I hope that is not how you took what I said, Brummie?
NoOo I was agreeing with you and just making the point that its not the norm, it didnt seem to me that you were implying that it was, i just said it as an off the cuff statement.
x x
Brummie
They are playing the Iraq abuse video's all over British tv
by Brummie 32 Replies latest social current
-
Brummie
-
Yerusalyim
WHY is this such a big story? The US Military was all over this LONG before the press picked it up. Chalk it up to the leftist slant of the major news outlets. On the other hand, why so little coverage of a much bigger scandal, the UN Oil for food scandal, where world security came down to a few bribes by Saddam with money that was suppossed to buy food for the Iraqi people that no one really seems to have cared about except when they could quote (from an Iraqi source) the supposed number of dead children because of the "embargo" Why not more coverage of the US and Iraqi police raiding Chalabi's house and discovering the Intel he turned over to Iran? For that matter why not the coverage of all the hospitals, schools, and houses the US forces have refurbished?
-
Richie
You never hear of the oil-for-food scandal, except on FoxNews of course. But nowhere else in the media do I see coverage of this huge scandal, where Saddam Hussein was bribing high ranking officials with billions (not millions) of dollars! Can you now see the reason why countries like Russia, France, Germany were so against the invasion into Iraq and show so much resistance against the USA? It becomes clearer every day?..
Richie :*)
-
Satanus
I wonder why some just can't deal with positive news?
You rightists/bushies complain about the current coverage, but was there ever any complaint about noncoverage of the positive social programs that saddam instituted in iraq pre gulf war one? Cutting down illiteracy to practically nothing (including girls), encouraging women to get educated and get good jobs, maternity leave, promoting art, etc, or other positive aspects of the baathist party after it was determined that there be war for iraq?
The media has served your war cause very well, while it was going good. Now, the media tide has turned, and you complain. Let's face it, the media is like a prostitute. It serves the highest bidder or the most powerful/popular figure of the moment. But, above all, media serves it's own interests.
SS who has not yet seen these shit videos that media is spewing for public consumption
-
Richie
This is an article from Victor Davis Hanson (from the National Review Online):
May 21, 2004, 8:30 a.m. Season of Apologies It?s time for reckless critics to own up
P resident Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld were both asked to apologize recently for the illegal and amoral behavior of a few miscreant soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They did so without qualifications, despite the fact the military had itself uncovered the transgressions and already prepared a blistering indictment of such reprehensible acts. Media scrutiny was intense; a general has already been removed from command; court trials are scheduled; and more resignations, demotions, and jail time loom.
But since we are in the season of apologies, we might as well continue it to the bitter end. Here I do not mean the buffoons like Michael Moore whose remorse would be as spurious as the original slander was lunatic, but rather serious commentators and statesmen who have crossed the line and need to step back. So here it goes.
Ted Kennedy is the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts. He wields enormous influence and has appointed himself as surrogate spokesman for the Democratic opposition. Yet here is how he recently weighed in about Abu Ghraib: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management ? U.S. management."
This slander is both untrue and dangerous at a time when thousands of Americans are under fire in the field from commandos and criminals without uniforms who often pose as innocent civilians. The slur, pompously and publicly aired, is a morally reprehensible pronouncement in almost every way imaginable inasmuch as Saddam murdered tens of thousands with the full sanction of the Iraqi state apparatus. In contrast, a few rogue U.S. soldiers may have tortured and sexually humiliated some Iraqi prisoners ? evoking audit and censure at the highest levels of "U.S. management" and inevitable court martial for those directly involved. There is no evidence that the "torture chambers" that disemboweled, shredded, and hung prisoners on meat hooks are now "reopened" for similar procedures on orders of the American government.
Mr. Kennedy should apologize. His reckless and feeble attempts at moral equivalence are wrong in matters of magnitude, government responsibility, and public disclosure, remorse, and accountability. Worse still, his silly comments ? printed around the Arab world ? suggest to the those on the battlefield that a high-ranking official of their own American government believes that his own soldiers are fighting for a cause no different from that which murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Thomas L. Friedman is the chief New York Times columnist now writing about foreign affairs. Millions at home and abroad read what he writes, and trust him to be both sober and judicious in his criticism. We have all read him with profit at times. But in a particularly angry opinion editorial on May 13 he leveled the following baffling charge: "I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam."
That charge is simply untrue, and is nearly as reckless as Mr. Kennedy's remarks. Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides do not "hate" Mr. Powell. No one has expressed such venom. But what is truly reprehensible is to imply that officials of the United States government wished far worse for their own decorated Secretary of State than they did for a mass murderer with whom they were then currently at war. Once more such a malicious remark will do untold damage abroad. If Mr. Friedman cannot produce a reputable source or direct quotation for such an unfortunate attribution that borders on character assassination, he should apologize for being both wrong and incendiary.
