BBC Gulf War Bias
John McAdams
Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jerry Organ
for something completely different ...
"US To Wipe Out Entire UK Armed Forces By End 2004"
http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2003_03_23_0154.php
----------
JO
Paul Seaton
PML !!
"Jerry Organ" <jjo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030327134443...@mb-fm.aol.com...
B Tarby
> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
>
> .John
Interesting how some people still seem to be in denial that the
American media's desire to wave the flag isn't coloring their
coverage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40057-2003Mar27.html
I also find it interesting that you went to the left leaning Guardian
to get that critique of the BBC. I'd like to see a similar critique
of, say, Fox News in the Washington Times.
John McAdams
>john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3e8341ab...@news.alt.net>...
>> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
>> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
>>
>> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
>>
>> .John
>
>Interesting how some people still seem to be in denial that the
>American media's desire to wave the flag isn't coloring their
>coverage:
>
Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40057-2003Mar27.html
>
This silly article actually says that anti-war protests have gotten
too little attention.
In fact, given the small number of people involved, they have probably
gotten too much coverage.
They have also been heavily sanitized. The media have concealed the
Stalinist nature of the groups that organized them, and cut out much
of the really nasty and inflammatory rhetoric.
Where there have been head-to-head protests in a single city, the
pro-war side has gotten more people out. This was certainly the case
in Milwaukee.
>I also find it interesting that you went to the left leaning Guardian
>to get that critique of the BBC.
You believe it's true, then?
>I'd like to see a similar critique
>of, say, Fox News in the Washington Times.
>
You are simply overlooking differences in the U.S. media. Peter
Jennings' ABC and PBS have shown their usual liberal biases.
CBS, quite oddly, has been pretty much pro-war.
I think CNBC and MSNBC have too, as well as (obviously) Fox News.
.John
--
Paul Seaton
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3e853573...@news.newsguy.com...
>
> Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
>
Yes folks, read those seething fundamentalist anti-American diatribes from
Al-Bbc here :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm
Paul S
B Tarby
> On 28 Mar 2003 22:09:53 -0500, rta...@charter.net (B Tarby) wrote:
>
> >john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3e8341ab...@news.alt.net>...
> >> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> >> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
> >>
> >> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
> >>
> >> .John
> >
> >Interesting how some people still seem to be in denial that the
> >American media's desire to wave the flag isn't coloring their
> >coverage:
> >
>
> Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
The BBC is more skeptical of the war which for a news organization is
healthy. I'm sure that seems "anti-war" to someone who is "pro-war". But
the Pentagon/American viewpoint is well represented on their broadcasts
even if the patriotic tone is not.
Most of the American broadcast media has had a rah-rah tone and is
decidedly less skeptical of claims made by the U.S. Goverment and the
Pentagon which I believe is unhealthy when one considers the stakes
involved. It also has caused them to back track *allot* in the first week
when initial U.S. claims turned out to be overblown.
>
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40057-2003Mar27.html
> >
>
> This silly article actually says that anti-war protests have gotten
> too little attention.
No, the focus of the article was that consultants paid by the broadcast
media were advising them to downplay protests because the coverage was
driving off viewers and to "wave the flag" more instead. The article was
neither silly nor did it make the claim that you attribute to it. It
raised a serious point about how the American Media was making decisions
on what tone to take with the war. It was a larger more general indictment
of the American Media then the article you cited regarding the BBC.
>
> In fact, given the small number of people involved, they have probably
> gotten too much coverage.
>
> They have also been heavily sanitized. The media have concealed the
> Stalinist nature of the groups that organized them, and cut out much
> of the really nasty and inflammatory rhetoric.
That is so ridicules. Statements like this are so over the top. Geez...
Stalinist. Is this when I start talking about Facist groups and Nazis?
And how do the evil minions of the media conspiracy get together and
"conceal the Stalinist nature of the groups that organized them"? And
more importantly who are the evil minions of these Stalinist groups? I
don't know how anyone who has a website that looks to debunk grandiose JFK
conspiracy theories is apparently so blinded by his own ideology that he
falls into the same silly reasoning when it involves this war.
And even if it was old Joe Stalin himself who came back from the dead and
initiated a demonstration do you think that the 25,000 people who went
into the streets in Boston yesterday to protest the war would have known
(or cared) who first initiated the protest? It seems to me the fact that
25,000 people decided to protest the war is slightly more significant.
>
> Where there have been head-to-head protests in a single city, the
> pro-war side has gotten more people out. This was certainly the case
> in Milwaukee.
>
>
> >I also find it interesting that you went to the left leaning Guardian
> >to get that critique of the BBC.
>
> You believe it's true, then?
>
> >I'd like to see a similar critique
> >of, say, Fox News in the Washington Times.
> >
>
> You are simply overlooking differences in the U.S. media.
No I'm not. I was simply pointing out that right leaning paper like
the Washington Times would be highly unlikely to publish something
that might reflect poorly on a de-facto idelogical soul mate.
Peter
> Jennings' ABC and PBS have shown their usual liberal biases.
>
> CBS, quite oddly, has been pretty much pro-war.
>
> I think CNBC and MSNBC have too, as well as (obviously) Fox News.
These "liberal biases" you talk about are slight. The bigger concern is
that the U.S. news media as a whole have not been asking skeptical
questions about this war and it is unhealthy and I believe it is leading
to a big problem for the U.S. You do not have to be an idelogical liberal
to be against this war. Thankfully, the BBC is there to ask the skeptical
questions. The U.S. media until recently has not been.
I think back to Bush's last press conference. One of the top network
reporter's gets a rare chance to ask the Prez a question live and asks
whether the U.S. will give reporters in Iraq enough time to leave Iraq
before hostilities begin. GW's answer: Yes, we will. Gee, I'm glad we
cleared that up.
>
> .John
Stephen M. Birmingham
> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
The American media channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
:-)
John McAdams
<pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote:
Yep, it just checked it out and it *does* show an anti-war bias.
John McAdams
<s.birm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
The BBC channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
.John
--
John McAdams
>john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3e853573...@news.newsguy.com>...
>> On 28 Mar 2003 22:09:53 -0500, rta...@charter.net (B Tarby) wrote:
>>
>> >john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3e8341ab...@news.alt.net>...
>> >> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
>> >> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
>> >>
>> >> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
>> >>
>> >> .John
>> >
>> >Interesting how some people still seem to be in denial that the
>> >American media's desire to wave the flag isn't coloring their
>> >coverage:
>> >
>>
>> Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
>
>The BBC is more skeptical of the war which for a news organization is
>healthy.
They should neither be "skeptical" nor supportive. They should be
neutral.
>I'm sure that seems "anti-war" to someone who is "pro-war". But
>the Pentagon/American viewpoint is well represented on their broadcasts
>even if the patriotic tone is not.
>
And probably denigrated by being immediately contradicted.
>Most of the American broadcast media has had a rah-rah tone and is
>decidedly less skeptical of claims made by the U.S. Goverment and the
>Pentagon which I believe is unhealthy when one considers the stakes
>involved. It also has caused them to back track *allot* in the first week
>when initial U.S. claims turned out to be overblown.
