Elazar, I want to thank you for pointing out that we are putting our ground troops at great risk to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq, when we could bomb. That says a lot that I had not even thought of. From your statement I have been paying closer attention and we also have a great regard for religious and historical buildings being careful to not bomb and destroy them. Not that it can't happen. The objective is so obvious in this war in my opinion
Also thanks for posting those websites here.
hell bent on war
As an answer to Godzilla and anyone else who might wonder about the
British attitude to their country. I am only speaking for myself
obviously but I am fiercely proud of my country. We do not have to
swear allegiance to the flag or any other such patriotic verve. In fact
you would be hard placed to find a union flag flying. For some reason a
lot of the councils here have classified them as racist. We all budge
up as seemingly endless streams of refugees flood into our country.
What language are you all using on this board? English. Look at your
stamps do they have the country of origin on them. We don't we invented
the postal service. We don't have the name of our country on our
stamps. What are you using a computer and the WWW who invented that and then didn't benefit financially from it but gave it to the world to use
for a peppercorn. An Englishman.
Yes I am extremely proud of my country. I am proud of our fighting
force. Even the US Marines are under the command of the Royal Marines.
British soldiers are in the heart of Iraqi. I don't meant to sound
gung ho I just want you all to be aware although my country is small it
is a force to be reckoned with and I and the vast majority of British
people are proud to be British.
British attitude to their country. I am only speaking for myself
obviously but I am fiercely proud of my country. We do not have to
swear allegiance to the flag or any other such patriotic verve. In fact
you would be hard placed to find a union flag flying. For some reason a
lot of the councils here have classified them as racist. We all budge
up as seemingly endless streams of refugees flood into our country.
What language are you all using on this board? English. Look at your
stamps do they have the country of origin on them. We don't we invented
the postal service. We don't have the name of our country on our
stamps. What are you using a computer and the WWW who invented that and then didn't benefit financially from it but gave it to the world to use
for a peppercorn. An Englishman.
Yes I am extremely proud of my country. I am proud of our fighting
force. Even the US Marines are under the command of the Royal Marines.
British soldiers are in the heart of Iraqi. I don't meant to sound
gung ho I just want you all to be aware although my country is small it
is a force to be reckoned with and I and the vast majority of British
people are proud to be British.
-
Byron
- Posts: 3171
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:01 pm
- Location: Mad House, Eating Tablets, Cereals, Jam, Marmalade and HONEY, with Albert
Well, well, well. Guess what folks?
USAID has already started awarding contracts for post war business opportunities.
Umm Qasr goes to a US company. Really? I hear you say.
The work of putting out well head fires in the oil fields has also been awarded to a US company. Really? I hear you say again.
But guess who used to be a director of that company?
One man who just happens to be The Vice President of America.
REALLY I hear you scream!!!!
I refer you to my quote in a previous posting.
American companies made money out of selling munitions etc., to Iraq in the first place and now their companies are going to make money out of clearing up the mess.
USAID has already started awarding contracts for post war business opportunities.
Umm Qasr goes to a US company. Really? I hear you say.
The work of putting out well head fires in the oil fields has also been awarded to a US company. Really? I hear you say again.
But guess who used to be a director of that company?
One man who just happens to be The Vice President of America.
REALLY I hear you scream!!!!
I refer you to my quote in a previous posting.
I'm with Paula if anyone wants me. We're being VERY proud of OUR countrymen/women. Some of whom will probably die to ensure the Americans get a good deal out of this 'just' war.Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining
American companies made money out of selling munitions etc., to Iraq in the first place and now their companies are going to make money out of clearing up the mess.
Nan ~
I'm pretty astounded by the questions you've asked me in response to my post. However, before I answer you, will anyone and everyone who believes I am not deeply, personally affected by the sight of ANY soldier or civilian, injured or killed, paraded or not, please say so now, so that I might answer everyone at the same time. Never mind. Just consider yourselves all addressed.
The fact that they are U.S. and not British or not Iraqi, or that they are soldiers, but not civilian, does not come into play. Were I, at this point, to bleeeed on the Internet regarding each and every image I come across of U.S. casualties and POWs, the response I could well anticipate would be "we told you he was bad, but you didn't think we should do anything about him!" Of course I know that Saddam is capable of what "he's" doing. I also know that we are capable of the very same thing. The very images I am coming across are the very images I did not want to see. These are not peacetime images. Now that I am seeing them, I do NOT feel compelled to react to them, as though they were unanticipated and somehow shocking. Yes, they are shocking. That is their intent. They are demoralizing. They are horrific. That is also their intent. The U.S. beat its chest when it broadcast, worldwide, the bomb show for the "Shock and Awe" phase of this war. As many, I daresay, saw the fireworks aspect of it, I was seeing in my mind's eye the lives being blown apart beneath it. It bragged about the psychological aspects of this war. The Iraqis are playing their psychological cards, as well, with an obvious "Damn the Geneva Conventions" attitude. This is the nature of war crimes, which accompany each and every war on all sides. In their and many others' minds, worldwide, the U.S. also broke the U.N. agreements. I guarantee you that the U.S. is compiling footage, as well, and may be showing it to reenforce the morale of our own troops even as we speak. This same footage may well be broadcast and printed at some later date, further down the road.
