MIssion Accomplished in Iraq?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:44 pm

One part of the article i found particularly interesting, when considered in relation to something spot has maintained.

from the article:

Indeed, it may be quite a while before business class truly arrives in Iraq. When we landed in Amman, we learned that we had gotten out just in time. That morning three Japanese civilians were kidnapped and their captors were threatening to burn them alive. Two days later Nicholas Berg went missing and was not seen again until the snuff film surfaced of his beheading, an even more terrifying message for U.S. contractors than the charred bodies in Fallujah.

so, this is interesting. ms. klein presents (with a hint of glee, sadly), that nick berg's beheading was yet another failure by the neocons, another of the sad failures of the iraq war in the attempts to turn iraq into a burgeoning wage-slave economy for the evil global corporations.

now, contrarily, mr. spot has maintained, quite steadfastly, that nick berg's beheading was staged by agents of the US, to distract the american public from the abu ghraib torture photos that had surfaced a week or so earlier. the beheading was performed - or staged as the case may be - to whip up american fervor for the war effort.

so, which is it, i wonder?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:58 pm

unfortunately koan, all you've been presenting recently are writings from extremists on the left, and overtly anti-american ones at that. now, that's fair enough, i guess. you have your world view, as do i, and people tend to read whatever reinforced their view. i, on the other hand, just don't read all that much, frankly. i don't read chomsky. i've read a few articles by hitchens, but only because he was a guest on 'The Daily Show' and i was impressed by both his humor and his insights.

but in the main, i just plain don't read much in the way of political commentary. political commentary rarely opens the mind, it merely attempts to substitute one mindset for another.

now, plenty in the peanut gallery will be pleased to read the above - yet more proof that i'm an uninformed redneck or what have you. i don't bother to 'edumacate' myself, so i'm narrow minded, set in my ways, yet another 'red state hick'.

oh well. i live in a blue state. i live in a county of the blue state that tends to vote only slightly less left than san francisco, which is one of the top liberal enclaves in the US. one can easily and rightly label me a right-winger based upon my rejection of the notion that the iraq war was perpetrated by the bush-rove-rumsfeld-rice-cheney-wolfowitz cabal who wish to take over the world and turn it into a giant walmart (or texaco, depending upon the barometric pressure at the time the opinion is slung). however, anyone who has really read my opinions around forumgarden, on a wide variety of things, cannot honestly and in good faith suggest that i'm a red-neck or a conservative. the label falls off like a peel-and-stick stamp that you absent-mindedly licked.

but whatever. the US is evil. there's just no question about it, right?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:27 pm

Far Rider wrote: Koan,

My dear young lady is the US the only country that will benefit from war? No. I'm not going to lump you in with all Canadians. But you young lady don't seem to get the fact that the US is protecting you too. This is a global war on terror, and your country is a free nation that protects the non-muslum's religious right to practice whatever religion they see fit. And that's who the extremists have declared war on. They (the muslum extremists) want you dead, not converted to be a muslum, no they want to watch you bleed like the infidel pig they believe you are. When they look out accross the oceans they see the Canadians the same as Americans make no mistake about that.

Peace loving people need to get off the idea that we can negotiate with them. There is no negotiation, there is no compromise. It is kill or be killed.

If we in the process of protecting yourselves help our ecomony more power to us, chock it up to another benifit of war. Lord knows there's enough tragedy in it.

Over all our servicemen have done one hell of a job protecting, to their own peril, the common non violent Iraqi.

The US and all other coalition forces are doing it well, were doing it to the best of human ability in the middle of combat.

You can sit there and pick it all apart if you want to, when it gets down to it this war is protecting the world from evil people.

And that is my opinion based on my observations and life experience.

I'll ignore your patronizing opening but not the content of your post. You can lump me in with whomever you choose, there is nothing I can do or say to stop that, do NOT, however, tell me or anyone else that this war is for me. No one asked me and, if they had, I would tell them it is the last thing I want.

FYI my brother is a muslim and he hasn't tried to kill me or anyone else yet. You can lump him in with whomever you choose as well. It seems to be a habit.