>
>
Two things here:
While Fox and MSNBC and CNBC and CBS have been pretty favorable toward
the war, Peter Jennings and ABC have been hostile, as has PBS.
Any of the networks can get into a "feeding frenzy" about any run of
bad news.
*All* the U.S. media was negative toward the war over this past
weekend. This will probably change with some good news in the next
few days, however.
>>
>>
>> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40057-2003Mar27.html
>> >
>>
>> This silly article actually says that anti-war protests have gotten
>> too little attention.
>
>No, the focus of the article was that consultants paid by the broadcast
>media were advising them to downplay protests because the coverage was
>driving off viewers and to "wave the flag" more instead. The article was
>neither silly nor did it make the claim that you attribute to it.
Anybody can read it and see.
>It
>raised a serious point about how the American Media was making decisions
>on what tone to take with the war. It was a larger more general indictment
>of the American Media then the article you cited regarding the BBC.
>
The point was about *consultants* who are advising some local stations
to be patriotic and support the war for commercial reasons.
There was no evidence as to why paid any attention to these
consultants.
>>
>> In fact, given the small number of people involved, they have probably
>> gotten too much coverage.
>>
>> They have also been heavily sanitized. The media have concealed the
>> Stalinist nature of the groups that organized them, and cut out much
>> of the really nasty and inflammatory rhetoric.
>
>
>That is so ridicules. Statements like this are so over the top. Geez...
>Stalinist.
Yes, Stalinist. There are such people still around, don't you know?
Probably not, because you won't hear about in in the mainstream media.
Steve Bochan posted a bit about it a few weeks ago.
>Is this when I start talking about Facist groups and Nazis?
I haven't seen them out protesting.
>And how do the evil minions of the media conspiracy get together and
>"conceal the Stalinist nature of the groups that organized them"?
They don't have to get together. Shared biases are sufficient.
>And
>more importantly who are the evil minions of these Stalinist groups? I
>don't know how anyone who has a website that looks to debunk grandiose JFK
>conspiracy theories is apparently so blinded by his own ideology that he
>falls into the same silly reasoning when it involves this war.
>
Why don't you read this?
>And even if it was old Joe Stalin himself who came back from the dead and
>initiated a demonstration do you think that the 25,000 people who went
>into the streets in Boston yesterday to protest the war would have known
>(or cared) who first initiated the protest? It seems to me the fact that
>25,000 people decided to protest the war is slightly more significant.
>
>
If there were an anti-affirmative action protest and the KKK was one
of the groups behind it, you can be sure the media would let us know.
>>
>> You are simply overlooking differences in the U.S. media.
>
>
>No I'm not. I was simply pointing out that right leaning paper like
>the Washington Times would be highly unlikely to publish something
>that might reflect poorly on a de-facto idelogical soul mate.
>
And you won't accept any critique of the BBC, who seem to be your
ideological soul-mates.
>
>Peter
>> Jennings' ABC and PBS have shown their usual liberal biases.
>>
>> CBS, quite oddly, has been pretty much pro-war.
>>
>> I think CNBC and MSNBC have too, as well as (obviously) Fox News.
>
>These "liberal biases" you talk about are slight. The bigger concern is
>that the U.S. news media as a whole have not been asking skeptical
>questions about this war and it is unhealthy and I believe it is leading
>to a big problem for the U.S.
Simple concept: Feeding frenzy.
That's what we've had with all kinds of second guessing this past
weekend.
>You do not have to be an idelogical liberal
>to be against this war. Thankfully, the BBC is there to ask the skeptical
>questions. The U.S. media until recently has not been.
>
Translation: you like the anti-war coverage of the BBC.
Paul Seaton
> On 29 Mar 2003 11:55:22 -0500, "Paul Seaton"
> <pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3e853573...@news.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
> >>
> >
> >Yes folks, read those seething fundamentalist anti-American diatribes
from
> >Al-Bbc here :
> >
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/def
ault.stm
> >
> >
>
> Yep, it just checked it out and it *does* show an anti-war bias.
Could you be just a little tiny bit more specific?
The current headline is :
"Civilians shot dead by US troops
Seven Iraqi women and children are killed by US soldiers at a checkpoint, as
bombing of Baghdad continues. "
Would you say that showed an anti war bias?
Or would you say it was simply the truth?
Or is it that reporting such uncomfortable events *at all* shows 'anti war
bias' IYHO?
Paul S
Paul Seaton
> On 31 Mar 2003 23:56:51 -0500, "Stephen M. Birmingham"
> <s.birm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> >> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
> >
> >The American media channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
> >
> >:-)
> >
>
> The BBC channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
Hmmm.. yes..I just found this major distortion....I'm beginning to see what
you mean :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2904705.stm
Paul s
Stephen M. Birmingham
> The BBC channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
No, it isn't. The BBC frequently channel government propaganda.
It has been pointed out to them often enough.
Peter Fokes
"Paul Seaton" <pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3e89...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:3e89273c...@news.newsguy.com...
> > On 31 Mar 2003 23:56:51 -0500, "Stephen M. Birmingham"
> > <s.birm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> > >> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
> > >
> > >The American media channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
> > >
> > >:-)
> > >
> >
> > The BBC channelling propaganda? Utterly preposterous!
>
> Hmmm.. yes..I just found this major distortion....I'm beginning to see
what
> you mean :-
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2904705.stm
>
> Paul s
LOL, good one Paul!
Will there be training classes to teach the Iraqis how to say the Pledge of
Allegiance?
Peter F
Peter Fokes
soldiers returning to American soil in flag-draped coffins?
Peter Fokes
"Paul Seaton" <pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3e89...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
Paul Seaton
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3e8c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Is it true that the US media has been prohibited from showing dead
American
> soldiers returning to American soil in flag-draped coffins?
>
> Peter Fokes
Peter,
I dunno.
I'm in London.
I get the impression the Rambo factor is at work in the US, & that
cautionary tales & images are pretty unwelcome. (If not downright
unpatriotic).
I would like to credit Rumsfeld etc with the ability to predict with some
certainty just what it might cost in terms of worldwide death & general
misery to remove Saddam. If it can be done at a 'small enough' cost, I'm
all for it. I'm just not so sure it can.
The 'why now?' question bothers me.
Bush's cartoon oratory too.
Paul S
Michael Russ
The why now question is simple.
I took this long for the U.S. to prepare after 9/11.
I have no doubt in my mind if there had been no 9/11 there would be no
war in Iraq.
Peter Fokes
"Michael Russ" <mrus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E8CE1...@yahoo.com...
> Paul Seaton wrote:
> >
> > "Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e8c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > Is it true that the US media has been prohibited from showing dead
> > American
> > > soldiers returning to American soil in flag-draped coffins?
> > >
> > > Peter Fokes
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > I dunno.
> > I'm in London.
> > I get the impression the Rambo factor is at work in the US, & that
> > cautionary tales & images are pretty unwelcome. (If not downright
> > unpatriotic).
> > I would like to credit Rumsfeld etc with the ability to predict with
some
> > certainty just what it might cost in terms of worldwide death & general
> > misery to remove Saddam. If it can be done at a 'small enough' cost,
I'm
> > all for it. I'm just not so sure it can.