The media is owned by six different entities. I can't tell you offhand the names of them, however, people staying tuned is prerequisite to their survival....be it entertainment....shock.....awe....vicarious thrills or disgust or horror. Why hasn't the U.S. blocked these images? For the sake of the American people's psychological sensitivities. It does not have to show what other countries film. That is a choice they make. Showing these films works well to reenforce and strengthen our resolve in favour of what the government is doing. Did they have to show the mega-bombings at the onset? No. That is also a choice they made as a show of power and intimidation. These films are now being shown and playing into the Iraqis game plan of showing a different kind of power and intimidation. Our young people are being pawned in that process ~ but by both sides.
This morning, I heard on NPR an interview with a soldier, whose progress has been slowed by the sandstorm in reaching Baghdad by tank. He said that yesterday was the worst day of his entire life. First, having to deal with the sandstorm [of apparently unprecedented intensity] and second [but mainly, referencing being stalled in the middle of nowhere, with Iraqi ground troops coming in trucks], [very closely paraphrased] "just sitting there knowing that at any moment someone could come and take your life and there was nothing you could do about it." Welcome to the bombings in Iraq and how the Iraqi civilians feel.
I have said from the beginning I do not want anyone to die. I do not want us to go to war. I did not say these things with a naievete with what this would mean, in the realities-of-war sense. I knew full well!!! Exactly what we could expect and exactly what it would look like. And that, I wanted the Allied Forces people [and other people] to be spared.....period!!!
Now, that it is occurring, I am seeing the Iraqi military carrying out its psychological phase of this war....and getting the desired results. Where was the outcry regarding what was occurring beneath all the bombs...the sorrow for the innocents?
Do I feel the soldiers, individually or collectively, deserve this? To even suggest this possibility demonizes me. The 19-year-old woman who may be a POW or may be dead and who loved children so much, entered the military to get an education and become a teacher ~ one of the reasons I specifically listed for why some join the military ~ not because she wanted to kill strangers in a foreign land...and certainly not because she wanted to be killed, tortured, or held captive.
She, unlike civilians, was trained to do "what is necessary" ~ however the military interprets that to be. Does that make the sight of her any less deeply disturbing for me? No.
I see oversimplification regarding all that I've said and been saying for 1 1/2 years [here and on Sony's Board].
I didn't say I know anything regarding respective comfort levels. I said, "It seems." There's a big difference and I know the difference, which is why I chose the word "seems."
Yes, I know what elazar was referring to.....at the same time, I do not believe that torturing is not occurring and being filmed by U.S. troops. It's the nature of war, something that occurs and that Geneva Conventions attempted to stop, or at least lessen. Only through the accounts of ex-GIs, etc. do we learn the real stories, generally long after the fact. Is a torturing more justifiable if it's not filmed? Is it more justifiable if the film is not shown? I don't think the media are altering the film [though that's always a possibility]. When I say whitewash, I mean that they are almost certain to be compiling their own footage, but whitewashing this fact by not showing it and pretending that the Iraqis are the only ones capable of such heinous acts.
Regarding the difference between soldiers and innocent citizens, soldiers know the potential exists for conflict and death, even though that may not be why they signed up. They are willing on some level to take that risk. They are also trained for combat, which can make all the difference in one's attitude, confidence, and fear factor if/when it occurs. They are also systematically prepared for combat [call it brainwashing, call it excellent training] ~ however, it is not our nature to just go killing people. They are also "hyped up" externally, prior to going into any combat situation, to hopefully keep their resolve at a high level. These are realities of armed forces. If you'll find me anywhere on any posting where I said I feel these individuals deserve what they get, I will address that directly. "So the U.S. Army soldiers got what was coming to them?" This is an unjust question to be asking me at this juncture....or any other, if you've followed anything I've said. A person who wants a peaceful resolution and who doesn't want anyone killed [me], feeling that the soldiers [Allied Troops], who followed the orders of the president [Bush], who willfully made the choice to go to war, despite pleadings from around the world.....this flies in the face of logic.
There's more to say, but my lunch hour has come to a close. By the way, I have had my TV unplugged since before September 11, 2001.....so I am not seeing these images. I'm hearing what's said on NPR. I'm seeing newspaper photos. I'm getting some glimpses from the TV that plays at work. I do not delight, nor get perverse pleasure, nor condone any of this coverage. As my understanding that it is with Britain's handling of common criminals [including sensational murderers], they don't get the media coverage there, nor do the books they write get printed [something that was finally stopped here] ~ they are NOT glorified, as we manage to do with them here, even though it's perversely so, so that aspect of their psychology never gets massaged and they certainly do not financially benefit. The U.S. continues to show footage in hopes of altering world opinion, as well as keeping the U.S. citizens ready to revote Bush in, as well as trying to continue with its policy of intimidation, the media only being one more tool.
