Robert Fisk on Wesley Clark & Iraq:

Link to the article
Robert Fisk on Wesley Clark & Iraq: “What is Happening Is An Absolute Slaughter Every Night of Iraqi People” (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1757243)

I guess the coalition might have to wait indefinitely for their flowers. :shakehead ........... but it is refreshing to know that some media organisations in the US are not spouting the party line.

I read all the time of the number of people who died under gunfire - both military and civilian. I don't know what news reports you are reading, but you may want to look at AP, Reuters or the Telegraph. The statement that there are no reports of civilian deaths is an outright lie.

The numbers they use are hard to quantify don't you think? Just because they say a thousand people are dieing a week doesn’t mean its attributable to the occupying forces. Its clear that they are giving it that impression without stating the number of people who die of natural causes weekly in a town of a million plus people.













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 read all the time of the number of people who died under gunfire - both military and civilian. I don't know what news reports you are reading, but you may want to look at AP, Reuters or the Telegraph. The statement that there are no reports of civilian deaths is an outright lie.Yes, I read from those sources as well.

Unless I'm going blind, the article in the link does not make the statement that there are no reports of civilian deaths.

What it does say:

....."virtually unreported number of Iraqis killed in feuds, looting, revenge killings and raids by U.S. troops.".....

....."the number of Iraqis killed or wounded are unknown.".......

....."attacks on Americans that cost civilian lives are not even recorded by the occupation authority press officers unless they involve loss of life among "coalition forces".........

....."Some of the dead were killed in family feuds, in looting, or revenge killings. Others have been gunned down by US troops at checkpoints or in the increasingly vicious "raids" carried out by American forces in the suburbs of Baghdad and the Sunni cities to the north.” .......


The numbers they use are hard to quantify don't you think? Just because they say a thousand people are dieing a week doesn’t mean its attributable to the occupying forces. Its clear that they are giving it that impression without stating the number of people who die of natural causes weekly in a town of a million plus people. No, it doesn't mean that they are entirely attributable to the occupying forces, and it doesn't state that either. Fisk even points that out as can be seen in the last excerpt cut & pasted above

Natural Causes. Yes, a very valid point.

Perhaps the following are dying of "natural causes" then:

....those dying of illnesses that are cancer or pneumonia like (seems to occur with unnatural frequency in places which have been used as DU dumping grounds).

......those dying of illnesses brought about by a shattered infrastructure where sewage/rubbish disposal are non existent and clean drinking water is a big problem.

......those dying of otherwise treatable illnesses but for a lack of medical supplies, equipment and expertise.

.....those dying from just losing the will to live on after having everyone and everything they cared about taken from them (like the 1/2 million Iraqi children that died as a consequence of more than a decade of UN sanctions).

The most populated places in Iraq, those that have suffered the most intense bombardment of dirty DU ordinance in both wars, are now poisoned with radio-active particles in the land and water. This ensures that a disproportionate number of people will die of "natural causes" in Iraq for generations to come.

Link to the article
Robert Fisk on Wesley Clark & Iraq: “What is Happening Is An Absolute Slaughter Every Night of Iraqi People” (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1757243)

I guess the coalition might have to wait indefinitely for their flowers. :shakehead ........... but it is refreshing to know that some media organisations in the US are not spouting the party line.

Good to see Robert Fisk getting access to the U.S. media.He talks a lot of sencse,making him the absolute antidote to Bush's deluded ravings.Does anybody seriously find him credible any more?Watching the evening news tonight,it was clear that his empty rhetoric wasn't impressing the delegates of the UN.No applause,no warm welcome from the Secretary-General,no soundbites of other leaders validating his comments.He's lost the plot if he believes that having failed to sell the WMD approach to the UN,and subsequently been proved wrong in every respect,that somehow the UN will bail him out of his own shit'for the sake of the Iraqis'.

If Bush wants to do something good for Iraqis,he should order his troops out of THEIR country.

NOW.

The other sad thing, if Mr. Fisk's commentary on Wesley Clark is anything to go by, is that a change of leadership may bring more of the same (can you say P.N.A.C.?)

Yes, I saw some of the UN footage. Spoken words could not have come close to conveying what was obvious by the facial expressions and the silence. :sly: :headshake :gives:

Then the coverage of the UN proper ended in favour of the much more important matter (sarcasm) of a local media personality calling Koffi Annan a "very cheeky darky" on his radio show. :banghead:

Thank heavens for the internet I say.......... :comprage1

If Bush wants to do something good for Iraqis,he should order his troops out of THEIR country.

NOW.

And that would do exactly what for the Iaqi's? Allow them to systematically setup their own system of government, both by and for the people? Allow them to once again take charge of their own destiny in a way they see fit? What will removing American troops stop subverting exactly?

You make it sound like abandoning Iraq makes sense, could you please support that with some semblance of rational thought?

And that would do exactly what for the Iaqi's? Allow them to systematically setup their own system of government, both by and for the people? Allow them to once again take charge of their own destiny in a way they see fit?....Exactly!! :thinkerg: Looks like you answered your own question. :wink:

Rest assured that they will eventually take charge of their own destiny anyway. And much of the world is willing to help them.....but not until the US relinquishes power......not if it means sanctioning or endorsing this occupation in any way.