> >
> > The 'why now?' question bothers me.
>
>
> The why now question is simple.
>
> I took this long for the U.S. to prepare after 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 though.
>
> I have no doubt in my mind if there had been no 9/11 there would be no
> war in Iraq.
Then the war is pointless. You are admitting the war is not for human
rights, for weapons of mass destruction, or to remove a dictator, but simply
for revenge. How sad.
Peter fokes
Michael Russ
Yeah right.
That is the type of thinking that led to 9/11.
The original U.S. failure to remove Saddam was proof to the extremists
that The U.S. feared them. The purpose of terrorism is clearly to
instill fear into the heart of your enemy. Our failure in Iraq certainly
bolstered the belief that the U.S. was vulnerable to fear. If we had
not gone on to remove Sadamm now, the Bin Laden's of this world would
have known that we were still affraid.
In a way I am glad that the U.S. has ended up having to fight the French
as well as the Iraqi's, because it has sent a signal to all who might
think that U.S. will disengage as long as there is resistance. Instead
of 9/11 driving the U.S. Out of the Holy lands it has led to the U.S.
capturing and defending the holy sites in Iraq.
It is critical now that we stay the course, and build a prosperous,
peaceful, self governed Iraq, and show that we are not hostile to Islam or
Arabs, and that we do not fear those who wish to scare us off.
> >
> > I have no doubt in my mind if there had been no 9/11 there would be no
> > war in Iraq.
>
> Then the war is pointless. You are admitting the war is not for human
> rights, for weapons of mass destruction, or to remove a dictator, but simply
> for revenge. How sad.
What is sad is to believe that anyone can be so niave as to believe that
this war is pointless. IT is not revenge, it is defense. We are trying a
different startegy to make sure nothing like 9/11 happens again.
It is clear that 9/11 forced the U.S. to reevaluate our entire Mid-east
policy. That policy, epitomized by our failure to remove saddam, was
basically to support the governments who many believe to be oppressors
of the people of the region, so long as they are not anti-U.S., because
we feared the radicals more that we hoped for a better life for the
people of the region. In the end we were still blamed for the plight of
the opressed and did almost nothing to change the situation.
The fact that it is clear that the U.S. will stay and rebuild Iraq
proves that this war is not pointless.
Removing the Taliban and stopping would have been pointless.
Sending more weapons inspector's into Iraq would have been pointless.
Engaging in a proactive policy in the middle east and showing that the
U.S. has no animosity towards Islam, and no fear of radicals, and showing
that freedom from opression can lead to peace and prosperity may someday
bring true peace to that portion of the world is definitely not pointless.
Mike
Michael A Bull
> On 30 Mar 2003 19:24:02 -0500, rta...@charter.net (B Tarby) wrote:
>
> >john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message
news:<3e853573...@news.newsguy.com>...
> >> On 28 Mar 2003 22:09:53 -0500, rta...@charter.net (B Tarby) wrote:
> >>
> >> >john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message
news:<3e8341ab...@news.alt.net>...
> >> >> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> >> >> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
> >> >>
> >> >> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
> >> >>
> >> >> .John
> >> >
> >> >Interesting how some people still seem to be in denial that the
> >> >American media's desire to wave the flag isn't coloring their
> >> >coverage:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
> >
> >The BBC is more skeptical of the war which for a news organization is
> >healthy.
>
> They should neither be "skeptical" nor supportive. They should be
> neutral.
>
Which news organization do you consider the most neutral?
Mike :-)
Paul Seaton
Mike,
I hope you don't mean that literally... :-)
because it has sent a signal to all who might
> think that U.S. will disengage as long as there is resistance. Instead
> of 9/11 driving the U.S. Out of the Holy lands it has led to the U.S.
> capturing and defending the holy sites in Iraq.
But that was never the motive was it? Anymore than the motive was to free
the iraqi people - tho god knows they could do with freeing. The motive
for the invasion was - we are told - to eliminate Iraq's WMD .
>
> It is critical now that we stay the course, and build a prosperous,
> peaceful, self governed Iraq, and show that we are not hostile to Islam or
> Arabs, and that we do not fear those who wish to scare us off.
I hope it works out like that. Things seem to be going .. I hesitate to
say 'well'.... as if so many corpses could ever be 'good'... but it
doesn't look as if this is going to turn into a never ending quagmire.
>
> > >
> > > I have no doubt in my mind if there had been no 9/11 there would be no
> > > war in Iraq.
> >
> > Then the war is pointless. You are admitting the war is not for human
> > rights, for weapons of mass destruction, or to remove a dictator, but
simply
> > for revenge. How sad.
>
> What is sad is to believe that anyone can be so niave as to believe that
> this war is pointless. IT is not revenge, it is defense. We are trying a
> different startegy to make sure nothing like 9/11 happens again.
Maybe that's an American thing.
You all have the habit of feeling invulnerable... it must be nice. In
many major UK cities there are swathes of post WW2 redevelopment where the
Nazi bombs fell. There were still home made air raid shelters at the
bottom of people's gardens when I was growing up.
We went through countless IRA bombing campaigns.
The kind of 'total' security you have (had) over there, we've never had. I
wonder if Star Wars / Afghanistan / Iraq are at bottom US attempts to get
that old accustomed feeling of untouchableness back?
I recall some extraordinary statements after 9/11 here ( or maybe on
ac.jfk) about 'nuking Kabul' etc etc...
I think that was panic setting in.
>
> It is clear that 9/11 forced the U.S. to reevaluate our entire Mid-east
> policy. That policy, epitomized by our failure to remove saddam, was
> basically to support the governments who many believe to be oppressors
> of the people of the region, so long as they are not anti-U.S., because
> we feared the radicals more that we hoped for a better life for the
> people of the region. In the end we were still blamed for the plight of
> the opressed and did almost nothing to change the situation.
I'm no historian, but how many examples are there of states acting out of
'virtue' rather than out of percieved self interest? The US may well be -
probably is - removing Saddam out of pure percieved self interest. Doesn't
change the fact that it's a wholly virtuous idea - imho - if it can be
done 'cheaply' enough. It looks like it can, thank God.
>
> The fact that it is clear that the U.S. will stay and rebuild Iraq
> proves that this war is not pointless.
You know a sceptical world will be watching where all those redevelopment
contracts go :-)
>
> Removing the Taliban and stopping would have been pointless.
If they'd handed over bin laden, would they still have been removed?
> Sending more weapons inspector's into Iraq would have been pointless.
Why, if the whole point was only to ensure he had no WMD?
>
> Engaging in a proactive policy in the middle east and showing that the
> U.S. has no animosity towards Islam,
The recent action in iraq has increased the perception of US animosity
towards Islam enormously, at least in Islamic states. I'm sure the world
wide pool of potential 'martyrs' is a pretty fair sized ocean by now.
and no fear of radicals, and showing
> that freedom from opression can lead to peace and prosperity may someday
> bring true peace to that portion of the world is definitely not pointless.