~ Elizabeth
I heard a father of one of the POWs interviewed this morning who said he was grateful for the film, as the U.S. government had told him nothing regarding the status of his son since his capturing/death....and this was the first he realized that his son was at least still alive.
I'm pretty astounded by the questions you've asked me in response to my post. However, before I answer you, will anyone and everyone who believes I am not deeply, personally affected by the sight of ANY soldier or civilian, injured or killed, paraded or not, please say so now, so that I might answer everyone at the same time. Never mind. Just consider yourselves all addressed.
The fact that they are U.S. and not British or not Iraqi, or that they are soldiers, but not civilian, does not come into play. Were I, at this point, to bleeeed on the Internet regarding each and every image I come across of U.S. casualties and POWs, the response I could well anticipate would be "we told you he was bad, but you didn't think we should do anything about him!" Of course I know that Saddam is capable of what "he's" doing. I also know that we are capable of the very same thing. The very images I am coming across are the very images I did not want to see. These are not peacetime images. Now that I am seeing them, I do NOT feel compelled to react to them, as though they were unanticipated and somehow shocking. Yes, they are shocking. That is their intent. They are demoralizing. They are horrific. That is also their intent. The U.S. beat its chest when it broadcast, worldwide, the bomb show for the "Shock and Awe" phase of this war. As many, I daresay, saw the fireworks aspect of it, I was seeing in my mind's eye the lives being blown apart beneath it. It bragged about the psychological aspects of this war. The Iraqis are playing their psychological cards, as well, with an obvious "Damn the Geneva Conventions" attitude. This is the nature of war crimes, which accompany each and every war on all sides. In their and many others' minds, worldwide, the U.S. also broke the U.N. agreements. I guarantee you that the U.S. is compiling footage, as well, and may be showing it to reenforce the morale of our own troops even as we speak. This same footage may well be broadcast and printed at some later date, further down the road.
The media is owned by six different entities. I can't tell you offhand the names of them, however, people staying tuned is prerequisite to their survival....be it entertainment....shock.....awe....vicarious thrills or disgust or horror. Why hasn't the U.S. blocked these images? For the sake of the American people's psychological sensitivities. It does not have to show what other countries film. That is a choice they make. Showing these films works well to reenforce and strengthen our resolve in favour of what the government is doing. Did they have to show the mega-bombings at the onset? No. That is also a choice they made as a show of power and intimidation. These films are now being shown and playing into the Iraqis game plan of showing a different kind of power and intimidation. Our young people are being pawned in that process ~ but by both sides.
This morning, I heard on NPR an interview with a soldier, whose progress has been slowed by the sandstorm in reaching Baghdad by tank. He said that yesterday was the worst day of his entire life. First, having to deal with the sandstorm [of apparently unprecedented intensity] and second [but mainly, referencing being stalled in the middle of nowhere, with Iraqi ground troops coming in trucks], [very closely paraphrased] "just sitting there knowing that at any moment someone could come and take your life and there was nothing you could do about it." Welcome to the bombings in Iraq and how the Iraqi civilians feel.
I have said from the beginning I do not want anyone to die. I do not want us to go to war. I did not say these things with a naievete with what this would mean, in the realities-of-war sense. I knew full well!!! Exactly what we could expect and exactly what it would look like. And that, I wanted the Allied Forces people [and other people] to be spared.....period!!!
Now, that it is occurring, I am seeing the Iraqi military carrying out its psychological phase of this war....and getting the desired results. Where was the outcry regarding what was occurring beneath all the bombs...the sorrow for the innocents?
Do I feel the soldiers, individually or collectively, deserve this? To even suggest this possibility demonizes me. The 19-year-old woman who may be a POW or may be dead and who loved children so much, entered the military to get an education and become a teacher ~ one of the reasons I specifically listed for why some join the military ~ not because she wanted to kill strangers in a foreign land...and certainly not because she wanted to be killed, tortured, or held captive.
She, unlike civilians, was trained to do "what is necessary" ~ however the military interprets that to be. Does that make the sight of her any less deeply disturbing for me? No.
I see oversimplification regarding all that I've said and been saying for 1 1/2 years [here and on Sony's Board].
I didn't say I know anything regarding respective comfort levels. I said, "It seems." There's a big difference and I know the difference, which is why I chose the word "seems."
Yes, I know what elazar was referring to.....at the same time, I do not believe that torturing is not occurring and being filmed by U.S. troops. It's the nature of war, something that occurs and that Geneva Conventions attempted to stop, or at least lessen. Only through the accounts of ex-GIs, etc. do we learn the real stories, generally long after the fact. Is a torturing more justifiable if it's not filmed? Is it more justifiable if the film is not shown? I don't think the media are altering the film [though that's always a possibility]. When I say whitewash, I mean that they are almost certain to be compiling their own footage, but whitewashing this fact by not showing it and pretending that the Iraqis are the only ones capable of such heinous acts.