That is my opinion based on my observations and life experience.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:35 pm

anastrophe wrote: unfortunately koan, all you've been presenting recently are writings from extremists on the left, and overtly anti-american ones at that. now, that's fair enough, i guess. you have your world view, as do i, and people tend to read whatever reinforced their view. i, on the other hand, just don't read all that much, frankly. i don't read chomsky. i've read a few articles by hitchens, but only because he was a guest on 'The Daily Show' and i was impressed by both his humor and his insights.

but in the main, i just plain don't read much in the way of political commentary. political commentary rarely opens the mind, it merely attempts to substitute one mindset for another.

now, plenty in the peanut gallery will be pleased to read the above - yet more proof that i'm an uninformed redneck or what have you. i don't bother to 'edumacate' myself, so i'm narrow minded, set in my ways, yet another 'red state hick'.

oh well. i live in a blue state. i live in a county of the blue state that tends to vote only slightly less left than san francisco, which is one of the top liberal enclaves in the US. one can easily and rightly label me a right-winger based upon my rejection of the notion that the iraq war was perpetrated by the bush-rove-rumsfeld-rice-cheney-wolfowitz cabal who wish to take over the world and turn it into a giant walmart (or texaco, depending upon the barometric pressure at the time the opinion is slung). however, anyone who has really read my opinions around forumgarden, on a wide variety of things, cannot honestly and in good faith suggest that i'm a red-neck or a conservative. the label falls off like a peel-and-stick stamp that you absent-mindedly licked.

but whatever. the US is evil. there's just no question about it, right?

more proof? I consider you extremely open-minded in most of what you write. Not when it comes to the government though. What I do find proof of is how you, yet again, discount information based on the source. People on "the left" or those damn "liberals" (a whole thread started to debate the use of THAT word)

This is a catch 22 to argue against. Anyone who speaks out against the US administration is "left" and then you can disregard what they say? If a right wing journalist suddenly printed a story saying the same thing that person would immediately be accused of converting to the left. So disregard them all. They are growing in number and won't go away because you don't believe them.

Whether you choose to seriously consider whether the US has started WWIII or not is irrelevant if in fact they have. What if you wake up one day and find out all those lefties were right? I don't think you've allowed the possibility a chance to sink in.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:45 pm

No matter what our country does, we will never please a global intelligentsia outraged that all their theories came to nothing. We can't satisfy al Qaeda, and we can't please those discontented souls who need to blame the United States for their personal shortcomings. It's time we stopped trying. By trying we simply strengthen the left while terrorists behead defenseless captives on videotape and get a free pass.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:59 pm

Clint wrote: No matter what our country does, we will never please a global intelligentsia outraged that all their theories came to nothing. We can't satisfy al Qaeda, and we can't please those discontented souls who need to blame the United States for their personal shortcomings. It's time we stopped trying. By trying we simply strengthen the left while terrorists behead defenseless captives on videotape and get a free pass.

oh, poor misunderstood "you". Yes, they beheaded someone. Is this the only hideous offense commited by a country?

The US is indicated in serious allegations of a concentration camp type slaughter. By a non right or left journalist. It is being suppressed in North America.

A documentary film, Massacre in Mazar, by Irish director Jamie Doran, was shown to selected audiences in Europe last week, provoking demands for an international inquiry into US war crimes in Afghanistan

article

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:28 am

koan wrote: more proof? I consider you extremely open-minded in most of what you write. Not when it comes to the government though. What I do find proof of is how you, yet again, discount information based on the source. People on "the left" or those damn "liberals" (a whole thread started to debate the use of THAT word)

This is a catch 22 to argue against. Anyone who speaks out against the US administration is "left" and then you can disregard what they say? If a right wing journalist suddenly printed a story saying the same thing that person would immediately be accused of converting to the left. So disregard them all. i have to wonder whether you actually did read my response #49 - http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=49

because you're hanging the albatross above inappropriately. please reread it. please advise how many times i mentioned "left", and how many of my comments were based upon blanket condemnation of the left.

They are growing in number and won't go away because you don't believe them.do you have any evidence to support the contention that the ranks of the left are growing? everything i've heard - including directly from the left itself - suggests otherwise. there's a rather palpable anxiety in the US because the left has lost power politically, and is losing its base. i can't speak for canada though.

Whether you choose to seriously consider whether the US has started WWIII or not is irrelevant if in fact they have. What if you wake up one day and find out all those lefties were right? I don't think you've allowed the possibility a chance to sink in.world war three? please. hyperbole. and demeaning to the history that led up to both world war I and world war II.

i grew up a lefty. a dyed in the wool 'liberal' lefty democrat family. i'm not going to 'wake up' and find out that the lefties were right. i woke up a long time ago and found that the extremists on both sides have their heads up their arses.

i don't talk about my disdain for the right nearly as much as my disdain for the left, that's true. but the fact is, i loathe equally the far left and the far right. authoritarian conservatives are a bane. they tend to work at the higher levels of government, and so make a much more vivid target. they tend to pass sweeping legislation that is onerous and broadly harmful. authoritarian leftist however are also a bane. they tend to work at 'lower' levels in the government (meaning local city councils, unelected boards and committees, and in public education), so are a less visible target. they work hard at controlling their local communities with an anti-capitalist death grip, and work in the schools to try to inculcate children to the leftist dream.

but i digress.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:18 am

anastrophe wrote: before i tell you to blow it out your bunghole, i'll give you an opportunity to back up your trashing of me above, and in the previous post. care to provide an actual citation to prove i have this habit?

nah. why waste time. you won't be able to, nor would it get above the level of personal attack in "You are so prone to rubbishing sources that any respectable person [...]"

i stated quite clearly that there are a number of mainstream publication, and television news sources, that are left-leaning. in their leaning to the left, they often take pains to accentuate anything that casts america in a negative light - thus, anti-american. by anti-american, amazingly enough, i do not mean 'anti-administration'. what i mean by 'anti american', unremarkably, is 'anti american'. that the left's adhesions are anti-administration is self-evident, in that the administration is right-wing, thus, antithetical to the left.