Here here. But the motive for the invasion of Iraq was not to create
"freedom from opression that can lead to peace and prosperity " but to
ensure the safety of the US by ensuring Iraq had no WMD. If the motive
really was the former, then that's what you might call virtuous ( also
totally illegal, but what the hell ; -) We are told it was the latter,
which does indeed show a certain 'fear of radicals'. Wasn't it the fear of
the Ayatollahs that made the US create Saddam in the first place?
Moral of story:
Create monster to fight your enemy at your own peril.
We / you will be needing Solomon (the wise fellow..) not Rambo (the 'kick
ass' fellow ) :-)
Paul S.
twalsh
> On 30 Mar 2003 19:24:02 -0500, rta...@charter.net (B Tarby) wrote:
>
> >john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3e853573...@news.newsguy.com>...
> >> On 28 Mar 2003 22:09:53 -0500, rta...@charter.net (B Tarby) wrote:
> >>
> >> >john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in message news:<3e8341ab...@news.alt.net>...
> >> >> Interestingly, some people consider the BBC to be the standard, and
> >> >> the American media to be engaging in "propaganda."
> >> >>
> >> >> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
> >> >>
> >> >> .John
> >> >
> >> >Interesting how some people still seem to be in denial that the
> >> >American media's desire to wave the flag isn't coloring their
> >> >coverage:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Are you denying that the BBC has an anti-war bias?
> >
> >The BBC is more skeptical of the war which for a news organization is
> >healthy.
>
> They should neither be "skeptical" nor supportive. They should be
> neutral.
>
I'm not sure "neutral" is the right word John. I think a better word
would be "objective".
Since they are the American Broadcast Corp., the National Broadcast
Corp.(the nation is the U.S.), the Public Broadcasting System(again the
public is the U.S. public who also fund it)etc. and their freedoms are
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,it's hard to say they should be
neutral, but they should be objective in their coverage.
Switzerland, on the other hand, can be neutral, but they really should
turn over Saddam's money to a charity to help feed Iraqi's or something
similar.
Bud
fanatical, organized individuals who were willing to attack anywhere
in America in order to take the greatest number of American lives.
When they attacked our ship, and embassy in Africa, we didn`t react
strongly like we should have. After 9-11, actions were decided on to
defend ourselves here, and attack our enemies overseas. It wasn`t
panic, it was common sense.
>
>
> >
> > It is clear that 9/11 forced the U.S. to reevaluate our entire Mid-east
> > policy. That policy, epitomized by our failure to remove saddam, was
> > basically to support the governments who many believe to be oppressors
> > of the people of the region, so long as they are not anti-U.S., because
> > we feared the radicals more that we hoped for a better life for the
> > people of the region. In the end we were still blamed for the plight of
> > the opressed and did almost nothing to change the situation.
>
> I'm no historian, but how many examples are there of states acting out of
> 'virtue' rather than out of percieved self interest? The US may well be -
> probably is - removing Saddam out of pure percieved self interest. Doesn't
> change the fact that it's a wholly virtuous idea - imho - if it can be
> done 'cheaply' enough. It looks like it can, thank God.
>
> >
> > The fact that it is clear that the U.S. will stay and rebuild Iraq
> > proves that this war is not pointless.
>
> You know a sceptical world will be watching where all those redevelopment
> contracts go :-)
>
we leave without rebuilding, we will be criticized. If we stay and
rebuild, we will be criticized. The sceptical world believes we
invaded Iraq to sieze thier oil. The sceptical world are idiots.
> >
> > Removing the Taliban and stopping would have been pointless.
>
> If they'd handed over bin laden, would they still have been removed?
>
neighbors houses, you shouldn`t be surprised when he brings trouble to
your door. They could have kept him under supervision while he was in
thier country. They didn`t because they supported his cause, and his
methods. That made them our enemy. They had a whole country at thier
disposal to run any way they wanted, could screw up with thier brand
of religion. That wasn`t good enough, so they lost control of that
country. It really wasn`t a bad thing.
> > Sending more weapons inspector's into Iraq would have been pointless.
>
> Why, if the whole point was only to ensure he had no WMD?
>
We have just ensured he has no WMD, and never will get WMD.
> >
> > Engaging in a proactive policy in the middle east and showing that the
> > U.S. has no animosity towards Islam,
>
> The recent action in iraq has increased the perception of US animosity
> towards Islam enormously, at least in Islamic states. I'm sure the world
> wide pool of potential 'martyrs' is a pretty fair sized ocean by now.
>
The group that attacked us on 9-11 was a mixed group, from different
Arab countries. They`ve been recruiting from them all. If one half of
one half of one percent of all arab males are willing to maryyr
themselves against us, that is tens of thousands of potential maryrs.
If that number goes up to a full percentage point, does it really
matter? We were under threat of attack before, we will be after Iraq.
We cannot have our actions dictated because they are willing to die
for thier cause, and take people with them. If right-wing groups start
using these tactics, would you be in favor of appeasment?
> and no fear of radicals, and showing
> > that freedom from opression can lead to peace and prosperity may someday
> > bring true peace to that portion of the world is definitely not pointless.
>
> Here here. But the motive for the invasion of Iraq was not to create
> "freedom from opression that can lead to peace and prosperity " but to
> ensure the safety of the US by ensuring Iraq had no WMD. If the motive
> really was the former, then that's what you might call virtuous ( also
> totally illegal, but what the hell ; -) We are told it was the latter,
> which does indeed show a certain 'fear of radicals'. Wasn't it the fear of
> the Ayatollahs that made the US create Saddam in the first place?
>
We didn`t "create" Saddam. We helped him in his fight with our common
enemy. And it may have been that brutal war that led to the loosening
of the power of the clerics in Iran you see today. Too much martyrdom
leads to disillusionment.
> Moral of story:
> Create monster to fight your enemy at your own peril.
>
Moral of the story: you can draw any conclusion you want to from any
event.
> We / you will be needing Solomon (the wise fellow..) not Rambo (the 'kick
> ass' fellow ) :-)
>
Even Solomon went to war against his enemies.
-Bud
> Paul S.
Paul Seaton
"Bud" <sirs...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:efd28d51.03040...@posting.google.com...
Bud,
I'm just imagining the converse of that.
If (for eg) China decided to 'defend themselves' at home & 'attack their
enemies overseas' ?
(With the Chinese themselves reserving the right to decide who 'their
enemies overseas' were).
Would you defend their right to do so on the grounds that it was 'common
sense'? (Chinese invade Taiwan : "It's only common sense" say US leaders.
North Korea invades South Korea "It's only common sense" say US leaders.
Cuba invades US "It's only common sense" say US leaders. )
Or is there some fundamental difference between Americans & everyone else
that makes the US a special case?
Would you seriously suggest that the world would be a better place if every
nation were to immediately attack any other nation it happened to decide was
a 'threat'?
Then the same would apply to North Korea if they marched into South Korea.
"The skeptical world are idiots" says N Korean leader.
Seems to me that this a game where everyone on the planet is obliged to at
least keep up the pretence of abiding by international law - except the US.
The US is playing "we will do whatever we want to do because we no longer
feel safe" but is not about to grant that right to anyone else.
