Thread: Iraq News

The CNN "patriotism" in the lead up to the Iraq war was quite obvious. Biased, unsound reporting. CNN is nothing but a propaganda machine, and I think it's gotten worse in the last couple of years. Glad I stopped watching, and have even cut off my cable TV service.

CNN reporter talks of pressure to be patriotic
May 29, 6:35 PM (ET)

By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin said Thursday she was referring to her time spent at MSNBC when she said she felt pressure not to report stories critical of the Bush administration during the time leading up to the Iraq war.

Yellin's initial comments, made during a discussion with Anderson Cooper on CNN Wednesday, shifted attention to the news media's performance following release of a critical assessment of the Bush administration by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. He wrote that Bush's strategy for selling the war was less than candid and honest.

During her CNN appearance, Yellin said the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives to make sure the war was presented "in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings."

Link: My Way News - CNN reporter talks of pressure to be patriotic

nbc fired their reporter (peter arnett) for not being "patriotic" enough.

liberal media? what a joke.

Originally Posted by sabang

we have to deal with what is rather than what should have been

You're beginning to sound like McCain.

As much as I respect the Australian soldiers, I believe Australia should be ashamed that they allowed themselves to be coerced into illegally invading and occupying Iraq. John Howard should be hanged in public alongside George Bush and Tony B. Liar for their war crimes. After due legal process of course.

Originally Posted by Panda

As much as I respect the Australian soldiers, I believe Australia should be ashamed that they allowed themselves to be coerced into illegally invading and occupying Iraq.

even more so the british and tony blair.

IMO if blair had not signed on, this entire fiasco never would have gotten off the ground.

Although I agree with you Panda, politically speaking it was a gesture of solidarity with the US alliance, that overrode moral and other considerations. Not excusing it, but it is important to see this through Australian political eyes.

More than any other country I can think of, Australia- a massive, resource rich island with an enviable lifestyle, but a small population and hence defence force- relies on US military power as a security blanket. There is a very strong security alliance, in which Australia is unquestionably the junior partner- simply put, if some Baddies invade Australia, they are also taking on the USA. In return, Australia houses two highly important, and sensitive, US bases on it's soil- Pine Gap and Exmouth and, to put it blatantly, when the US asks it to jump it asks "How High?". At the end of the day, the pragmatic acceptance of the security partnership overrides the private feelings and moral considerations of it's people- when push comes to shove.

Originally Posted by sabang

At the end of the day, the pragmatic acceptance of the security partnership overrides the private feelings and moral considerations of it's people- when push comes to shove.

Similar positions by various countries resulted in at least part of the muck-up in Iraq. If a nation commits to conflict based on weak principles, its half-stepping out of the blocks. An outright declination might have been the better option for all. If the moral considerations of the people were in doubt, the acceptance to involve militaries in conflict is usually ill-advised.

Always be sincere -- even if you don't mean it. Harry Truman

Originally Posted by Texpat

If the moral considerations of the people were in doubt, the acceptance to involve militaries in conflict is usually ill-advised.

Always. Lose the people, lose the war.

Originally Posted by Texpat

If the moral considerations of the people were in doubt, the acceptance to involve militaries in conflict is usually ill-advised.

True, and I am sure that if military policy was conducted in this manner (throughout the world), we would be better off for it.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Texpat

If the moral considerations of the people were in doubt, the acceptance to involve militaries in conflict is usually ill-advised.

Always. Lose the people, lose the war.

I toggled back and forth over whether to use usually or always in that sentence.

I chose usually, because in some cases, a very serious threat could be imminent and may not allow time for public discourse. That's (in part) why we have elected leaders.

Originally Posted by sabang

Although I agree with you Panda, politically speaking it was a gesture of solidarity with the US alliance, that overrode moral and other considerations. Not excusing it, but it is important to see this through Australian political eyes.

More than any other country I can think of, Australia- a massive, resource rich island with an enviable lifestyle, but a small population and hence defence force- relies on US military power as a security blanket. There is a very strong security alliance, in which Australia is unquestionably the junior partner- simply put, if some Baddies invade Australia, they are also taking on the USA. In return, Australia houses two highly important, and sensitive, US bases on it's soil- Pine Gap and Exmouth and, to put it blatantly, when the US asks it to jump it asks "How High?". At the end of the day, the pragmatic acceptance of the security partnership overrides the private feelings and moral considerations of it's people- when push comes to shove.