Regarding the difference between soldiers and innocent citizens, soldiers know the potential exists for conflict and death, even though that may not be why they signed up. They are willing on some level to take that risk. They are also trained for combat, which can make all the difference in one's attitude, confidence, and fear factor if/when it occurs. They are also systematically prepared for combat [call it brainwashing, call it excellent training] ~ however, it is not our nature to just go killing people. They are also "hyped up" externally, prior to going into any combat situation, to hopefully keep their resolve at a high level. These are realities of armed forces. If you'll find me anywhere on any posting where I said I feel these individuals deserve what they get, I will address that directly. "So the U.S. Army soldiers got what was coming to them?" This is an unjust question to be asking me at this juncture....or any other, if you've followed anything I've said. A person who wants a peaceful resolution and who doesn't want anyone killed [me], feeling that the soldiers [Allied Troops], who followed the orders of the president [Bush], who willfully made the choice to go to war, despite pleadings from around the world.....this flies in the face of logic.
There's more to say, but my lunch hour has come to a close. By the way, I have had my TV unplugged since before September 11, 2001.....so I am not seeing these images. I'm hearing what's said on NPR. I'm seeing newspaper photos. I'm getting some glimpses from the TV that plays at work. I do not delight, nor get perverse pleasure, nor condone any of this coverage. As my understanding that it is with Britain's handling of common criminals [including sensational murderers], they don't get the media coverage there, nor do the books they write get printed [something that was finally stopped here] ~ they are NOT glorified, as we manage to do with them here, even though it's perversely so, so that aspect of their psychology never gets massaged and they certainly do not financially benefit. The U.S. continues to show footage in hopes of altering world opinion, as well as keeping the U.S. citizens ready to revote Bush in, as well as trying to continue with its policy of intimidation, the media only being one more tool.
~ Elizabeth
I heard a father of one of the POWs interviewed this morning who said he was grateful for the film, as the U.S. government had told him nothing regarding the status of his son since his capturing/death....and this was the first he realized that his son was at least still alive.
My understanding is also that some Iraqis are interpreting this horrendous sandstorm as confirmation that G..d has come to help them in their own quest to defeat the U.S. invasion, etc. of their country. We would be making the very same interpretation, if the situation were reversed.
My understanding now is that the Pandora's Box of Baghad has as one of its strengths snipers atop "all" of the buildings, ready to rain firepower down upon the soldiers, upon entry into the city. As near as I can tell [and have predicted from before the beginning], we are going to suffer horrific losses and in horrific ways ~ not just U.S. soldiers, but British, and Australian, and whomever else, as well. Apparently, now another 30,000 U.S. soldiers are being deployed immediately for backup. Please be advised and remain advised that I do not feel that any soldier in the U.S. or British or Australian or any other "Allied" Army "has it coming," whatever they get. I do not and will not EVER blame the soldiers for these horrendous outcomes. My heart goes out to every single soldier in that field. I pray for them to have the wisdom to not torture other people. Those images will continue to live inside them long after the war is over, if they survive. Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome is a life-death sentence in itself. Many have died in their own excruciating, slow, hideous ways, as a result, after "success" on the battlefields.
~ Elizabeth
My understanding now is that the Pandora's Box of Baghad has as one of its strengths snipers atop "all" of the buildings, ready to rain firepower down upon the soldiers, upon entry into the city. As near as I can tell [and have predicted from before the beginning], we are going to suffer horrific losses and in horrific ways ~ not just U.S. soldiers, but British, and Australian, and whomever else, as well. Apparently, now another 30,000 U.S. soldiers are being deployed immediately for backup. Please be advised and remain advised that I do not feel that any soldier in the U.S. or British or Australian or any other "Allied" Army "has it coming," whatever they get. I do not and will not EVER blame the soldiers for these horrendous outcomes. My heart goes out to every single soldier in that field. I pray for them to have the wisdom to not torture other people. Those images will continue to live inside them long after the war is over, if they survive. Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome is a life-death sentence in itself. Many have died in their own excruciating, slow, hideous ways, as a result, after "success" on the battlefields.
~ Elizabeth
Last edited by lizzytysh on Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Byron ~
The facts you're referring to are the ones I was referring to when I wrote last night and said I had more, but just didn't have the energy. I brought them to work with me today, but haven't had time. I will put them in slightly more detail on here tonite. The contracts were being bid upon PRIOR to the onset/"decision" of going to war. They were finalized and granted very recently. Yes, Vice-President Dick Cheney was the CEO of the largest reconstruction of oil wells, etc. contract. He, of course, "divested" himself of his holdings after he was elected.....please note the prevalence of white-collar crime in America. I do not, for one minute, believe that he now has no means of financial benefit from his "past" interest in the company. Don't know how he's gone about arranging for it, but I'm confident it's there.