At bottom - one law for the US, another law for everyone else.
Let's imagine India (one sunny morning) invading Pakistan.
"We didn't feel safe" explains Indian foreign minister. "if you don't
understand that, you are an idiot".
Would that be defensible?
If you were an Indian, you'd probably answer 'yes', but I can't imagine
anyone else would.
> > >
> > > Removing the Taliban and stopping would have been pointless.
> >
> > If they'd handed over bin laden, would they still have been removed?
> >
> Probably. If you have a guest in your house who is burning down your
> neighbors houses, you shouldn`t be surprised when he brings trouble to
> your door.
But (say) you turn him over to the (self appointed) police, the (self
appointed) police would still be justified in charging into your house &
'removing' you?
They could have kept him under supervision while he was in
> thier country. They didn`t because they supported his cause, and his
> methods. That made them our enemy. They had a whole country at thier
> disposal to run any way they wanted, could screw up with thier brand
> of religion.
US decides country X is screwing up.
US invades country X.
>That wasn`t good enough, so they lost control of that
> country.
US decides country X not good enough.
US seizes control of country X.
>It really wasn`t a bad thing.
Probably not, on balance, in the particular cases of Iraq & Afghanistan.
But the overarching logic of the situation is still:
"US doesn't like you, US will remove you".
If peoples are now unilaterally granting themselves the right to remove any
other govt. they don't happen to like, how can you argue with
fundamentalists who say "We don't like US. We feel threatened by US.
Therefore we will remove US". ???
>From their POV, it's just (percieved) threat removal - which is fine by you,
apparently.
>
> > > Sending more weapons inspector's into Iraq would have been pointless.
> >
> > Why, if the whole point was only to ensure he had no WMD?
> >
> We have just ensured he has no WMD, and never will get WMD.
OK, two down, a few hundred to go?
After all, if you can justify to yourself invading any country you want to
on the grounds that * it might one day get WMD* you are granting yourself
pretty much carte blanche to invade whoever, whenever you feel like it.
You are above the law.
You ARE the law.
Fine, so long as the US is run by archangels.
> > >
> > > Engaging in a proactive policy in the middle east and showing that the
> > > U.S. has no animosity towards Islam,
> >
> > The recent action in iraq has increased the perception of US animosity
> > towards Islam enormously, at least in Islamic states. I'm sure the
world
> > wide pool of potential 'martyrs' is a pretty fair sized ocean by now.
> >
> The group that attacked us on 9-11 was a mixed group, from different
> Arab countries. They`ve been recruiting from them all. If one half of
> one half of one percent of all arab males are willing to maryyr
> themselves against us, that is tens of thousands of potential maryrs.
> If that number goes up to a full percentage point, does it really
> matter? We were under threat of attack before, we will be after Iraq.
More so, you seem to admit.
> We cannot have our actions dictated because they are willing to die
> for thier cause, and take people with them.
The motive for invading Iraq was to minimise the threat of attack on the US.
You admit that threat is probably now more serious than it was before the
invasion.
If right-wing groups start
> using these tactics, would you be in favor of appeasment?
If some right wing terror group with funding from a billionaire in Zaire
attacked some building here in London, I would feel a little worried if the
british govt. proceeded to invade (say) Iceland, which had no known
connection to the right wing terror group whatever.
>
> > and no fear of radicals, and showing
> > > that freedom from opression can lead to peace and prosperity may
someday
> > > bring true peace to that portion of the world is definitely not
pointless.
> >
> > Here here. But the motive for the invasion of Iraq was not to create
> > "freedom from opression that can lead to peace and prosperity " but to
> > ensure the safety of the US by ensuring Iraq had no WMD. If the motive
> > really was the former, then that's what you might call virtuous ( also
> > totally illegal, but what the hell ; -) We are told it was the latter,
> > which does indeed show a certain 'fear of radicals'. Wasn't it the fear
of
> > the Ayatollahs that made the US create Saddam in the first place?
> >
> We didn`t "create" Saddam. We helped him in his fight with our common
> enemy.
You gave him the tools to finish the job...
> And it may have been that brutal war that led to the loosening
> of the power of the clerics in Iran you see today.
!!!!! Well thanks a bunch our friend good ole Ayatollah crunchin' Saddam
"good guy" Hussein !!!! You sure whupped them clerics good !!!
You 'helped' a psychopath.
He was a 'good' psychopath in those days.. ?
He gave his political prisoners a nice cup of tea and a cucumber sandwich?
He wasn't throwing opponents into plastic shredders back then?
Of course he was.
He was busy gassing whole Kurdish towns?
Of course he was.
But what the heck, eh?
Thus we learn that the US will make a pact with any vermin whatever if it
feels it's interest is threatened.
(Shouldn't be surprised about that. That's the way nations have always
operated).
Unless this is some radically new kind of US administration, it's policies
will be based on percieved US self interest.
It's new policy seems to be (in a nutshell) "Any regime anywhere we don't
happen to like, we will remove, if we think we can get away with it".
Too much martyrdom
> leads to disillusionment.
>
> > Moral of story:
> > Create monster to fight your enemy at your own peril.
> >
> Moral of the story: you can draw any conclusion you want to from any
> event.
>
> > We / you will be needing Solomon (the wise fellow..) not Rambo (the
'kick
> > ass' fellow ) :-)
> >
> Even Solomon went to war against his enemies.
Shit. :-)
Did he?
I knew I should have stayed awake during those bible readings... :-)
paul s
> -Bud
> > Paul S.
>
Michael Russ
sorry if I kind of butt in on Bud.
I don't believe there is any "one" motive. That is
the point.
There is a series of events and situations that all
have to be taken into account. This simplifying of
the situation is a tactic of the anti-war crowd
because it makes good slogans. "No Smoking Gun", "No
war for oil", etc.
This war is the result of a change in American Policy
towards the Middle East as a result of 9/11. The
first logical step in that policy had to be the
removal of Saddam Hussein, because his continued
presence was a highlight of the failures of our well
meaning, but ultimately failing policy of the past,
and a signal to those who would do us harm that we
were a paper tiger.
> > > >
> > > > It is critical now that we stay the course,
> and build a prosperous,
> > > > peaceful, self governed Iraq, and show that we
> are not hostile to
> Islam or
> > > > Arabs, and that we do not fear those who wish
> to scare us off.
> > >
> > > I hope it works out like that. Things seem to be
> going .. I hesitate to
> > > say 'well'.... as if so many corpses could ever
> be 'good'... but it
> > > doesn't look as if this is going to turn into a
> never ending quagmire.
This is the type of result that was expected, and was
another reason for the war. I don't know what world
some of the anti-war people live in, but I don't think
it is so rediculous for a country to factor in the
fact that there was no threat of losing a war when
deciding whether or not to go to war.
The Chinese may have done lot's of terrible things
that justified a regime change, but the fact of the
matter is, we will not go to war with them, because it
would be devistating.
You may be on to something there. I think we feel
much less comfortable with being threatened than other
countries may.
If Taiwan had nurtured groups who committed acts of
terrorism on a scale as massive as the WTC, I dare to
say China would have invaded, and we would not have
stoppped them.