Totally agree with you there. The USA has made us prostitutes by virtue of their promised protection. I recall quite clearly Richard Armitage, the then deputy US Secretary of State saying that "the US might have to rethink its military alliance with Australia" if we didn't join the coalition of the willing in supporting USA in the UN re its bid to gain legitimacy to invade Iraq. With The UK throwing their hat in with the USA it put us in a bad position, but I still think we should have stood our ground rather than rolling over to US and UK pressure. And I am sure the vast majority of Australians agree with me. Its just that lick arse Howard thought the New American Century thing was going to come off and wanted to be on the winning side.

Originally Posted by Texpat

I chose usually, because in some cases, a very serious threat could be imminent and may not allow time for public discourse.

Fair nuff.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Originally Posted by sabang

At the end of the day, the pragmatic acceptance of the security partnership overrides the private feelings and moral considerations of it's people- when push comes to shove.

Similar positions by various countries resulted in at least part of the muck-up in Iraq. If a nation commits to conflict based on weak principles, its half-stepping out of the blocks. An outright declination might have been the better option for all. If the moral considerations of the people were in doubt, the acceptance to involve militaries in conflict is usually ill-advised.

Always be sincere -- even if you don't mean it. Harry Truman

Never thought I would agree with Tex on anything, but I do here. Whats the world coming to?

In short, Iraq was not invaded precisely to serve the neo-cons and oil interests. Human Rights Watch had long been doing studies (along with other NGOs) and putting information out to international sources that this guy Hussein was a "dangerous man." It wasn't necessarily all about WMDs and the suspicion that they were in Iraq either. It was about this really:



"These pictures are said to have been taken in the aftermath of Saddam's attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide, killed an estimated 5,000 of the town's inhabitants. The attack on Halabja took place amidst the infamous al-Anfal campaign, in which Saddam brutally repressed yet another of the Kurdish revolts during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam is also said to have used chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987."

Image:Halabja1.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary

The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from the Saddam's hometown of Tikrit). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".
Thousands of civilians were killed during chemical and conventional bombardments stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in a vast areas of northern Iraq -- along with a centuries-old way of life -- and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 100,000 to more than 200,000 deaths and as many as 100,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans.[4] Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988.[5] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature, notably by a court in The Hague. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East.[6] According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 180,000 people were killed.[7]




Al-Anfal Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GENOCIDE IN IRAQ: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (Human Rights Watch Report, 1993)



The next genocide? Burma? Tibet?



The next dangerous man? The President of Iran? The leader of North Korea?



Stay tuned...

"Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. "

"The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989,"


So why did the US wait for 15 years to invade Iraq in order to prevent these kinds of atrocities? Couldn't have had anything to do with peak oil hey?

And...

"During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. On March 21st, 1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were

"profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons"

The United States was the only country to vote AGAINST the issuance of this statement!!!."

Google Image Result for http://i14.tinypic.com/2d2b2uf.jpg

The US supplied the chemical weapons used on the Kurds, and even aerial surveillance photoes of the Kurdish areas. It was all part of a big arms deal with our then buddy Saddam, and the chief US government representative/ salesman was one Donald Rumsfeld.

So these johny come lately attempts to justify invading Iraq on humanitarian grounds cut no ice with me. If we are so 'humanitarian' why then was no attempt made to help the Marsh Arabs, or the Shiites, also slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War for rebellion- a rebellion encouraged by the USA? The history of this whole thing is not yet old enough to 'rewrite' unless you are dealing with utterly uninformed people.

^ nice uniform.

^
And she keeps her nails in good shape too...

RALPH PETERS: " If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities. And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?"

Exactly...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

RALPH PETERS: " If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities. And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?"

Exactly...

RALPH PETERS: " If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens.

And that is something to aspire to? Though I think you are dreaming.

I hope the day will come that downtown Baghdad is safer that the worse urban areas of the USA, after the utter Nightmare they have been subjected to.

At least you have reliable power and running water, garbage and corpse collection. In the absence of these, the worse parts of Baghdad had no other option but to burn their garbage and mutilated corpses. According to a Brit mercenary that worked there, the stench was appalling.