perspectives, spin and outright lies about Iraq...

Yes, this is another thread about Iraq. I've been trying to get some alternative news sources for perspective, and some of the things I've read have truly shocked me. Al-Jazeera, that most eminent of Arabic news agencies, has really done something appauling...

lies, spin and ignorance reach a nexus (http://english.aljazeera.net/Special+Reports/Iraq+under+Occupation.htm)

While I understand the term yellow journalism, and the fact that an almost unaviodable personal opinion gets interjected into any story written by humans, this editorial is simply scary. The information contained within (there's way too much to post up directly, please take the time to read a bit of it though... it's worth the time) plainly blames the rest of the world for Iraq's problems, chiefly the US and the UN. Outright lies range from the excellent freedom and opportunity Iraqi women enjoyed before the first Gulf War to why the UN is actually responsible for Iraq's failing health. Some truth is definitely to be found here, since the Arab persepctive certainly lends a closeup of how things actually get done in the Middle East. But chief among these, in my opinion, is how a dictator can bring 25 million people to their knees over a 25 year period and somehow be pardoned for his primary role in all the wars he started (33% of the bordering countries were invaded by Hussein over a 10 year period), the lives he destroyed, the chaos he created and the basice injustice which he perpetuated upon his own people and any nearby with nearly total impunity.

I was for the war in Iraq, because I think people like Saddam shouldn't be allowed even the power to wield a TV remote. Hussein was a monster, and as it had to be he was deposed forcefully. I am also completely fed up with the WMD's argument and the apparent propaganda spouted by both the American and British leaders advocating such action against Iraq; the humanitarian argument was more true, more noble and more just to begin with. In all the perspectives I've read and heard of late though, the Al-Jazeera one seems to be the most scary. Ultra right-wing conservatives haven't twisted the truth anywhere near the level of this "editorial", if this is the best the Arabic world can produce in journalism it's no wonder they're mired in at-best century old technology with 1st century government systems and brutal warlords claiming most of the power in the region. I ask you only this: truth and all reason has left the Middle East, and who will bring it back? Allah doesn't seem to be working, is it time we abandoned all of them or got our hands dirty not just with Iraq, but with the whole stinking mess? This is a question for all civilized world citizens by the way, not just for jingoist Americans like myself.

Ps- Thanks for reading all that, I just needed to get it out.

Its not often you’ll read or hear an Arabic news station put any blame for any problems on the doorstep of a Muslim country or its leadership. Blame is always someplace else. Criticism of the US runs rampant in US papers and news reports and I’ll argue with the ones I think are wrong, but everyone has easy access to read/see them. Try hearing something in Iran that sounds remotely critical of the Ayatollah and Iran is considered a democracy.

I hope that Iraq builds a freedom of speech into their constitution, it would be a real eye opener for a large number of people in the region. Although I am sure that there will be many people who’ll call it a propaganda machine (but they won’t say that about their local news sources).













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I was for the war in Iraq, because I think people like Saddam shouldn't be allowed even the power to wield a TV remote. Hussein was a monster, and as it had to be he was deposed forcefully. I am also completely fed up with the WMD's argument and the apparent propaganda spouted by both the American and British leaders advocating such action against Iraq; the humanitarian argument was more true, more noble and more just to begin with.



i could not agree more...I could not care less about those WMD's....the good result of this war was the removal of a bloody dictator....people that say that the Iraqi prefered to be under the iron hand of Sadam obviously never lived in a country ruled by someone like him....

Why Bush and Blair continue the WMD excuse is beyound me when the humanitarian reasons are much more proper....


PS texan i really like your posts since they are so reasonable.....unfortunatelly a lot of people here take very extreme sides one way or another and its good to see a moderating voice

If the Hummanitarian Arguement is the True motive which it is not. Why don't they do something about Assclowns like Mugabe? If it was the Hummanitarian Arguement they are technically not allowed to go to war over it.

I personnally think that Tony Blair and his stouges should accept responsibility for the complete and utter fuck up and annouce their resignations.

According to heads of Intelligence in the UK they were told by Tony Blair and his Staff to make the Iraqi Dossier More Offensive (the media is using the term SEXED UP which is ridiculous).

If the Hummanitarian Arguement is the True motive which it is not. Why don't they do something about Assclowns like Mugabe? If it was the Hummanitarian Arguement they are technically not allowed to go to war over it.

I personnally think that Tony Blair and his stouges should accept responsibility for the complete and utter fuck up and annouce their resignations.

According to heads of Intelligence in the UK they were told by Tony Blair and his Staff to make the Iraqi Dossier More Offensive (the media is using the term SEXED UP which is ridiculous).

And I personally think that a great majority of the 193 or some-odd "official" countries are ran by thugs, prostitutes or other less mentionable personas. What I don't get is why your argument would hold water... how is it that because there are other ruthless people in the world, removing one and leaving another is an injustice? I agree that removing both would be the proper thing to do, but reality, politics and national gains do intervene in most circumstances. Left with that, is it not still a good thing that at least one of the many have been deposed, or is this a greater injustice in your mind than leaving them all there to do as they will?

Any such tarting up of the WMD's argument is horribly offsensive to me, and should be punished by whatever laws may apply. However, it's a dirty little secret that most people simply don't give a shit about what crimes are being committed halfway around the world, and perhaps the only way to motivate these individuals to action would be to draw up possible scenarios in which their little slice of the world is threatened by these far off people. This is despicable to be sure, as is any form of manipulation, but I'm no longer sure it's not somewhat justified in this regard (the ends justify the means, so to speak). That people must be made to believe others' suffering is worth involvement only because their own nuclear family unit might someday be directly threatened is also despicable, equally pathetic and at least as unjustified.

In the end, it's a sad state of affairs no matter how you slice it. Iraq's last decade of existence is a perfect example of how international diplomacy fails when flying against the will of a single and uncaring person; what should we do when faced with this? There were two clear choices in my mind, remove all sanctions against Iraq or remove it's leadership. Either had ugly consequence, and anything in between is purely bullshit when you get right down to it. Black and white perspectives still have a place in this world (even though truth has largely abandoned political discourse), unless you have the guts to make a decision one way or the other I suggest you stop criticising others for doing so.

Ps- This is not a personal attack NSX-R, but I am calling you out. Which way would you have gone and why? Personally I've heard myriad complaints about the way things have gone, but almost no supportable alternative viewpoints. It's easy to critique when you're not required to defend a position, can you do so after picking a proposed course of action?