Am I surprized by this? "Please." I'll type more tonite.
~ Elizabeth
The facts you're referring to are the ones I was referring to when I wrote last night and said I had more, but just didn't have the energy. I brought them to work with me today, but haven't had time. I will put them in slightly more detail on here tonite. The contracts were being bid upon PRIOR to the onset/"decision" of going to war. They were finalized and granted very recently. Yes, Vice-President Dick Cheney was the CEO of the largest reconstruction of oil wells, etc. contract. He, of course, "divested" himself of his holdings after he was elected.....please note the prevalence of white-collar crime in America. I do not, for one minute, believe that he now has no means of financial benefit from his "past" interest in the company. Don't know how he's gone about arranging for it, but I'm confident it's there.
Am I surprized by this? "Please." I'll type more tonite.
~ Elizabeth
You might not like the fact the POW's were paraded on the TV but it might just save their lives in the long run. The Iraqis now have to account to the world for them and they have to be produced in a reasonable state because we all know they are alive at present.
It is the ones they have got they are not parading on TV you need to worry about
It is the ones they have got they are not parading on TV you need to worry about
Lizzytysh, you say we are capable of doing the same thing Saddam is doing, where does your information come from? I know I am picking you out again but statements like that are interesting. I never have liked the statement used of "shock and awe" from the first time I heard it and I know wher it comes from so you don't have to tell me. But do you know how precise these missiles are in taking out targets, they are showing us on television how an armored vehicle under a bridge or over pass can be taken out without harming the bridge. Mainly they are showing us that they can take out a targot without destroying everything around it.
I have never seen any parading of POWs as see our prize.
I might suggest you turn your television back on Lizzytysh or at least listen to the briefing by our Generals,and our leaders first hand and decide for yourself, I never like getting information second hand. I have to say I am impressed by them standing in front of the media anwering all kinds of questions fired at them from reporters from all around the world. And I am so impressed at what seems to me to be genuine honesty.
I have never seen any parading of POWs as see our prize.
I might suggest you turn your television back on Lizzytysh or at least listen to the briefing by our Generals,and our leaders first hand and decide for yourself, I never like getting information second hand. I have to say I am impressed by them standing in front of the media anwering all kinds of questions fired at them from reporters from all around the world. And I am so impressed at what seems to me to be genuine honesty.
Linda
war
"Progess... begins when neither side gives the impression that its dead are more important than everyone else's."
-- Stanley Crouch (jazz critic, social theorist)
-- Stanley Crouch (jazz critic, social theorist)
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
I have been trying to find a way of getting reliable reporting on this war without being subjected to images of the horrors of war. TV news broadcasts are out of the running, and newspapers are not much better. I thought radio must be the answer, then last week I heard a broadcast from a hospital somewhere in Iraq. A doctor was being interviewed about some of the child victims of the bombing, and one of them could be heard crying. As a mother, I found this so harrowing that the only fact I have retained from that broadcast is that somewhere in Iraq a five year old child is crying.
Perhaps that was the most important fact, after all.
Perhaps that was the most important fact, after all.
Linda
1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
Horrors
Lin, I understand your sentiments and your feelings --
... but the "horrors" of war cannot be separated from any discussion of the "reliable" facts. They ARE the "reliable" facts.
David
... but the "horrors" of war cannot be separated from any discussion of the "reliable" facts. They ARE the "reliable" facts.
David
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
objective
p.s.
Linda, I can't agree with you that the U.S. objectives are "obvious." I have not seen conclusive (or even decent circumstantial) evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (even Bush isn't really claiming that any more). And I simply do not accept the government's assertion that they've suddenly become so concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people that they're going to go in and oust Saddam to liberate them. In fact, Saddam (like Cambodia's Luciferean Pol Pot before him) was a fully-financed prodigy/puppet of the U.S. government until approximately the late '70s or the early '80s, when perceived U.S. self-interests changed. Many of his weapons, and much of his power, he acquired directly from the U.S.
History shows us conclusively that the U.S. does NOT depose tyrannical and sadistic dictators when they serve corporate and govt. interests: Suharto, the racist regime of South Africa, both Saddam and Pol Pot in the early years of their reigns... the list of murderous allies and former allies goes on. (Pol Pot committed roughly half of his million or so massacres while he was still a U.S. ally against N. Vietnam). It is egregiously hypocritical of them to suddenly suggest otherwise.
Please don't misunderstand me: Saddam is every bit the demonic monster they say he is, and he should be deposed and brought to the harshest international justice possible. But, in fact, he's a demon from heaven in terms of U.S. international political agendas -- if he weren't there, they just might have had to invent him. He's proving himself to be the perfect excuse for an invasion that, I fear, will be merely the first in a series of brutal expansions of the burgeoning New World Empire ("order" is a euphamism), with the govt. and its bought-and-bullied buddies (as ever) acting as the front men for corporate wealth and power.