That is the real world. But you know what, Taiwan
would know better, because they know China would not
stand for it. That is the point, the U.S. did not
make it clear that these terrorists that there was a
price to pay. Removing the Talliban would not have
been a high enough price. Harassing Saddam with
inspectors would not have been a high enough price.
Removing Saddam and developing an independent
prosperous, peaceful Iraq that will be a bullwork
against radicals, is the first step in raising that
price tag to the point that others will think twice.
Wait a minute Paul. This whole thing started because
Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq started it. This is
nothing like N.Korea just Marching into the south for
no good reason.
> "The skeptical world are idiots" says N Korean
> leader.
That sounds about par for the course as far as N.Korea
goes.
> Seems to me that this a game where everyone on the
> planet is obliged to at
> least keep up the pretence of abiding by
> international law - except the US.
I don't care who you are talking about, be it the
Korea, the U.S. France or Germany, those countries
will put their own self interest before "international
law", and that is exactly as one would expect it.
So why do you even pretend like this stuff is
critical?
International law, is a good theory when the whole
world reaches a higher level, and the stakes are not
very high. Until then, whether you like it or not,
military might is still critical to international
relations.
> The US is playing "we will do whatever we want to do
> because we no longer
> feel safe" but is not about to grant that right to
> anyone else.
We often give such leeway to Isreal. We let you guys
do what you wanted in the Faulklands. The U.S. has
alwys understood the realpolitics of the cold war.
I'm just wondering where this high and mighty strict
adherence to international consensus all of a sudden
comes from.
> At bottom - one law for the US, another law for
> everyone else.
Nope, Like I said I don't really expect any other
nation to bend to the will of the international
community when they feel their own critical self
interests are at stake. Do you?
>
> Let's imagine India (one sunny morning) invading
> Pakistan.
> "We didn't feel safe" explains Indian foreign
> minister. "if you don't
> understand that, you are an idiot".
> Would that be defensible?
That would depend on what Pakistan had done prior to
the invasion. If there was some provocative actions
by Pakistan our reaction would be much diiferent than
if there was no provocative action.
Why do the anti-war people pretend like this stuff
takes place in a vacuum, and you can apply one siple
rule to any set of circumstances.
We see Isreal do this kind of stuff all the time, and
I can't say I blame them. There are people out there
who wish to see them removed from the face of the
earth. In that situation it is understandable that
they feel a need to be preemtive.
> If you were an Indian, you'd probably answer 'yes',
> but I can't imagine
> anyone else would.
If the international Community felt so strongly about
this, they were more than welcome to pull out of the
U.N. and provide military aid to the Iraqis.
The fact of the matter is, the world knows that what
the U.S. is doing is right, they just don't like the
fact that we can do it with or without them. I don't
think they fear that the U.S. is going to go on a
military rampage, but they do know that this will have
stong economic consequences. So maybe the chant
should be "no anti-war protests so we can do business
with Baghdad"
>
> > > >
> > > > Removing the Taliban and stopping would have
> been pointless.
> > >
> > > If they'd handed over bin laden, would they
> still have been removed?
> > >
> > Probably. If you have a guest in your house who
> is burning down your
> > neighbors houses, you shouldn`t be surprised when
> he brings trouble to
> > your door.
>
> But (say) you turn him over to the (self appointed)
> police, the (self
> appointed) police would still be justified in
> charging into your house &
> 'removing' you?
>
Again with examples that are nothing like the
situation at hand.
You use "me" as the person turning the terrorist over,
because obvioulsy it doesn't make sense that I should
be blamed for what the terrorist did, but the Taliban
and I have nothing in common.
I would hand over a terrorist because I despise all
that they stand for, The Talliban would only have
turned over Bin Laden because they knew that it was
him or them. That doesn't stop them from creating and
harboring more Bin Laden's, especially once the paper
tiger Americans show they are affraid to really do
anything about it.
> They could have kept him under supervision while he
> was in
> > thier country. They didn`t because they supported
> his cause, and his
> > methods. That made them our enemy. They had a
> whole country at thier
> > disposal to run any way they wanted, could screw
> up with thier brand
> > of religion.
>
> US decides country X is screwing up.
> US invades country X.
Yep, that's about it, especially if X is a rogue
nation, unlikely to be supported by anyone else
militarily. Good incentive for rogue nations not to
engage in thing like blowing up our buildings, which
we would clearly consider screwing up. I think the
clearer the U.S. is in establishing the fact that we
are not going to put up with this stuff the safer the
world is. I truly believe if the U.S. had backed down
in face of some international dissention that it would
have emboldened others who might have considered
another attack on the U.S.
Fortunately for the world, the U.S. has shown an
amazing ability to restrain itself, given its military
superiority. So we have earned that right.
If the world truly believes that this action in Iraq
somehow violates what we have earned through the
years, than so be it. But I really find it hard to
believe that anyone with sound judgement could come to
that conclusion.
Of course how the U.S. treats Iraq now, should have a
major effect on that judgement.
> >That wasn`t good enough, so they lost control of
> that
> > country.
>
> US decides country X not good enough.
> US seizes control of country X.
Define good enough?
Why do usse these types of phrases that imply that we
just dis this on a whim? The anti-war movement loves
to ignore the realities that were Saddam Hussein, and
instead talk about fictional other scenarios.
There is no good reason that any civlized country
would oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein by force.
So they argue about the need for international
consensus. Well if there is no good reason not to
remove him, why isn't there international consensus?
So now the focus is on our flaunting international
consensus instead of on why anti-war nations are
taking a completely indefensible position that Saddam
does not deserve to be removed by force. Get's them
off the hook nicely doesn't it.
> >It really wasn`t a bad thing.
>
> Probably not, on balance, in the particular cases of
> Iraq & Afghanistan.
> But the overarching logic of the situation is still:
> "US doesn't like you, US will remove you".
> If peoples are now unilaterally granting themselves
> the right to remove any
> other govt. they don't happen to like, how can you
> argue with
> fundamentalists who say "We don't like US. We feel
> threatened by US.
> Therefore we will remove US". ???
If there was some logical way for them to defend that
position, I guess I wouldn't blame them if they took
it. But the fact of the matter is, that that position
is indefensible, so it is completely irrelevant.
If the U.S. was indded invading other countries at
will and subjegating them to our will, I would expect
them to go to war with us. After all our country was
born from a violent revolution.
So there is no "overarching logic" to consider here.
There is only the current situation to evaluate. and
9/11 plays a huge roll in that evaluation.
> >From their POV, it's just (percieved) threat
> removal - which is fine by you,
> apparently.
If you can give me a good reason why any country shoud
perceive the U.S. as a true threat to their security,
in absense of their stated willingness to commit acts
of violence against us, then I will consider your
argument seriously.
> > > > Sending more weapons inspector's into Iraq
> would have been pointless.
> > >
> > > Why, if the whole point was only to ensure he
> had no WMD?
> > >
> > We have just ensured he has no WMD, and never
> will get WMD.
>
> OK, two down, a few hundred to go?