BTW, do you know the difference between a liberation force, a peacekeeping force and an occupation force?

I do - the differences are in who gets killed, what gets destroyed, who gets protected, what gets protected and, most importantly, whether they outstay their welcome - if they ever were.

And that would do exactly what for the Iaqi's? Allow them to systematically setup their own system of government, both by and for the people? Allow them to once again take charge of their own destiny in a way they see fit? What will removing American troops stop subverting exactly?

You make it sound like abandoning Iraq makes sense, could you please support that with some semblance of rational thought?

Do you seriously believe that that is the purpose of George's prolonged theft of Iraqi sovereignty?How the hell can Iraq have "their own system of government, both by and for the people" if it is being forced on them at gunpoint? It was announced yesterday that Iraq has been virtaully put up for sale by the invading powers.Previously,it was asserted that only countries from the 'coalition of the willing'[or should that be killing?]would be favoured with contracts to rebuild and operate Iraqi infrastructure.

So if George delays the implementation of the 'new Iraqi democracy' until after all the assets have beeen milked by his business buddies[and party benefactors],just what exactly will this new parliament control?

very little.Even less if the White House decides who can and cannot stand as an elected representative.

The whole 'democracy' spin is a crock of shit,just like the WMD lies.

Why is everyone so adamant that Iraq could not set up its own government?

Throughout history there are records of countries setting up their own governments and developing their own infrastructure, why wouldn't Iraq be able to do the same?

Sure, give them assistance, guide them when they need it, but don't sit in their house and dictate what they should do and how they should do it.

Why is everyone so adamant that Iraq could not set up its own government?

Throughout history there are records of countries setting up their own governments and developing their own infrastructure, why wouldn't Iraq be able to do the same?

Sure, give them assistance, guide them when they need it, but don't sit in their house and dictate what they should do and how they should do it.

Give me one example of a country whose had it's power structure removed by someone other than it's own people (and one which never shared any of the power or created a system for election) and on it's own been able to create anything other than chaos to follow.

Especially in the Middle East, a power vacuum is the most dangerous kind of situation.

Give me one example of a country whose had it's power structure removed by someone other than it's own people (and one which never shared any of the power or created a system for election) and on it's own been able to create anything other than chaos to follow.

Especially in the Middle East, a power vacuum is the most dangerous kind of situation.

You evidently didn't read my entire post.

Let me quote myself:

"Sure, give them assistance, guide them when they need it, but don't sit in their house and dictate what they should do and how they should do it."

You're right, there haven't been countries that have had their "power structure removed by someone other than it's own people (and one which never shared any of the power or created a system for election) and on it's own been able to create anything other than chaos to follow."

But that's because whenever this has happened in the past it has gone by it's true name, an invasion.
To liberate a country is to remove an occupying force, as happened in the first Gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Allied forces liberated Kuwait.
To go into another country forcefully and remove the goverment is an invasion, it has been and always will be.

BTW, do you really call what George Bush is doing 'sharing the power'?
He didn't exactly give the American people any say in whether he should invade Iraq.

And like I said before, allow the Iraqi people set up their government instead of rail-roading the process so that they get the government as G.W and his people would like to see.

All America has to do is get the process started, and offer assistance in rebuilding when it is required, instead of sitting there and making sure Iraq does exactly as America wants.

Did our armed forces not just dispose of a cruel dictator in Iraq?
Would it not then be hypocritical to sit there now and dictate to them how to set up their new government?

America does have the responsibility to ensure chaos doesn't follow, America does not have the right to dictate how Iraq is run with its new independance.

The sooner the US population swallows it's national pride and accepts that the aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq is not about the war on terror or liberating people the better.

This agression is all about establishing lasting, formidable military presence in the middle east, to give "weight" to diplomatic pressure for keeping those A-rabs and Eye-raqis in line.

The P.N.A.C documents are freely available on the internet and are undeniably the being implemented by the current (and possibly future) administration. And it has been sold to the population under false pretenses.

The rest of the world knows this, it is no great secret - but pride - specifically national pride - is the biggest barrier to being able to accept the truth.

T4 Pimera- Yes of course, it's simply our jingoist ways that are fueling terrorism and anti-American sentiment. We of course had no case for invading Afghanistan, nor any right to defend ourselves from Al Queda at any time past present or future. Nor should anyone be looking to place troops in the Middle East (not us, or the UN), since everyone there is obviously capable of peacefull self-government. There has been little peace or stability in the region over the last century, is this because of failing outside involvement from the Western world or failing internal leadership throughout the region?