I don't really need to go to previous posts to pull out old words, if you do it again in the same post. If you don't regard that last paragraph as rubbishing sources, for whatever reason, by saying they're uninformed and Anti-American, then that's just down to language differences I can't identify. If you don't want to critique something I regard as well thought out and informed and intelligible, even though it doesn't support your world view, you rubbish it. Since I don't regard the current Administration as representative of anything but itself, I don't regard that article as anti-American in the slightest, it's why I've taken to using the words "anti-Administration" where you use "anti-American". The politics of the author seem, to me, moderately right-wing and pro-capitalist, but that's perspective and viewpoint intruding again.

Kind of a no-brainer there.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:43 am

anastrophe wrote: please tell me, those who've read the article, that you *do* realize that it is an opinion piece, a polemic, and not a source of "proof" about anything, beyond the authors palpable, stated hostility for 'neocons', corporations, capitalism, and americans?Ah, A response, I do hope it's reasoned. I do hope it doesn't rubbish the author instead of critiquing the content.

anastrophe wrote: there's a tremendous thread of vitriol in the article, written in the first person, with no reference to 'facts' - merely the authors beliefs about what the information means. You know, that was written in the first person as a factual account of her personal experiences in Iraq. How does that make it fact-free? " no reference to 'facts' " ? Justify that, just once. Tell me how it isn't rubbishing. The opinion in the piece is based on the facts of the piece, whether they're a good or fair analysis of them or not. The piece is flooded with facts! I've rarely seen so many facts in one article.

anastrophe wrote: i'd never read or heard of ms. klein before. now i have. she's quite a celebrity of the elitist socialist left.I think you misuse "left" to be honest, but many Capitalists tend to. Her position, in my opinion, stems from Ernst Schumacher's 1973 essay on Buddhist Economics, "Small is Beautiful". Perhaps, in the days before your mindset froze, you enjoyed that?

Naomi Klein (born 1970) is a Canadian journalist, author and activist. She was born in Montreal, Quebec, and now lives in Toronto.

Klein wrote the book No Logo (2000), which became a manifesto of the anti-globalization movement. She has also written Fences and Windows (2002) and contributes to The Nation, In These Times, Canada's The Globe and Mail, and The Guardian in Britain.

No Logo is her best-known work, where she lambastes the negative effects of brand-oriented consumer culture. What makes No Logo especially relevant was that it was released only a month after mass anti-globalization protests in Seattle shut down the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting.

Klein describes the operations of large corporations which exist only to peddle a brand. Their products, she argues, turn people into walking billboards. On a more subtle note, these corporations are often guilty of exploiting workers in the world's poorest countries in pursuit of ever-greater profits. Klein criticized Nike so much in the book that it became one of the first publications to receive feedback from Nike.

Since No Logo, she has continued to write on various emerging issues, such as the invasion of Iraq. In a September 2004 article for Harper's Magazine entitled "Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia", she argues that, contrary to popular belief and criticisms, the Bush Administration did have a clear plan for post-invasion Iraq, which was to build a fully unconstrained free market economy. She describes plans to allow foreigners to extract wealth from Iraq, and the methods used to achieve those goals.

Her writing career started early, contributing the Varsity, one of the University of Toronto's student newspapers. Klein is married to Canadian television journalist Avi Lewis.

anastrophe wrote: she reported a number of interesting things in the article. it took some effort to see through the multilayered commentary intended to instruct us how to think about those things actually reported, rather than to come to ones own conclusions about the evidence presented.

it was an excellent propaganda piece. on par with some of hitchens better defenses of the iraq war.She reported a number of interesting things in the article? How can she have managed that, in an "article, written in the first person, with no reference to 'facts' "? This is why discussing matters with you, in this area, is like flapping at a fog hoping to disperse it. You've said nothing.