So far we know as much about the Oil-for-Food mess as we do the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal. Other than the sensational pictorial evidence from the prisons, the only difference in the respective ongoing audits is that the U.S. military is fully investigating its own while the U.N. is stonewalling. But if dozens of Iraqis may have been humiliated and perhaps even tortured by renegade American soldiers, tens of thousands of women and children faced starvation while corrupt U.N. officials at the highest levels knew about billions of needed dollars in illegal kickbacks skimmed off hand-in-glove with a mass murderer.
So far Kofi Annan ? whose own son, Kojo, was at one time associated with the Swiss Cotecna consortium involved in the shameful profiteering ? has not apologized to the Iraqi people. He should. Again, his agency's wrongdoing did not result in humiliation for some, but probably cost the lives of thousands while under his watch.
What is going on? The months of April and May have been surreal ? scandals at Abu Ghraib, decapitations and desecrations of those killed from Gaza to Iraq, and insurrections in Fallujah and Najaf. The shock of the unexpected has led to hysteria and cheap TV moralizing by critics of the war, fueled by election-year politics at home, apparent embarrassment for some erstwhile supporters of the intervention who are angry that democracy in Iraq has not appeared fully-formed out of the head of Zeus, and a certain amnesia about the recent dark history of the United Nations.
Yet there are historical forces still in play that bode well for Iraq ? aid pouring in, oil revenues increasing, Iraqi autonomy nearing, and radical terrorists failing to win public support ? all of which we are ignoring amid the successive 24-hour media barrages. The combat deaths of 700 soldiers are tragic. We in our postwar confusion have also made a number of mistakes: not storming into the Sunni Triangle at war's end, not shooting the first 500 looters that started the mass rampage of theft, not keeping some of the Iraqi army units intact, not bulldozing down Saddam Hussein's notorious prisons, not immediately putting at war's end Iraqi officials into the public arena, not storming Fallujah, and not destroying al Sadr and his militias last spring.
Still, in just a year the worst mass murderer in recent history is gone and a consensual government is scheduled to assume power in his place in just a few weeks. Postwar Iraq is not a cratered Dresden or the rubble of Stalingrad ? it is seeing power, water, and fuel production at or above prewar levels. For all the recent mishaps, two truths still remain about Iraq ? each time the American military forcibly takes on the insurrectionists, it wins; and each time local elections are held, moderate Iraqis, not Islamic radicals, have won.
So let us calm down and let events play out. If it were not an election year, Mr. Kennedy would dare not say such reprehensible things. In two or three months when there is a legitimate Iraqi government in power, Mr. Friedman may not wish to level such absurd charges. And when the truth comes out about the U.N.'s past role in Iraq, both Iraqis and Americans may not be so ready to entrust the new democracy's future to an agency that has not only done little to save Bosnians or Rwandans, but over the past decade may well have done much to harm Iraqis.
But in the meantime, let these who have transgressed all join the president and the secretary of defense and say they are sorry for what they have recklessly said and the untold harm that they have done.
-
searcher
the terrorists must be over the moon
They certainly must be, just think of it, almost the whole of the western media (and others) whipping up hatred against the Americans because of the actions of a few nutjobs.
The terrorists must be laughing all the way to the training camps.
-
Yizuman
The Liberal Press loves reporting "doom and gloom" stories more so than the positive stories. I would say from my own reading experiences about Iraq is about 75% doom and gloom and 25% positive. Sure, the Liberal Press loves reporting stories that seems like a figurehead (i.e. the President) is a jerk. Same for cops, celeberties, anyone that holds a powerful position. How many of you love squealing to the principle in school while watching a student get in king size trouble? It's very intoxicating, isn't it? Or even try to set up someone in hopes that he or she will later get into trouble? Look at the media, how many stories you read in the newspaper(s) everyday? Weigh out how many stories (say like someone got shot and killed, someone died in a accident, someone broke in and robbed a place, etc.) and compare to stories like a boy saved a baby from a house fire or a dog saved a toddler from drowning, etc. There more bad news than there are good news and people feed off on it everyday. Yiz
-
Simon
Damn "liberal press"
What we need is some good old facist press to report the presidents claims of "imminent threats" all day every day and keep everyone afraid and pliable so they can do what they want.
Bloody do gooders wanting "justice" and "truth and liberty" and daft ideas like that. That's not what the country stands for is it? Hell no ... we want death squads, torture and murder - and sod anyone who dares question it or point out the hypocrisy and inability to deliver on promises.
-
SixofNine
Weird how 6 or 7 nutjobs just happened to end up in one common place, doing a common job of whatever it is nutjobs do, at this one critical point in history.
-
searcher
What we need is some good old facist press to report the presidents claims of "imminent threats" all day every day and keep everyone afraid and pliable so they can do what they want.
Not really, what we want is pressure on the governments concerned to do something about such reported abuses, while NOT giving terrorists aid and comfort by splashing things continually over the media.
Weird how 6 or 7 nutjobs just happened to end up in one common place, doing a common job of whatever it is nutjobs do, at this one critical point in history.
Its called war and people fight wars, I suppose in your ideal world, everyone is perfect, unfortunately, in the real world where the rest of us live, they are not.