[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Aloofi]

[quote]Originally posted by dogscoff:

Also aloofi, I find it odd that such images are Banned in america. After all, you can go down the cinema any time and see ten times as many soldiers killed with a hundred times the gore. I often find Americans very hard to understand for this sort of contradiction.
.

The problems is that we all know that movies are faked, is just acting. Now the real thing would definitively upset the mayority of americans.
Anyway, i don't consider myself american, even though both my parents are, cause i was born and raised oversea, in the land of milk and honey , but I've been living back in the US for a while and I can tell you, the yanks are anything but tough, they just like violent movies, like I do .

[geoschmo]

Aloofi,

I have edited your post. I changed your image to a link. I agree with your desire for unbiased, and even unedited news coverage. But this isn't CNN, this is a discussion forum. Their may be people here that would be offended by such graphic scenes. By displaying the image openly with no warning you do not give them the choice of whetther they wish to see it or not. In the future link to your photo's and give a description please.

Geoschmo

[tesco samoa]

Dogscoff the post was not ment to be an anti-american stance. Just a reminder to all that war is brutish and that its results are very horrible.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Aloofi,

I have edited your post. I changed your image to a link. I agree with your desire for unbiased, and even unedited news coverage. But this isn't CNN, this is a discussion forum. Their may be people here that would be offended by such graphic scenes. By displaying the image openly with no warning you do not give them the choice of whetther they wish to see it or not. In the future link to your photo's and give a description please.

Geoschmo

As much as I dislike censorship, I have to agree which Geoschmo.

A link would still allow full expression while preserving the sensibilities of the people who may not like being subjugated to extraneous stuff without their consent.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tbontob:
As much as I dislike censorship, I have to agree which Geoschmo.

A link would still allow full expression while preserving the sensibilities of the people who may not like being subjugated to extraneous stuff without their consent.

I hope no one views what I did as censorship. I left the link to the photo. Anyone that wishes to see it can click on it.

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Dogscoff the post was not ment to be an anti-american stance. Just a reminder to all that war is brutish and that its results are very horrible.

But less horrible than leaving Saddam in power.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I hear the US is complaining about Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war. How can they demand that Saddam respect the Geneva Convetnion when they won't even do it themselves?

Link-> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0111-07.htm

Yes, the treatment of Taliban/Al Qaedi prisoners is just one of the many contradictions between US policy and what the US expects of others.

If they're really interested in 'world peace' why won't they join the international court? Are the troops currently invading Iraq the sort of 'peace keepers' they want to protect by not joining this important cornerstone of international order?

An even better question, of course, is whether the forces supported by Oliver North/John Poindexter are an example of the sort of 'peace keepers' they want to protect by not joining the court treaty. The US repeatedly lost to Nicaragua's complaint at the existing 'World Court' in the Hague during the illegal proxy war on Nicaragua in the 80s -- and so claimed the court did not have 'jurisdiction' over the conflict. What world is Nicaragua in if it's not in this world?

North and Poindexter are war criminals by any rational definition of the term, and morally identical to Osama Bin Laden. They payed for at least as many deaths as Osama has to date, but the bodies were not economically valuable like those high-powered executives in the WTC. This is why they won't join the court. The US govt. thinks its own terrorists are 'heros' and doesn't want its 'heros' prosecuted as the criminals they are.

And why do they whine that Russia is not respecting UN resolutions when it (reportedly) gives GPS jamming technology to Iraq, when the US doesn't respect UN resolutions either? The original Gulf War resolutions explicitly said that Iraq was to be driven out of Kuwait and that the object was NOT to over-throw the Iraqi government. Yet the US is claiming these resolutions, and the newer 1441 which deals only with 'weapons of mass destruction', as authority to force 'regime change' in Iraq. The US can violate UN resolutions in order to enforce UN resolutions? So does the UN have authority or not? Or does the UN only have authority over nations other than the US? Or only when it agrees with the US?

Now Turkey is talking about sending its troops into northern Iraq, or might already have done so. The US of course, doesn't want them to do this. So just what is the US going to do about it? Complain to the UN? How is Turkey less 'authorized' to invade Iraq than the US? I'll be damned amused if they try to get any UN resolutions against Turkey for 'protecting its national interests' on its own borders when the US claims the right to protect its national intertests anywhere in the world. So what does that leave them? Apparently threats of force. Will US forces attack Turkish forces if they are outside Turkey? This is the world GWB has created. Might makes right and the bigger gun is 'more right' than the smaller.

The same thing goes on with domestic politics. The Federal govt. constantly bullies the states by threatening to cut off funds for various things if they don't pass laws to suit the Feds wishes, completely over-riding the supposed seperation of the layers of government provided in the constitution.

In 'response' to the total incompetance of our law enforcement and intelligence communites to prevent the WTC attacks they have passed new laws to make it possible to law enforcement to rummage through your personal affairs at will -- without legal protocols -- and have been arresting even American citizens and holding them without charge or access to legal council. Most recently a draft of another outrage has surfaced where secret arrests are authorized, apparently to avoid the inconvenience of having to defend their actions in court when people find out that someone has been 'disappeared'. Presumably this will have to include some legal sanction against people who dare to reveal that someone they know has been arrested, else it cannot remain secret for long. It was speculated that this was to be submitted in the midst of the war to take advantage of 'patritoism' to intimidate the opposition. Fortunately it doesn't look like the opposition is going to slink away this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try to pass their new powers.

The US Govt. is a monster out of control.

[ March 24, 2003, 20:10: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I hear the US is complaining about Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war. How can they demand that Saddam respect the Geneva Convetnion when they won't even do it themselves?

Probably because you can't tell the difference between soldiers and brigands.

Judging from the treatment of Iraqi soldiers who are now POWs, I'd say the US and British militaries can tell the difference. Well, except when some of Saddam's thugs open fire under a flag of surrender. Oh, but you have a handy excuse for that as well, right?

Elsewhere:

Also aloofi, I find it odd that such images are Banned in america. After all, you can go down the cinema any time and see ten times as many soldiers killed with a hundred times the gore.

Except the "gore" in the cinema involves special effects and the actors in question are usually still alive when the scene is finished. But don't let facts get in the way of your posturing.

I often find Americans very hard to understand for this sort of contradiction.

It's a matter of letting the families be informed if a loved one has been killed in action before they run into it on the nightly news and see the corpse.

AFAIK, the images aren't "Banned" but the networks are reluctant to show such things due to the above. Or if it was Banned, why was FoxNews able to show a still of the bodies from the Al-jazeera footage? One where the faces are not clearly visible, btw.

[tesco samoa]

Sorry to bring this up... But I believe that even the links to the pictures may be illegal since this server is based in the USA. A few sites have been shut down showing and displaying the links so I am going to edit my post and remove the links from below. I ask that Aloofi and others who have the links in the previous Posts do so as well. We would not like to see shrapnel shut down for inappropriate graphic material. I apolgize to Shrapnel and its members for posting the links in the first place. Tesco.

[tesco samoa]

here are some blogs i use for information as it comes in...

http://www.agonist.org/

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://warblogs.cc/
as always read everything with a grain of salt.

[ March 24, 2003, 20:56: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]