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:56 am

props to spot! for well thought-out, researched, responses in this thread.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:57 am

spot wrote:

You know, that was written in the first person as a factual account of her personal experiences in Iraq. How does that make it fact-free? " no reference to 'facts' " ? Justify that, just once. Tell me how it isn't rubbishing. The opinion in the piece is based on the facts of the piece, whether they're a good or fair analysis of them or not. The piece is flooded with facts! I've rarely seen so many facts in one article.

i havent read the article nor much of this thread but.....

if it was written by her as her own personal account of her experiences then that makes it a biased source, its not something based on pure fact, it has her own opinions adn emotions thrown into it.... a fact would be that "america and britain invaded iraq", not that "in an unjust 'all guns blazing' way the americans and brits invaded iraq" - because that now becomes subject to debate...... its an opinion based on a fact.....

like i said tho having not read the article ive no idea where this post will sit with the rest of the discussion!

sorry!

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:02 am

pink princess wrote: like i said tho having not read the article ive no idea where this post will sit with the rest of the discussion!Perfectly well, Princess, it's called investigative reporting. Nobody's ever disputed that it contains her opinion too. It happens to be full of first-person testimony about the state of Iraq after the Liberation, as well as Ms Klein's argued reasons why what she found was the way it was. Investigative reporting is a reasonable use of the resources of any reputable news outlet.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:04 am

true..... every source of information has its place....

however a historian i dont believe could use this as a primary source of information because it will have the spin of the journalist on it.... someone else could report exactly the same story in a completely different way.....

dredging up the old GCSE history here!

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:10 am

pink princess wrote: true..... every source of information has its place....

however a historian i dont believe could use this as a primary source of information because it will have the spin of the journalist on it.... someone else could report exactly the same story in a completely different way.....

dredging up the old GCSE history here!Any historian can legitimately use the testimony of any eye-witness. The historian has to assess the truthfulness of the account, and its relevance, but it's all potential testimony.

As far as the truthfulness of the account Ms Klein gives, of where she went, what she saw and who said what to her, I believe her, she's a professional reporter of international standing with regular bylines in major international dailies.

As to what historians make of the relevance of her testimony, that might depend on the historian. History, at least traditionally, is written by the victors. I somehow doubt that that's the case any longer.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:14 am

spot wrote: Any historian can legitimately use the testimony of any eye-witness. The historian has to assess the truthfulness of the account, and its relevance, but it's all potential testimony.

absolutely i agree - but a historian can not 100% trust a source from an eye witness because every eye witness will see it differently

its a personal account not a factual one - despite how 'un-biased' you try to be

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:21 am

pink princess wrote: absolutely i agree - but a historian can not 100% trust a source from an eye witness because every eye witness will see it differently

its a personal account not a factual one - despite how 'un-biased' you try to beThe historian's fact is the existence of the account, not the content of the account. The content of every source has to be assessed, whether it's testimony or anything else. I don't think we're disagreeing, Princess, this is just how historical analysis works. Historians tell what they found in their sources, and they then give reasons for believing or disbelieving, and they decide on how relevant or important what they found is. A lot of the Soviet magnates' autobiographical accounts have recently become available to historians. Most are assessed as untruthful and devious in much of what they say, but the testimony is invaluable in untangling the events of the time.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:27 am

anastrophe wrote: [QUOTE=spot]It's just that the guy makes a habit of rubbishing sources he doesn't want to critique by saying they're uninformed and Anti-American (by which he means Anti-Administration).before i tell you to blow it out your bunghole, i'll give you an opportunity to back up your trashing of me above, and in the previous post. care to provide an actual citation to prove i have this habit?

nah. why waste time. you won't be able to, nor would it get above the level of personal attack in "You are so prone to rubbishing sources that any respectable person [...]"[/QUOTE]Purely for completeness:

"the LA times of course is a cheerleader of the anti-american sentiment, so at least you're staying consistent in your choice of news sources."

"of course, if you go by the L.A. Times, every single iraqi hates us. that you're swayed by anti-american propoganda promulgated by americans certainly doesn't surprise me. that you don't recognize that you're falling for propoganda doesn't suprise me either."

"that's because your sources are far-left anti-america wild-eyed loonies."

"i have no opinion about the source of the information in the citation, because i haven't read it. i don't know whether to believe or disbelieve a report from a newspaper that will take any and every opportunity to paint anything that isn't far left in a bad light against what decorated military officers stated publicly."seriously. be sure to never mind these facts. they're inconvenient to the blinkered life.