At the very least -- what will happen elsewhere, now that the precedent has been set for a country to invade another and violently depose its leader, simply because it sees (or claims to see) a "potential" of danger from that country in the future? What will happen between India and Pakistan? Betwee Israel and her neighbors? In the Balkan region? The list goes on... Wth this Iraqi campaign, the world has been made an incalculably [sp?] more dangerous place by a U.S. that has come to be the exemplar of exactly the kind of "rogue state" it accuses Iraq and other countries of being.
Shalom
Salaam
David
Linda, I can't agree with you that the U.S. objectives are "obvious." I have not seen conclusive (or even decent circumstantial) evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (even Bush isn't really claiming that any more). And I simply do not accept the government's assertion that they've suddenly become so concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people that they're going to go in and oust Saddam to liberate them. In fact, Saddam (like Cambodia's Luciferean Pol Pot before him) was a fully-financed prodigy/puppet of the U.S. government until approximately the late '70s or the early '80s, when perceived U.S. self-interests changed. Many of his weapons, and much of his power, he acquired directly from the U.S.
History shows us conclusively that the U.S. does NOT depose tyrannical and sadistic dictators when they serve corporate and govt. interests: Suharto, the racist regime of South Africa, both Saddam and Pol Pot in the early years of their reigns... the list of murderous allies and former allies goes on. (Pol Pot committed roughly half of his million or so massacres while he was still a U.S. ally against N. Vietnam). It is egregiously hypocritical of them to suddenly suggest otherwise.
Please don't misunderstand me: Saddam is every bit the demonic monster they say he is, and he should be deposed and brought to the harshest international justice possible. But, in fact, he's a demon from heaven in terms of U.S. international political agendas -- if he weren't there, they just might have had to invent him. He's proving himself to be the perfect excuse for an invasion that, I fear, will be merely the first in a series of brutal expansions of the burgeoning New World Empire ("order" is a euphamism), with the govt. and its bought-and-bullied buddies (as ever) acting as the front men for corporate wealth and power.
At the very least -- what will happen elsewhere, now that the precedent has been set for a country to invade another and violently depose its leader, simply because it sees (or claims to see) a "potential" of danger from that country in the future? What will happen between India and Pakistan? Betwee Israel and her neighbors? In the Balkan region? The list goes on... Wth this Iraqi campaign, the world has been made an incalculably [sp?] more dangerous place by a U.S. that has come to be the exemplar of exactly the kind of "rogue state" it accuses Iraq and other countries of being.
Shalom
Salaam
David
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
David ~ I don't know Stanley Crouch; however, I couldn't agree with him more.
Linda ~ I'm going by reports from the Viet Nam war, where U.S. soldiers went into villages already destroyed and mutilated those left behind, including old people, women, and children. I've read reports written by GIs, still deeply traumatized by what they saw and participated in. I also have heard accounts regarding other wars. You need only look to the "Wild, Wild West" and the massacres of Indians to move them off their own land for our expansionism, apparently an ingrained habit of ours. Or, try the lynchings of blacks....not that long ago, and certainly not so far away. It seems some may think the parading that they do see of the POWs is more heinous than the torture that they don't see.
If you take any adversarial situation between citizenry and the police forces here, and listen to the accounts of brutalization behind closed doors and in interrogation rooms, it is simple to extend in appropriate degrees what the potentials are for war situations. I've worked in a couple different prisons, and have listened to accounts by corrections officers, some with titles, about "the good ol'days," where they laughed as they told stories of how they got things "under control" and in their telling, it was apparent things had never been out of control. These are in "civilized" situations, where the expectation is not to kill the adversary, merely to contain them.
TV is not the end-all, be-all of information. I trust what I listen to on NPR and PRI every bit as much and more than what I see on TV, with its slick productions, keeping viewers' interests with constantly changing of images, and multiple messages cast across the bottom of the screen in bands. NPR explores stories and interviews in true depth. Even so, I sometimes hear things that they do/don't say that reminds me they are still subject to the media game. I also listen there to the military espousing their position to the masses. NPR broadcasts those, as well.
On NPR tonite, I heard of bombing victims in clearly residential areas [one military facility reportedly somewhere in the vicinity], where one citizen screamed at the forces, "Is this what you call human rights? Is this what you call liberation?" as he waved someone's severed hand. Another threw a can filled with the brains of another victim at a soldier. Yes, laser bombings when it suits our need for retaining a bridge. A student, at a technological university, only said sadly, "This war has changed my mind on Americans."
Regarding the laser-bombing capabilities of the U.S., isn't it amazing that they can bomb beneath a bridge, without disturbing the bridge itself [which they just so happen to expect they'll need]; yet can miss other targets by an entire country and hit Iran by mistake?
