i don't want to speak about the media. i think most of it is biased(towards the northamerican government or against it, its the same lack of objectiveness), yet i can choose to rely on it. or not. i 'd like to say something about the most common justification for the iraq war. bringing democray to that country. mass destruction weapon is no longer a debate. democracy can never be imposed. it must have a major consent by the population. i know most iraqis are better of without saddam hussein and surely they acknowledge it. however i wouldn't say they would fight for democracy. either way, i just wanna say imposing democracy by force, through a war, is the single most undemocratic thing to be done by a democratic and free country.
Alright, I'll toss out a few here. First, let's clarify something here. All other things being equal, Iraq (and the world in general) are better off without Saddam Hussein controlling a country. The fact of the matter is that that wasn't the only thing that occurred. The serious debate is about whether the billions of dollars and thousands of casualties on either side (among the myriad other concerns) is enough to balance it out. All things being equal, I'd have a candy bar, but I wouldn't sell a kidney for one. Secondly, Iraq is roughly the size of California. I have trouble believing any one soldier could have seen how things are over the entire country. So, while I'm perfectly willing to believe something has been done in the last year, the soldier has to rely on people's reports of how things are going overall, just like we do. Thirdly, regarding media reports, both sides see too much of what they don't want to hear and not nearly enough of what they do. If someone has, say, a report of exactly how much screen time CNN spends on a given day talking about casualties compared to reports of things going well, then we can come back to this discussion. Until then, it's all subjective. Finally, the Vietnam comparisons need to remember something. We're only a year into this conflict. None of us are psychic, so we don't know how long it will last. We were seriously embroiled in Vietnam for about 10 years. So, instead of comparing 10 years of casualties to one year of casualties, why don't we compare opening years of conflict. Anyone know how many died in 1964? Oh, and we should probably account for those casualties that medical science and improvements in airlifting have lessened.
I don't know how many died specifically in 1964, but between December 1961, when the first two US casualties occurred and when the Army considers the war to have started, and the end of 1964, there were just under 400 US casualties. The number of US forces through that period was 17,000, mainly advisors, Air Force and support units. Combat units didn't go in until 1965.
Hey, I have some bad news for you.... NEWS..... From Iraq this week - in living color! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 1. Iraqi soldiers being sodomized with a broom handle. 2. Iraqi soldier holding electrical wires and dressed up like BAT MAN! 3. Iraqi women being sodomized & having penises stuck in their other orfices. 4. Decapitated Iraqi children in a car hit by US tank machinegun fire. 5, Naked Iraqi soldiers and a young GI b!tch doing a cumbia with popped eyes and wet panties! Ahhh man, just a bunch of fr!k!n Al Jazeera propaganda photos. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah Right! ENJOY! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Whirlwind....
I am truly appalled by the treatment of these Iraqi prisoners. But, are you going to tell me this happens everywhere? What about captrued Westerners taken prisoner by Iraqi insurgents? Some were tortured, and many more executed. Now, I'm not saying all Iraqi militia are monsters and murderers. They are human beings, fighting for what they believe in. My feelings are the same with every other Arab person. Just because a few choose to kill innocents, I don't for a second blame all Arabs everywhere. The soldiers who humiliated those Iraqi prisoners were themselves embarrased and courtmarshled. I'd lock em up for years if it were up to me. By the way, none were killed. Why would I believe that? I saw the pictures too. Listen, buddy, I'm not an American asskisser. The U.S. military is not sinless, and neither is the U.S. government. Are you saying they were killed on purpose? Are you going to say "yes, they were executed for no reason by U.S. soldiers." Again, it would only mildly surprise me if this were true(Some phsycotic soldiers did go on shooting rampages in Vietnam) But, really with so much riding on the way the U.S. is portrayed, why would they do it? On the sodimizing, I didn't hear anything of the sort. Please give me a site or two to confirm this.
Read the letter from Ray Reynold's yet? Here is the real truth about it. Enjoy: http://www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/26.html Don’t believe everything you read, folks! Please post a link to the source and only a small portion of the article. In this case I did find the source, but next time please follow the rules. --CC
The vision in Iraq is quite clear. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Iraqis are not throwing roses as some silly expected. The majority of Iraqis are resisting. Some by words and others by guns. American soldiers are dieing every day. Innocent civilians as well. Abu Graib’s prison scandal has shown only a small part of this ugly war. All these things show the propaganda about human rights, democracy and freedom is rubbish. Some times things are clear in which it is nonsense to relay on the media or any thing else. God gave us brains; it’s better to use them. Yazan
America is like that annoying ex boyfriend who’s in denial and refuses to believe that you really do hate his guts.
orestes, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1083111,00.html ask Jessy Jackson he said that all the freer prisoners in Iraq were treated well. can’t you say just what happened was ugly and a big shame. Do you have to point to something else. Would you believe what happened there in the prison if there were no pictures, of course no? The problem in here, it is difficult for a picture to show a soldier killing a civilian in purpose? How many Iraqi families vanished because an American vehicle hit their car? The big number of such accidents shows, this is no mistake. I don’t say in purpose, I would say carelessness, those civilians are not considered to be humans for so many people in there.
I didn't say that! Look in a previous reply I made to a similar comment. It is disgusting and utterly unaceptable of how those prisoners were abused. And now, I heard that some may have been killed. This is terrible, and I hope those responible will pay. The majority eh? Recent polls show otherwise. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Look, unless you have been there yourself, you cannot be certain of anything. I for one do not trust the media for the whole truth, and I can never be certain about anything. Who knows? I could be completely wrong about this whole thing. So could you, or anybody else for that matter. Also, I still don't understand why soldiers are refuted as credible sources of information by many people. They were there. Some I have talked to were shot at, and still say things were getting better, whereas many would have us believe it's all going to hell.
orestes, These medias have been always supporting their governments. I don't trust these medias? I trust my self. I understand Arabic quite well and I hear them complain. They always say the same thing: Saddam was a dog, although we have not been humiliated as that much in his time. It doesn’t need to be cleaver to understand that the ally has to make things seem to be better to avoid trouble. But believe me I know those people. As soon as they feel that someone is stealing their oil or try to play with them they will all explode.
Of course no one would shoot children "on purpose". The US didn't "mean" to kill children when they dropped the bombs in Japan. Al Quada didn't "mean" to kill "innocent" civilians on 9/11. The US attacked Iraq "on purpose". They are responsible for every iraqi death whether they mean it or not.
No, the U.S. didn't mean to. It was unfortunate that the U.S. did this but the true reason behind it was to save additional American lives. They had to do it because for the U.S., it was still better to kill Japanese than to have more U.S. soldiers be killed. Yes, they did mean it and still support it. Yes, they are responsible for many deaths but not all (civilians killed by extreme terrorists for example). At the same time, the U.S. should also claim credits for taking down Saddam, rebuilding Iraq and making it a democracy.