You do froth with righteous indignation, anastrophe. "Back up your trashing of me" is far too emotive. Your bilious attacks would impress people far more if you weren't so often inaccurate in what you say. A little effort on your part would be very welcome. I rarely give my opinion without giving an external basis for it and an attempt at reasoning to support it. Your opinions, while doubtless of great interest to yourself personally, seem incoherent since they have so little apparent justification. Faith, fear, and fanatical devotion, but somewhat weak on reasoning and - it would seem from this list - truth.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:28 am

spot wrote: The historian's fact is the existence of the account, not the content of the account. The content of every source has to be assessed, whether it's testimony or anything else. I don't think we're disagreeing, Princess, this is just how historical analysis works. Historians tell what they found in their sources, and they then give reasons for believing or disbelieving, and they decide on how relevant or important what they found is. A lot of the Soviet magnates' autobiographical accounts have recently become available to historians. Most are assessed as untruthful and devious in much of what they say, but the testimony is invaluable in untangling the events of the time.
i think we basically mean the same thing

im not trying to discount her as a source of information im just saying that you cant read it and take it to be fact and use it to base your arguments on without seeing the other side too..... they are pionts of views and by nature of that will be different according to who writes what....

a historian could certainly use her account but they wouldnt be able to use it as a reliable source because theres potential for it to be biased

and if a historian cant use it as a reliable source of a definitive account of whats going on then we here at the garden shouldnt either

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:34 am

spot you seem to be well read and versed in this ongoing nightmare of a war so i ask you in all sincerity.....do you know of, or can you cite some credible sources for/of how many iraqi civilians have been killed in this war so far?

this question worries me greatly and is not commented/reported on generally in the media. is this b/c the figures are hard to, or almost impossible to attain, or is it b/c it's too horrible to deal with.

many, many must have perished under that loathsome banner of "collatoral damage" what with the thousands of bombs dropped, and i find it odd, if not remarkable that main stream media is not asking the question....what price freedom? how many innocent dead in the cause of democracy and liberty from tyranny?

was there a reputable census of iraq population pre-war? and how many exist now?

is the loss of life (iraqi) comparable to ethnic losses during WWII?

these are just questions i'd like answered with *real*, *hard*, *cold* facts.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:35 am

pink princess wrote: if a historian cant use it as a reliable source of a definitive account of whats going on then we here at the garden shouldnt eitherI remember sinking more and more into that position while I was at school, Princess, trying to get further from tainted reporting and closer to objectivity. I ended up reading Keesing's Contemporary Archives every week in the school library, and abandoning my subscription to the London Times. Eventually, I decided that it was my job to read between the lines of newspaper articles, to tease out the bias where it existed, and to hoard the nuggets of fact in order to be able to reconstruct a view of the world with them that had some approximation to a truth. There are, of course, lots of truths about anything so complicated as a Liberation.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:37 am

Jika wrote: how many innocent dead in the cause of democracy and liberty from tyranny?

i think its awful anyone has had to go thru this at all but then..... terrible as it is that people have died in the war think how many peoples lives and future generations will benefit from it......

the whole thing is awful but the long term benefits must surely outweigh anything?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:43 am

Jika wrote: spot you seem to be well read and versed in this ongoing nightmare of a war so i ask you in all sincerity.....do you know of, or can you cite some credible sources for/of how many iraqi civilians have been killed in this war so far?None that I can find, Jika. Or at least, none that I've found so far. I expect the count since Liberation began is into four figures, I suspect it may be in five, I fear it may have entered six. Any figure in any of those ranges is enough for me to call for an international war crimes investigation, some time in the next fifty years. I want testimony from the criminals the way so many people wanted to hear what Klaus Barbie had to say for himself. I can wait fifty years for it, if I have to.

I'm sure the figure will eventually be collated, as will the dreadful carnage among US servicemen. From what I can see, the figures on Purple Heart decorations since Liberation began are a Secret of State. The figures on the number of Purple Hearts kept in stock, and the figures and dates for Purple Heart production runs, are equally Secrets of State. The only people these figures are hidden from are the American public.

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:52 am

pink princess wrote:

the whole thing is awful but the long term benefits must surely outweigh anything?

well 'we' as a global community are yet to see any "long term benefits" from it and i would respectfully ask outweigh what???

i reserve my judgment and in deference to the few (sadly, yet proudly) WWI and WWII diggers i've looked after, agree war is an horrific tragedy that should be avoided at all costs.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:07 am

Jika wrote: well 'we' as a global community are yet to see any "long term benefits" from it and i would respectfully ask outweigh what???

havent seen any benefits yet because we arent in the long term....... its still fairly recent

outweigh the terrible losses we have already endured..... the crudest and bluntest way to put it is we may have lost 10 people but weve improved the lives of 30 - those who are alive now (given time) and their future children etc........ i hope at any rate....