Nan ~ Regarding your questioning on the quotes you selected from my other post; just so you know, my position is not going to turn on, or with, a phrase. If it seems it has, it most assuredly is something that only needs clarifying. Either I could have stated it better, or you could have understood it better. Whichever it is, you can believe that I'm not suddenly going to stop believing in what I do. Were that to happen, you would be reading paragraph upon paragraph as to why.
Paula ~ As far as Iraq having to be held accountable for the POWs, somewhere between cynicism and realism, I have to ask what is the world going to do to them? Cut off their aid? Bomb them? Are other members of the majority of the Arab world going to care aboutsome captured Americans and hold the Iraqis accountable? Is the world's view of Iraq going to matter to them? It seems to me we're virtually, if not literally, at the mercy of their goodwill with the welfare of our POWs.
Byron ~ Some official resignations & perspectives [links for their articles] listed on CNN "Exclusive Agents Reports":
~ "white house anti-terror boss resigns"
~ "US diplomat, john brown resigns over attack on Iraq"
~ "robin cook, leader of the house of commons, resignation letter"
~ "jack walter missouri GOP chairman resignation letter"
~ "house majority leader dick armey's farewell speech"
~ "ambassador john brady kiesling's letter of resignation"
~ "the genocidal mentality about 40% of you have this condition" [a valid and documented psychological condition]
~ "take back the media - you are free to do as we tell you"
Regarding the rebuilding-of-Iraq contracts:
Under the byline of "New York (CNN/Money)" - "The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners.
"The Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton, of which Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000, said late Monday that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure.
"President Bush Tuesday asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities, much or all of which could go to Halliburton or its subcontractors under the terms of its contract with the Army.
"Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election.
"Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the total monetary value or duration of its contract....
"Since the amount of damage that has been or will be done to Iraqi oil fields in the war is still unknown, it's difficult to estimate the contract's eventual dollar value.
"But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job.
"Getting Iraq's oil fields to pre-1991 production levels will take at least 18 months and cost about $5 billion initially, with $3 billion more in annual operating expenses.
" 'Certainly Halliburton would have the lead [in the competition for that job], even absent this contract, given the size and scope of their current operations,' said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital. 'But there's no question they'll start with some footprint there. It clearly puts them in the position where they will know more about the situation and have a bit of an operation there.'
"Separately, USAID late Monday awarded a $4.8 million contract to Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a private company based in Seattle, to manage the Umm Qasr ports in southern Iraq.
"USAID plans to issue seven other contracts, including one for $600 million for general construction work in post-war Iraq. Halliburton is among several companies reported to have put in bids for that contract."
My question would be along the lines of, "Do you suppose when Cheney leaves politics, whenever that may providence to be, that he might be able to get his old job back? Or at least a rightful place in the corporation? With a sign-on bonus upon arrival?" I can't help but wonder if there's not already a Swiss bank account receiving deposits.....or a cache of sorts, perhaps via an old, trusted co-worker. How could I suggest such a thing? Ask Enron. The more you know, the more questions you generate. Well, if you're paying attention, that is.
Let's not forget that Bush just went [yesterday, I believe] to Congress asking for another $75 billion for another phase of the war.
This is all in light of their being inadequate healthcare in this country, if at all for many; many senior citizens struggling to get health- and life-sustaining prescriptions; and the legal, minimum wage being $5.15 USD per hour [Gross, as in before taxes], which many are forced to live on.
Hmmm.......I just noticed a Related Stories section to the side of the article I just pulled from, with other links, two that say "Baghdad building bonanza?" and [italics mine for emphasis] "Halliburton-Iran connection eyed." Damn those "stray" bombs, anyway.
Welcome to the inexorable Wealth/Power/Greed link, for which our [Allied] innocent soldiers and the innocent soldiers and citizens in Iraq will die, and even if they live, from which they will never profit.
Linda ~ I'm going by reports from the Viet Nam war, where U.S. soldiers went into villages already destroyed and mutilated those left behind, including old people, women, and children. I've read reports written by GIs, still deeply traumatized by what they saw and participated in. I also have heard accounts regarding other wars. You need only look to the "Wild, Wild West" and the massacres of Indians to move them off their own land for our expansionism, apparently an ingrained habit of ours. Or, try the lynchings of blacks....not that long ago, and certainly not so far away. It seems some may think the parading that they do see of the POWs is more heinous than the torture that they don't see.
If you take any adversarial situation between citizenry and the police forces here, and listen to the accounts of brutalization behind closed doors and in interrogation rooms, it is simple to extend in appropriate degrees what the potentials are for war situations. I've worked in a couple different prisons, and have listened to accounts by corrections officers, some with titles, about "the good ol'days," where they laughed as they told stories of how they got things "under control" and in their telling, it was apparent things had never been out of control. These are in "civilized" situations, where the expectation is not to kill the adversary, merely to contain them.