> After all, if you can justify to yourself invading
> any country you want to
> on the grounds that * it might one day get WMD* you
> are granting yourself
> pretty much carte blanche to invade whoever,
> whenever you feel like it.
Boy that could be a nice position to be in. The world
would probably even be more secure if it were true.
(after all if the world cowered from us like they
Iraqi's coward from Saddam, we could just tell any
nations considering war to forget it or we will come
in adn take them over)But the fact of the matter is,
that that is not the american perspective, and never
will be the american perspective. So why do anti-war
people trot this out like it is relavent?
> You are above the law.
> You ARE the law.
> Fine, so long as the US is run by archangels.
Or by people who want nothing more than to be left
alone.
> > > >
> > > > Engaging in a proactive policy in the middle
> east and showing that the
> > > > U.S. has no animosity towards Islam,
> > >
> > > The recent action in iraq has increased the
> perception of US animosity
> > > towards Islam enormously, at least in Islamic
> states. I'm sure the
> world
> > > wide pool of potential 'martyrs' is a pretty
> fair sized ocean by now.
> > >
> > The group that attacked us on 9-11 was a mixed
> group, from different
> > Arab countries. They`ve been recruiting from them
> all. If one half of
> > one half of one percent of all arab males are
> willing to maryyr
> > themselves against us, that is tens of thousands
> of potential maryrs.
> > If that number goes up to a full percentage point,
> does it really
> > matter? We were under threat of attack before, we
> will be after Iraq.
>
> More so, you seem to admit.
I would admit that removing Saddam was only a first
step. If we don't do the right thing now, things
could end up worse instead of better.
>
> > We cannot have our actions dictated because they
> are willing to die
> > for thier cause, and take people with them.
>
> The motive for invading Iraq was to minimise the
> threat of attack on the US.
> You admit that threat is probably now more serious
> than it was before the
> invasion.
Yep, in the short run. Every american policy maker
has made it clear that this is a long term project.
>
>
> If right-wing groups start
> > using these tactics, would you be in favor of
> appeasment?
>
> If some right wing terror group with funding from a
> billionaire in Zaire
> attacked some building here in London, I would feel
> a little worried if the
> british govt. proceeded to invade (say) Iceland,
> which had no known
> connection to the right wing terror group whatever.
Once again this is nothing like the situation at hand.
Why do you keep on making up wacky examples and
saying that the same logic that applies there, should
apply here. Are we supposed to be blind to history
and context when we make our decisions?
You really think that is our policy Paul?
Do you honestly believe that is the way this
administration, or the people of this country think?
This is what is disappointing about the anti-war
movement. There is an underlying current of
anti-americanism in it, and it really is not based on
an honest evaluation of the roll the U.S. has played
in history.
Or do you leave open the possibility that in life good
people and good countries are often faced with
difficult choices. And sometimes neither of those
choices are what we prefer, but we have to go with the
lesser of two evils.
Although we have had our good times as well as our bad
times, overwhelmingly we have done the right thing. I
honestly believe that the U.S. has earned the right to
remove a brutal dictator like Hussein without the type
of backlash that we received from France, and even
Canada to some extent. I think your country has earned
that right also.
>
> Too much martyrdom
> > leads to disillusionment.
> >
> > > Moral of story:
> > > Create monster to fight your enemy at your own
> peril.
> > >
> > Moral of the story: you can draw any conclusion
> you want to from any
> > event.
> >
> > > We / you will be needing Solomon (the wise
> fellow..) not Rambo (the
> 'kick
> > > ass' fellow ) :-)
> > >
> > Even Solomon went to war against his enemies.
>
> Shit. :-)
> Did he?
> I knew I should have stayed awake during those bible
> readings... :-)
You and me both Paul.
Mike
> paul s
>
>
>
>
> >
> -Bud
> > > Paul S.
> >
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Jerry Organ
>plastic shredders back then?
Sounds like one of those Internet rumors??
JO
Paul Seaton
"Jerry Organ" <jjo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030410145502...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> >He wasn't throwing opponents into
> >plastic shredders back then?
>
> Sounds like one of those Internet rumors??
Jerry,
I think it was either the Daily Telegraph or The Independent (London)
reporting the account of a guy who had been # 31 or so in a queue of 30 who
were launched into a plastic-bottle shredder, either with Mr S or one of his
sons in attendance. I forget which.
He said the lucky ones went in head first.
He survived because they took a tea break or whatever.
See also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2919805.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2930739.stm
And conversely :
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604
Paul S
>
> JO
>
Bud
Is it really possible you can`t see the difference between your
hypothetical examples, and the reality of what happened on 9-11? Three
thousand dead Americans is not a hypothetical threat. ANY country has
the right to defend itself from attack. If Tiawan is foolish enough to
bomb a Chinese city, then too bad for Tiawan.
The US is playing the "we will not sit back and wait until our
enemies attack us" game. And my point about the world being sceptical
was not to justify aggression, it was to note that the skeptical world
would not be pleased no matter what we did.
> Let's imagine India (one sunny morning) invading Pakistan.
> "We didn't feel safe" explains Indian foreign minister. "if you don't
> understand that, you are an idiot".
> Would that be defensible?
> If you were an Indian, you'd probably answer 'yes', but I can't imagine
> anyone else would.
>
Not too long ago, they almost went to war when a handful of Kashmir
separatists attacked India`s governmental palace. A handful of guards
were killed, if I remember correctly. A lot less than 3,000 civilians.
If these Pakistan-backed terrorists continued to launch attacks on
India, no doubt they would have gone to war.
>
> > > >
> > > > Removing the Taliban and stopping would have been pointless.
> > >
> > > If they'd handed over bin laden, would they still have been removed?
> > >
> > Probably. If you have a guest in your house who is burning down your
> > neighbors houses, you shouldn`t be surprised when he brings trouble to
> > your door.
>
> But (say) you turn him over to the (self appointed) police, the (self
> appointed) police would still be justified in charging into your house &
> 'removing' you?
>
Well, for starters, the Taliban assembly refused to hand over Bin
Laden and company. They wouldn`t even admit he was in thier country
for a while. I can imagine the UN easter egg hunt if they would have
gone in looking for them. And since they had aided Al-Qaeda in thier
crimes, by providing safe haven from which to commit those crimes,
then they were accomplices to those crimes.
> They could have kept him under supervision while he was in
> > thier country. They didn`t because they supported his cause, and his
> > methods. That made them our enemy. They had a whole country at thier
> > disposal to run any way they wanted, could screw up with thier brand
> > of religion.
>
> US decides country X is screwing up.
> US invades country X.
>
Is that anything like what I said? You have that unique leftist
ability to completely ignore one whole side of the equation. Let me
guess... you`re a CTer. We didn`t throw darts at a map, and attack the
country the dart hit. We were attacked. Honest. You can look it up.
The people who attacked us were based in Afghanistan, with the
approval of that government. Really.
> >That wasn`t good enough, so they lost control of that
> > country.
>
> US decides country X not good enough.
> US seizes control of country X.
>
Ok, lets try it this way. Instead of attacking the US, Al-Qaeda
released poision gas in London, killing, say 3,000 people.