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:11 am

pink princess wrote: outweigh the terrible losses we have already endured..... the crudest and bluntest way to put it is we may have lost 10 people but weve improved the lives of 30 - those who are alive now (given time) and their future children etc........ i hope at any rate....Well, yes, Princess, ten out of ten for mawkish platitude. We can all of us hope that you're right. What, other than blind faith, persuades you that you are, though? You've seen no evidence for it, I've seen no evidence for it, past wars tend toward suggesting that it's not true. You're offsetting "terrible losses we have already endured" against an outcome that I, for one, suggest to you will be appalling, not good for the local population at all, and not good for the Liberators either.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:16 am

spot wrote: Well, yes, Princess, ten out of ten for mawkish platitude. We can all of us hope that you're right. What, other than blind faith, persuades you that you are, though? You've seen no evidence for it, I've seen no evidence for it, past wars tend toward suggesting that it's not true. erm...... Hitler? Stalin?

my grandad fought to protect this country, my dad, me and my children etc, i for one am glad he did, i may have a dislike for tony blair but i would sure as whatsits rather live under tony blair then a decendent of hitler

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:20 am

pink princess wrote: erm...... Hitler? Stalin?And that's how the press push the war, by comparing Saddam with those two. By demonizing the Baathist regime that ran Iraq, even though it ran Iraq as an American satrapy for decades against Iran. "1984", by George Orwell, is a potent description of the forces of society being employed to justify this current Liberation. I do hope you've read it.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:23 am

no i havent read it

i dont believe that saddam is/was as bad as hitler, i do however know that hes not as good a man as tony blair michael howard bill clinton etc and by that i think now hes gone all the better

who would you rather live a life under...... tony or saddam?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:37 am

pink princess wrote: no i havent read it

i dont believe that saddam is/was as bad as hitler, i do however know that hes not as good a man as tony blair michael howard bill clinton etc and by that i think now hes gone all the better

who would you rather live a life under...... tony or saddam?What an extraordinary omission, leaving out Boy George from the list.

I'd much rather live under Tony Blair, Michael Howard, Bill Clinton or Boy George, than under Saddam. I'm quite sure none of them would have stayed in power had they been head of state in Iraq for as long as he was, either. Different places, different styles of government. I'm sure Saddam would never have been allowed into power in either the USA or the UK, had he tried it here.

What is being done to Iraq is non-consensual assault, it is not Liberation, it is not in the short or long term interests of the indigenous population, and the suggestion that it was a pre-emptive defense of the anyone's Homeland is derisible. I do strongly suggest you spend a spare few hours, and Ã‚Â£6 in Waterstones, with George Orwell's "1984", it will do you good.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:41 am

koan wrote: oh, poor misunderstood "you". Yes, they beheaded someone. Is this the only hideous offense commited by a country?

The US is indicated in serious allegations of a concentration camp type slaughter. By a non right or left journalist. It is being suppressed in North America.

article
What a bunch of bunk. I know the U.S. military and how it is trained. You and your ilk are frustrated to the point you would say anything. You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t been able to prevail with socialism so you strike out blindly with false, even unbelievable accusations. Canada is a target just like the U.S. If they are able to take us down you are standing in line. Your hate for the U.S. is obvious. Now at least, the Koan I suspected to be lurking behind those honey soaked posts of the past is in the open.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:42 am

Far Rider wrote: I'd say no they were given to you, the same as the protection you are afforded because some nations choose to battle evil.The commonplace rejection of this takes the form "Not in my name!". You may call it protection, I choose to call it war crimes, and I feel a great deal less safe as a consequence of what has been done to protect me than I would if it had not been done. My position is far less safe than it was before Iraq was Liberated. "Protection" is a misnomer.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:43 am

Far Rider wrote: Spot, I need to correct you here.

There's only one truth, but many perspectives.Do, please, start a thread in the Philosophy forum about that, I'd be pleased to join you in it.

Given where we are, I merely deny what you say, without giving good reason. This is not the place.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:47 am

Clint wrote: What a bunch of bunk. I know the U.S. military and how it is trained. You and your ilk are frustrated to the point you would say anything. You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t been able to prevail with socialism so you strike out blindly with false, even unbelievable accusations. Canada is a target just like the U.S. If they are able to take us down you are standing in line. Your hate for the U.S. is obvious. Now at least, the Koan I suspected to be lurking behind those honey soaked posts of the past is in the open.What's an ilk, Clint?

"Your hate for the U.S. is obvious" is the standard tar-brush for anyone who argues against American Imperialism, I've seen it on here more often than most. It is unjust, it is not necessarily true, and in the case of Koan I believe it to be utterly mistaken.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:47 am

spot wrote: What an extraordinary omission, leaving out Boy George from the list.

I'd much rather live under Tony Blair, Michael Howard, Bill Clinton or Boy George, than under Saddam. I'm quite sure none of them would have stayed in power had they been head of state in Iraq for as long as he was, either. Different places, different styles of government. I'm sure Saddam would never have been allowed into power in either the USA or the UK, had he tried it here.