TV is not the end-all, be-all of information. I trust what I listen to on NPR and PRI every bit as much and more than what I see on TV, with its slick productions, keeping viewers' interests with constantly changing of images, and multiple messages cast across the bottom of the screen in bands. NPR explores stories and interviews in true depth. Even so, I sometimes hear things that they do/don't say that reminds me they are still subject to the media game. I also listen there to the military espousing their position to the masses. NPR broadcasts those, as well.
On NPR tonite, I heard of bombing victims in clearly residential areas [one military facility reportedly somewhere in the vicinity], where one citizen screamed at the forces, "Is this what you call human rights? Is this what you call liberation?" as he waved someone's severed hand. Another threw a can filled with the brains of another victim at a soldier. Yes, laser bombings when it suits our need for retaining a bridge. A student, at a technological university, only said sadly, "This war has changed my mind on Americans."
Regarding the laser-bombing capabilities of the U.S., isn't it amazing that they can bomb beneath a bridge, without disturbing the bridge itself [which they just so happen to expect they'll need]; yet can miss other targets by an entire country and hit Iran by mistake?
Nan ~ Regarding your questioning on the quotes you selected from my other post; just so you know, my position is not going to turn on, or with, a phrase. If it seems it has, it most assuredly is something that only needs clarifying. Either I could have stated it better, or you could have understood it better. Whichever it is, you can believe that I'm not suddenly going to stop believing in what I do. Were that to happen, you would be reading paragraph upon paragraph as to why.
Paula ~ As far as Iraq having to be held accountable for the POWs, somewhere between cynicism and realism, I have to ask what is the world going to do to them? Cut off their aid? Bomb them? Are other members of the majority of the Arab world going to care aboutsome captured Americans and hold the Iraqis accountable? Is the world's view of Iraq going to matter to them? It seems to me we're virtually, if not literally, at the mercy of their goodwill with the welfare of our POWs.
Byron ~ Some official resignations & perspectives [links for their articles] listed on CNN "Exclusive Agents Reports":
~ "white house anti-terror boss resigns"
~ "US diplomat, john brown resigns over attack on Iraq"
~ "robin cook, leader of the house of commons, resignation letter"
~ "jack walter missouri GOP chairman resignation letter"
~ "house majority leader dick armey's farewell speech"
~ "ambassador john brady kiesling's letter of resignation"
~ "the genocidal mentality about 40% of you have this condition" [a valid and documented psychological condition]
~ "take back the media - you are free to do as we tell you"
Regarding the rebuilding-of-Iraq contracts:
Under the byline of "New York (CNN/Money)" - "The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners.
"The Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton, of which Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000, said late Monday that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure.
"President Bush Tuesday asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities, much or all of which could go to Halliburton or its subcontractors under the terms of its contract with the Army.
"Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election.
"Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the total monetary value or duration of its contract....
"Since the amount of damage that has been or will be done to Iraqi oil fields in the war is still unknown, it's difficult to estimate the contract's eventual dollar value.
"But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job.
"Getting Iraq's oil fields to pre-1991 production levels will take at least 18 months and cost about $5 billion initially, with $3 billion more in annual operating expenses.
" 'Certainly Halliburton would have the lead [in the competition for that job], even absent this contract, given the size and scope of their current operations,' said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital. 'But there's no question they'll start with some footprint there. It clearly puts them in the position where they will know more about the situation and have a bit of an operation there.'
"Separately, USAID late Monday awarded a $4.8 million contract to Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a private company based in Seattle, to manage the Umm Qasr ports in southern Iraq.
"USAID plans to issue seven other contracts, including one for $600 million for general construction work in post-war Iraq. Halliburton is among several companies reported to have put in bids for that contract."
My question would be along the lines of, "Do you suppose when Cheney leaves politics, whenever that may providence to be, that he might be able to get his old job back? Or at least a rightful place in the corporation? With a sign-on bonus upon arrival?" I can't help but wonder if there's not already a Swiss bank account receiving deposits.....or a cache of sorts, perhaps via an old, trusted co-worker. How could I suggest such a thing? Ask Enron. The more you know, the more questions you generate. Well, if you're paying attention, that is.
Let's not forget that Bush just went [yesterday, I believe] to Congress asking for another $75 billion for another phase of the war.
This is all in light of their being inadequate healthcare in this country, if at all for many; many senior citizens struggling to get health- and life-sustaining prescriptions; and the legal, minimum wage being $5.15 USD per hour [Gross, as in before taxes], which many are forced to live on.
Hmmm.......I just noticed a Related Stories section to the side of the article I just pulled from, with other links, two that say "Baghdad building bonanza?" and [italics mine for emphasis] "Halliburton-Iran connection eyed." Damn those "stray" bombs, anyway.
Welcome to the inexorable Wealth/Power/Greed link, for which our [Allied] innocent soldiers and the innocent soldiers and citizens in Iraq will die, and even if they live, from which they will never profit.
Last edited by lizzytysh on Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:06 am, edited 2 times in total.