Too many arguments in this forum have gotten off the base of reality and truth you people claim to proselytize. You are flat wrong in saying that we had no right to go into Afghanistan to shut down Al Queda's adopted homeland, or that no one else in the world supported this action. We had near unanimous approval for that war. You are wrong in saying that America at large is too prideful to be willing to see your point of view. A large and vocal percentage of Americans were against the war in Iraq, against Bush ever getting the Presidency and against the foreign policy we are now adopting (I see it every day, remember I actually live here). Now in every Democratic convention and debate you can hear the crowds and candidates rail against the administration for ever getting us involved there. No, America at large is most certainly not blind to the reality of the situation. I honestly don't know where you're getting this stuff, but revisionist history and sweeping stereotypes are certainly not in the spirit of the truth you wish us to see.


Freakray- Bush didn't give the American public a say in whether or not we went to war? Well of course not directly, we happen to live in a representative deomcracy, we elect representatives to speak for us for a given time. And those people not only had their say, but were instrumental in allowing this war to be prosecuted. Or have you already forgoten about that Congressional vote not so long ago authorizing the use of force in Iraq?

And actually I did read your whole post, I simply responded to the position you had about all those supposed countries who've been invaded and then left to figure out how to rebuild on their own, and made a success of it. The most recent would be Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out, and we all know how well that went. Several years of bloody warlords ultimately led to the establishment of fundamentalist Islam, which virtually enslaved half the population and made terrorists feel all warm and cozy during their stay to train in the art of killing. In other words, there aren't any examples. Which you did admitted to in your next post, and I thank you for seeing that.

Your opinions about how we should help Iraq develop a governing body are valid, and even if I didn't agree with them there'd be no reason to argue about it. The thing we all have to admit here is that total withdrawal would be a huge mistake at this juncture, we are there for the long haul because that's the only perceivable way any of this could work. If we left now a bunch of others would jump in and mold Iraq into a thing that best suits them, there are no altruistic nation-states left in this world from what I can see. No, withdrawal would put the final nail in Iraq's coffin, one that's been being built for over 50 years through government coup d'état, wars of aggression against their neighbors, brutal secret police forces and chemical weaponry used against the populace.


The constructive thing to do in arguments like these is to suggest alternative courses of action that create fewer problems than they fix, and you just did an excellent job of that in your last post. I think the reality of what you suggested would be difficult to build, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying.

........There has been little peace or stability in the region over the last century, is this because of failing outside involvement from the Western world or failing internal leadership throughout the region?...........

I know you've seen this link I provided in another post. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

I'm sure there is a similar history for many of the other countries in the Middle East - especially Iran, Afghanistan and the Israeli/Palestinian theatre. THEN tell me the instability in the Middle East is because Arabs can't sort themselves out without outside "help" - I think they've had all the outside "help" they can stand. It's time to "allow" them to work on something other than a foreign agenda.

And yes, I know that the U.S. is not the only outside influence that has interfered in the Middle East.

........I honestly don't know where you're getting this stuff, but revisionist history and sweeping stereotypes are certainly not in the spirit of the truth you wish us to see............ From places like this: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/969219.asp?0sl=-20&cp1=1#BODY

I think revising the history plays a very important part in determining the solution. How can a problem be solved without an appreciation of how it was created?

I concede that you are right on the sweeping stereotypes. I should have stated that, IMHO, national pride is the blocking mindset for SOME of the people. My point is that had these people been provided with the real reasons for the invasion, they would not now be searching for other justifications that it was the right thing to do rather than admit that it was a F!@#-%P.

I acknowledge that the following quotes below were in reply to freakray, however I'd like to make comment on those as well.
Bush didn't give the American public a say in whether or not we went to war? Well of course not directly, we happen to live in a representative deomcracy, we elect representatives to speak for us for a given time. And those people not only had their say, but were instrumental in allowing this war to be prosecuted. Or have you already forgoten about that Congressional vote not so long ago authorizing the use of force in Iraq?
...But if they had been presented with the truth instead of scare-mongering lies/mistakes/inaccuracies, would they have authorised it?
......And actually I did read your whole post, I simply responded to the position you had about all those supposed countries who've been invaded and then left to figure out how to rebuild on their own, and made a success of it. The most recent would be Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out, and we all know how well that went. Several years of bloody warlords ultimately led to the establishment of fundamentalist Islam, which virtually enslaved half the population and made terrorists feel all warm and cozy during their stay to train in the art of killing........
Another good opportunity to use some revisionist history. Do we really need to go into how the Afghans ousted the Russians? Who provided training, funding etc to the Osamma Bin Laden and incited then supported Jihad against foreigners? How the Taliban was funded and armed by a certain country next door? And who made a multi miilion dollar grant to the Taliban in return for opium crop destruction?

Here's a couple of examples of what a quick Google turns up if you scratch beneath the surface and employ a little "revisionist history"
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/binladen.html
http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/news/962930/detail.html

These show that foriegn intervention, not just by the US, created a movement that would encompass the entire region. The approach being taken in recent times is for more of the same foreign intervention - IMHO fighting fire with petrol, the fire only goes out when there is nothing left to burn.

I agree that there are no altuistic players in the region and that it is unlikely and unrealistic to expect all foreigners to butt-out entirely. For that very reason, the closest the world can come to some sort of balanced solution is to apply multi-lateral rather than unilateral decisions. To do otherwise is un-democratic.