What is being done to Iraq is non-consensual assault, it is not Liberation, it is not in the short or long term interests of the indigenous population, and the suggestion that it was a pre-emptive defense of the anyone's Homeland is derisible. I do strongly suggest you spend a spare few hours, and Ã‚Â£6 in Waterstones, with George Orwell's "1984", it will do you good.
a) what has boy george got to do with anything?

b) im sure all those teenage boys/girls who can wear what they want and listen to the radio and watch telly hate the fact saddams gone

c) you dont know any of this for FACT and neither do i, you have no idea what it will be like in Iraq in 30 years time..... so dont criticise it until you know the full story

d) our soldiers have gone out there to fight in good faith, lets back them up not criticise the war which makes them feel like what they are doing is meaningless when it most certainly isnt

e) my reading database is quite varied and i believe have more than enough intelligence to be able to hold together a coherent discussion here without having to read up on a book first

f) if you can do better then next election i expect to see you up there

and one other thing......... what does someone have to do before we can invade them with a legitimate reason that meets your moral standards??

(should we also be letting osama bin laden roam around free? or does he qualify to be hunted down??)

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:03 am

spot wrote: What's an ilk, Clint?

"Your hate for the U.S. is obvious" is the standard tar-brush for anyone who argues against American Imperialism, I've seen it on here more often than most. It is unjust, it is not necessarily true, and in the case of Koan I believe it to be utterly mistaken.
An Ã¢â‚¬Å“ilkÃ¢â‚¬Â is a sort or a kind. You knew that of course.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sorry but I see in Koan someone who would be pleased if we didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. I think she has very strong feelings of dislike when it comes to the U.S. and I used the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“hateÃ¢â‚¬Â to describe those feelings. Hate is a word that is like heat. It can be low heat or high heat. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think she is at the top of the scale.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:08 am

pink princess wrote: a) what has boy george got to do with anything?

b) im sure all those teenage boys/girls who can wear what they want and listen to the radio and watch telly hate the fact saddams gone

c) you dont know any of this for FACT and neither do i, you have no idea what it will be like in Iraq in 30 years time..... so dont criticise it until you know the full story

d) our soldiers have gone out there to fight in good faith, lets back them up not criticise the war which makes them feel like what they are doing is meaningless when it most certainly isnt

e) my reading database is quite varied and i believe have more than enough intelligence to be able to hold together a coherent discussion here without having to read up on a book first

f) if you can do better then next election i expect to see you up there

and one other thing......... what does someone have to do before we can invade them with a legitimate reason that meets your moral standards??

(should we also be letting osama bin laden roam around free? or does he qualify to be hunted down??)I'm sorry, Princess, I thought it was reasonable to call George W Bush "Boy George" to distinguish him from his father, George Bush, who was also Commander in Chief of an invasion of Iraq while Saddam Hussein was Head of State there. "Boy George" is intended to sound insulting, suggesting a lack of experience, a clouded mentality and a questionable sexual bias. How a clown like him could be shoe-horned into the Presidency, by a party less and less concerned with credibility, astounds me. They seem to need no cloak of respectability whatever.

The legitimate use of force by nation states has a long history, Princess, torn down by both the current administrations in the UK and USA. They stem from people like John Locke, and they depend for their authority on the status of International Law and treaty obligations. The current US administration disregards International Law, setting it at no account, and the current UK administration is fighting a losing battle to claim that they stayed within it.

Should we also be letting osama bin laden roam around free? or does he qualify to be hunted down? I would love to see him in immediate custody, standing trial in a court of law run by respectable jurists, with a team of defense lawyers presenting his case publicly. There is as much chance of that happening as there is of pigs taking to the air.

You trust the trial process that Saddam will face? Here's the start of this week's Independent article on the matter:

06/14/05 "The Independent" - - There he was, just as his victims looked on his own television screens, his words censored, his arguments unknown, his case as undemocratic as the "judicial" courts in which Saddam destroyed his own enemies.

The Iraqis - or, let us speak frankly, the Americans who tried to censor the old reprobate's previous court appearance - decided yesterday that his words would also be censored. That is Saddamism. This is how Saddam ran Iraq.

The words were obliterated. And now the Americans and their obedient, Shia-led government, are acting out the same Saddamite line.

The pictures, the BBC admitted, were "mute". What in God's name did this mean? Who emasculated the BBC to such a degree that it should say such a ridiculous thing? Why were they mute? The BBC didn't tell us.Shoddy, shoddy shoddy. The lid on the explosion must be strained to bursting, if a fair trial endangers the exposure of US involvement in Saddam's Iraq so much.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:11 am

Far Rider wrote: You sit in Britan and 'feel' less safe because of this war on terror?

You 'feel' it.

Has anyone come to your door threatening you, how about your town? or even the major city closes to you?The people I fear, Far Rider, are the fascists, not the Arabs. And yes, I've had physical threats at my door, and around my town.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:13 am

Clint wrote: An Ã¢â‚¬Å“ilkÃ¢â‚¬Â is a sort or a kind. You knew that of course. Strange use of language you have, then. Lord Moncrieff of that Ilk, I talked to him on a few occasions. Your use of ilk is strange to me.

