions would tell the President that arrogance is vile in the eyes of the Lord. Besides, the most visible sign of Saddam's vileness is his swagger, as he saunters from one place to another.

Arab News Features 10 April 2003
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:30 am
Steve

I think I ought to toss in my notions regarding the reporter issue.

First, it seems incontrovertable that the US military has sought means to control information flow (news) since Panama, where reporters were simply disallowed into the area. Justifications such as 'we do it for you safety' are deceits. The goal is to avoid what happened in Viet Nam, where public opinion pushed political decisions in a direction with which the military disagreed.

Second, embedding is clearly preferable to independent reporting, from the military viewpoint (from the same rationale as above) and it seems no surprise that independents are being treated differently by the US military than are embeds. Discouragement, warnings, rudenesses, lack of assistance, etc seem quite predictable to me.

Third, because these boys (and their civilian bosses) are well aware of the importance of information flow to the public perception of reality, I think the attack on Al Jazeera was argued for, lusted after, and finally committed purposefully.

However, I can't accept the proposition that there is a policy afloat to shoot independent reporters. Not because there aren't Strangelove wackos who'd argue the case (and beleive it), but simply because such a policy is far too likely to bring about precisely what they try to avoid - the perception that the US is militarist, uncaring about peoples' lives, and out of control as regards international laws and humanitarian principles. Any such policy is going to have some wide level of distribution, and that risks far too much in terms of PR.

One might argue, if one were very cynical and I confess I am almost at that point, that the hope of the military/information folks is that things will be so dangerous for independents that, whenever the next country on the list (Syria, it seems) finds itself welcoming a liberation, that few reporters will risk their lives and limbs. That I think quite plausible, and it's not at all hard to imagine these fellows discussing such.

But a tank aiming at several floors of reporters is precisely the sort of thing I think they wish to avoid. Not particularly because they give a damn (in charge types, as opposed to Fred in the tank), but for simple PR reasons.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2003 07:52 am
Blatham wrote:

However, I can't accept the proposition that there is a policy afloat to shoot independent reporters. Not because there aren't Strangelove wackos who'd argue the case (and beleive it), but simply because such a policy is far too likely to bring about precisely what they try to avoid - the perception that the US is militarist, uncaring about peoples' lives, and out of control as regards international laws and humanitarian principles. Any such policy is going to have some wide level of distribution, and that risks far too much in terms of PR.

Well said Blatham----excellent application of logical thinking.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq II
  3. » Page 178
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 10:34:18