Intelligence gathered leads to a group based in Afganistan. The
leaders of that country claim to have no such group operating within
it`s borders. In what world does the UK say OK, sorry for bothering
you?
> >It really wasn`t a bad thing.
>
> Probably not, on balance, in the particular cases of Iraq & Afghanistan.
> But the overarching logic of the situation is still:
>
"US doesn't like you, US will remove you".
>
What countries were we threatening to remove before 9-11? The quote
should read "If you plot against the US, then the US will not wait
until your plots hatch before acting".
If peoples are now unilaterally granting themselves the right to
remove any
> other govt. they don't happen to like, how can you argue with
> fundamentalists who say "We don't like US. We feel threatened by US.
> Therefore we will remove US". ???
> >From their POV, it's just (percieved) threat removal - which is fine by you,
> apparently.
>
You imply that we do this on a whim, singling out countries we don`t
like. Since you seem unaware we were attacked, I doubt you`ll be able
to perceive any threats against us in the future.
>
>
> >
> > > > Sending more weapons inspector's into Iraq would have been pointless.
> > >
> > > Why, if the whole point was only to ensure he had no WMD?
> > >
> > We have just ensured he has no WMD, and never will get WMD.
>
> OK, two down, a few hundred to go?
> After all, if you can justify to yourself invading any country you want to
> on the grounds that * it might one day get WMD* you are granting yourself
> pretty much carte blanche to invade whoever, whenever you feel like it.
> You are above the law.
> You ARE the law.
> Fine, so long as the US is run by archangels.
>
No, better than that... Republicans.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Engaging in a proactive policy in the middle east and showing that the
> > > > U.S. has no animosity towards Islam,
> > >
> > > The recent action in iraq has increased the perception of US animosity
> > > towards Islam enormously, at least in Islamic states. I'm sure the
> world
> > > wide pool of potential 'martyrs' is a pretty fair sized ocean by now.
> > >
> > The group that attacked us on 9-11 was a mixed group, from different
> > Arab countries. They`ve been recruiting from them all. If one half of
> > one half of one percent of all arab males are willing to maryyr
> > themselves against us, that is tens of thousands of potential maryrs.
> > If that number goes up to a full percentage point, does it really
> > matter? We were under threat of attack before, we will be after Iraq.
>
> More so, you seem to admit.
>
Not really, if we keep thier organizations disrupted. Like I said,
they had tens of thousands of potential martyrs before the Iraqi
liberation, yet you didn`t see nearly that many attacks. It takes more
than just finding fanatics, you need to put them in a position to do
harm. And now we are wary.
> > We cannot have our actions dictated because they are willing to die
> > for thier cause, and take people with them.
>
> The motive for invading Iraq was to minimise the threat of attack on the US.
> You admit that threat is probably now more serious than it was before the
> invasion.
>
No, see above. If there is increased short-term threat, that should
be offset by lessened long-term danger. Either way, we are threatened,
as demonstrated by 9-11.
>
> If right-wing groups start
> > using these tactics, would you be in favor of appeasment?
>
> If some right wing terror group with funding from a billionaire in Zaire
> attacked some building here in London, I would feel a little worried if the
> british govt. proceeded to invade (say) Iceland, which had no known
> connection to the right wing terror group whatever.
>
Well, it looks like they may have found weapons grade plutonium in
Iceland. Time will tell.
>
>
> >
> > > and no fear of radicals, and showing
> > > > that freedom from opression can lead to peace and prosperity may
> someday
> > > > bring true peace to that portion of the world is definitely not
> pointless.
> > >
> > > Here here. But the motive for the invasion of Iraq was not to create
> > > "freedom from opression that can lead to peace and prosperity " but to
> > > ensure the safety of the US by ensuring Iraq had no WMD. If the motive
> > > really was the former, then that's what you might call virtuous ( also
> > > totally illegal, but what the hell ; -) We are told it was the latter,
> > > which does indeed show a certain 'fear of radicals'. Wasn't it the fear
> of
> > > the Ayatollahs that made the US create Saddam in the first place?
> > >
> > We didn`t "create" Saddam. We helped him in his fight with our common
> > enemy.
>
> You gave him the tools to finish the job...
>
We armed Saddam to stem the tide of Islamic fanaticism. We armed
Afganistan to stem the tide of communism. Those two things were high
on our "bad things we should oppose" list in the 80`s. Saddam used us,
and we used Saddam, but he was never ours to control. Our interests
converged is all. Somehow, some people think they can identify all the
complexities of American foreign policy, yet seem unaware of the cold
war, or the rise of religious fanaticism.
> > And it may have been that brutal war that led to the loosening
> > of the power of the clerics in Iran you see today.
>
> !!!!! Well thanks a bunch our friend good ole Ayatollah crunchin' Saddam
> "good guy" Hussein !!!! You sure whupped them clerics good !!!
> You 'helped' a psychopath.
> He was a 'good' psychopath in those days.. ?
> He gave his political prisoners a nice cup of tea and a cucumber sandwich?
> He wasn't throwing opponents into plastic shredders back then?
> Of course he was.
> He was busy gassing whole Kurdish towns?
> Of course he was.
> But what the heck, eh?
>
Besides the US, there aren`t many countries run by archangels. I
suppose your point is that if the US aids a country, they are
forevermore responsible for anything done by that country. Well, we
aid all the countries, so give us all the blame.
> Thus we learn that the US will make a pact with any vermin whatever if it
> feels it's interest is threatened.
> (Shouldn't be surprised about that. That's the way nations have always
> operated).
> Unless this is some radically new kind of US administration, it's policies
> will be based on percieved US self interest.
> It's new policy seems to be (in a nutshell) "Any regime anywhere we don't
> happen to like, we will remove, if we think we can get away with it".
>
You seem very bad at summing up US policy. You seem to have a poor
understanding of US policy, and apparently that extends to your view
of the world in general. Our President sets foreign policy... if you
want a clue what that policy is, you may care to listen to what he has
to say on the matter.
>
> Too much martyrdom
> > leads to disillusionment.
> >
> > > Moral of story:
> > > Create monster to fight your enemy at your own peril.
> > >
> > Moral of the story: you can draw any conclusion you want to from any
> > event.
> >
> > > We / you will be needing Solomon (the wise fellow..) not Rambo (the
> 'kick
> > > ass' fellow ) :-)
> > >
> > Even Solomon went to war against his enemies.
>
> Shit. :-)
> Did he?
> I knew I should have stayed awake during those bible readings... :-)
>
Whew... I was afraid you were going to call me on that. I have no
idea whether he did or not... seems like something he would do, being
wise and all.
-Bud
Bud
Yeah, A friend sent me an e-mail that contained what was proported
to be an affidavit from a witness to one of Saddam`s son lowering
people into a plastic shredder. It was supposed to be evidence some
humanitarian group was gathering, I think. I read it, but I`m
generally sceptical about that stuff... too many people have axes to
grind, and put out dis-information, to take a lot of that stuff at
face value. Maybe it happened, maybe not. We can ask them when we get
to the bottom of that smoking crater. I think they`ve recovered a
mustache.
-Bud