I'll leave Koan to wake up and defend herself, she's more than capable.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:21 am

spot wrote: Strange use of language you have, then. Lord Moncrieff of that Ilk, I talked to him on a few occasions. Your use of ilk is strange to me.

I'll leave Koan to wake up and defend herself, she's more than capable.

She is indeed. I can't stick around though and I won't be back until Sunday.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:24 am

spot wrote:

You trust the trial process that Saddam will face?

why should he have a fair trial? did he give the thousands of people he killed and had killed a trial???

come on...... your defending someone who is a murderous dictator

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:30 am

pink princess wrote: why should he have a fair trial? did he give the thousands of people he killed and had killed a trial???

come on...... your defending someone who is a murderous dictatorIs that not what happened to the survivors of World War 2, then? At the Nuremberg Trials? My goodness me, we need to go back and re-read those transcripts.

My granny tells me that she's seen it all before, and at 94 she's seen a thing or two, she's seen the stockbrokers all sighing, and the speculators crying, and the millionaires relying on a war to pull them through, and they're turning the clock back, I can hear me granny say, yes they're turning the clock back, and the working man will pay.

My gran remembers the way it used to be, with Baldwin and Macdonald in the chair. She fetched the soup from down the kitchen, heard the speeches, saw men marching, read how Churchill brought the troops in which the papers said was fair.

My granny tells me that they're at it once again, the nobs can't get their profits quite as high, and Tom and Dick and Harry have forgotten that they carry on their shoulders all the parasites that suck their bodies dry, and they're turning the clock back, I can hear me granny say, they may call it social contract but the working man will pay.

My granny tells me that it's getting very late, and we've got our silly heads stuck in the sand. She says she has a nasty feeling we may very soon be reeling from the evil-dealing jackboots, as the blackshirts haunt the land.

(Alex Glasgow)

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:31 am

spot wrote: The people I fear, Far Rider, are the fascists, not the Arabs. And yes, I've had physical threats at my door, and around my town.
ive never had any physical threat at my door or around the town.....

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:41 am

spot wrote: Is that not what happened to the survivors of World War 2, then? At the Nuremberg Trials? My goodness me, we need to go back and re-read those transcripts.

My granny tells me that she's seen it all before, and at 94 she's seen a thing or two, she's seen the stockbrokers all sighing, and the speculators crying, and the millionaires relying on a war to pull them through, and they're turning the clock back, I can hear me granny say, yes they're turning the clock back, and the working man will pay.

My gran remembers the way it used to be, with Baldwin and Macdonald in the chair. She fetched the soup from down the kitchen, heard the speeches, saw men marching, read how Churchill brought the troops in which the papers said was fair.

My granny tells me that they're at it once again, the nobs can't get their profits quite as high, and Tom and Dick and Harry have forgotten that they carry on their shoulders all the parasites that suck their bodies dry, and they're turning the clock back, I can hear me granny say, they may call it social contract but the working man will pay.

My granny tells me that it's getting very late, and we've got our silly heads stuck in the sand. She says she has a nasty feeling we may very soon be reeling from the evil-dealing jackboots, as the blackshirts haunt the land.

(Alex Glasgow)
all very factual

none of it opinion based at all.....

im sorry i dont want to argue about this but i have little understanding of your position, an evil man doing evil things has been stopped and thats the most important thing......

anyone that doesnt agree with the war should go and live in a dictatorship similar to that of saddams..... then you can come back here and tell me it was wrong to invade

any of you girls out there who disagree, go home tonite and dont look into your husbands/partners eyes, dont put on anything which shows ANY flesh when you go out tonite, actually hang on your not allowed out tonite...... its gonna be about 30 degrees tomorrow and you all need to be wearing clothes head to toe, literally, only your eyes can be seen, you must cover your hair over too.... i hope that doesnt get in the way of your sunbathing plans...

i apologise for the sarcasm but really, how can anyone defend saddam?? would you defend the rapist living next door? and demand he had a fair trial?

im bowing out of this thread now because to be honest its really starting to wind me up!

i applaud all the troops who have been out there fighting and i applaud the people who decided to remove saddam, im sorry for the loss of life both iraqi and anyone else but i really hope that the outcome of it will make it all have been worth it

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:54 am

would you defend the rapist living next door? and demand he had a fair trial? Anybody? maybe that's a fair summary of the problem.

an evil man doing evil things has been stopped and thats the most important thing? Would that he had, would it were so. At the moment he's pressing for large chunks of the Patriot Act to be made permanent, and crippling the capacity of the economy long-term to support even basic social services.