|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jul 22, 2003 19:30:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 23, 2003 8:26:52 GMT -5
What a loss.  How can this be the fate for such a nice pair of homicidal raping maniacs. Is torture before death too much to ask? Say goodbye boys.....   What a loving family....  "Saddam, oh Soddom, where are you buddy? Can you come out and play? There is a bullet or twenty with your name on it" |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 23, 2003 22:40:09 GMT -5
This business of celebrating when people die makes me very uneasy...
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 23, 2003 23:09:15 GMT -5
This business of considering Uday and Qusay, both known for having more than a touch of their fathers bloodlust, 'people' rather than 'psycopathic homocidal monsters' makes me a touch uneasy.
Seriously - irregardless of the justice of this war (which I am no longer interested in debating, but get the feeling I'll be sucked into now) - Iraq is a better place without Uday and Qusay, and will be a better place without Saddam. Celebrate? I don't know. Lets just say I'm not mouring their passing.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 23, 2003 23:24:14 GMT -5
This business of celebrating when people die makes me very uneasy... I think it would be wrong for us to cheer, but when the locals are fairly unanimous in cheering and partying, it gives us some insight about how terrible these "people" were. And TNG.... don't start that debate again, it wasn't in your favour before, and the new evidence isn't in your favour, either ! |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 24, 2003 3:37:02 GMT -5
I can't help but thinking that they started out as 'people' just like anybody else and are largely a product of their environments - who's to say what kind of men they would have been if they'd lived under different circumstances and who can know what made them do the things they did? Obviously I'm not defending anything but I think that it would be wrong to celebrate for the same reason that I oppose the death penalty...
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 24, 2003 3:38:52 GMT -5
A lot of people cheered after 9/11 too...
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 24, 2003 20:39:42 GMT -5
Uday was the target of an assasination attempt ( about ten years ago I think). That should give us a good idea how Iraqis feel about these two. Most are probably relieved that the job is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 24, 2003 20:46:28 GMT -5
I believe absolutely nothing that is stated by the pack of liars in Washington, until it is corroborated by second and third parties. Even after such validation, should it occur, I question the motives behind the actions.
I await the announcement that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been been bumped off, as per international free trade, along with Saddam's sons, to make my day a happy one.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 25, 2003 8:03:30 GMT -5
I believe absolutely nothing that is stated by the pack of liars in Washington, until it is corroborated by second and third parties. Even after such validation, should it occur, I question the motives behind the actions. While I believe Saddam's sons are dead (and good riddance too), the fact that many, if not most of the Iraqi population - indeed, the Middle Eastern population - shares your concerns speaks volumes about the quagmire the US is now embroiled in. Rather than rejoicing at the deaths of the sons (though that did happen) most are sceptical, and want "further proof." Indeed, even here in North America, most news outlets have headlines that read "US releases photos of what it says are the bodies of..." Has the Bush administration's credibility fallen that much, even at home? Whether its a fear of the two sons, a mistrust of the US, or a combination of both, the US is in for a tough time, if it really and truly wants to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Will they have the stomach for the fight? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 25, 2003 18:53:20 GMT -5
If what was printed about these two sons is true then the country is definitely better off without them. However, plastering their death pictures across the internet and news media is something I thought we left in the gangster-era. I understand why they did it, heck, it's been publicized to the max. But, I thought they were wrong in doing it.
Yet, if nothing else, it's consistant with the way the war was covered. They had several hundred journalists imbedded with the soldiers who were actually doing the fighting. Now, I'm a firm believer of freedom of the press, however, I do have a problem with the way the war was reported.
For instance, soldiers were constantly seen on film giving orders, during firefights, what have you; fine. Where I thought things dirgressed was during post-battle interviews. Soldiers were interviewed almost on a play-by-play basis, similarily the way professional players are interviewed between periods. In one fire fight, a soldier was yelling for some sort of support with a slight grin on his face as if to say, "... I'm on TV now..." Leaving the theatrical side out of it, why don't journalists think of the soldiers' welfare. This guy that was grinning was doing so probably because he knew he was being photographed. However, he was also distracted.
One could argue that if a soldier can be distracted that much, he or she, isn't all that professional. However, how can soldiers not be distracted with several hundred journalists imbedded in their units? I think the soldiers can be commended for not taking more casualties during the war than they did based just on the distractions that accompanied them.
Guys, I just don't like the way things developed and how they continue to develop in this conflict. And I'm not just talking about the media as well.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mic on Aug 1, 2003 11:00:31 GMT -5
Now, I'm a firm believer of freedom of the press, however, I do have a problem with the way the war was reported. The point is that this war wasn't reported, it wasn't about information. It was all about entertainment. We saw thousends of pictures every day, shocking, impressing or sad pictures. That's not what information is supposed to be. We were in fact watching a movie. Information allows to think about the whole thing, information allows to have a critical look. What we had here was only a war movie, with everybody cheering for either the US, Great Britain or Irak. Like you said : it's sport, with its merchandising (playing cards...). Sad. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 2, 2003 11:40:02 GMT -5
Of course its about entertainment. The most recognizable American media outlet, both within the US and around the world, is CNN. For weeks, during the war and afterwards, CNN ran advertisements to purchase "Road to Baghdad" a commemerative video of the military destruction wreaked in Iraq. The bigger the bombs, the prettier the explosions, the more videos sold.
We tend to forget that people died in just about every one of those pretty little fireworks displays.
Regardless of whether or not you feel the war is justified, watching the media "sell" the war says a lot about our society. Why not just throw them into an amphitheater and watch them go at it with swords? At least the Roman had the honesty to admit they liked watching those kinds of things...
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 4, 2003 21:47:21 GMT -5
We've tried replacing swords with "body slams," "bone-jarring-takles," and most organized professional and Olympic events. We haven't been the least bit successful in my honest opinion.
However, I do have a problem with the honesty issue, BC. I understand what you're saying, however, I can't forget the outrage the US administration expressed about seeing American POWs being plastered all over international television. I have to admit that I too, felt miffed at seeing this. The Iraqis basically did this to try an smash the invicibility myth surrounding the American and British armies. However, this didn't make it right; not at all.
I also understand why the bodies of the Hussein brothers were televised. To show the Arab world that they were in fact, dead and hopefully discourage any followers who thought about supporting them. At least this is the agenda they would have us believe anyway. In fact, I honestly feel this was done for quite an entirely different agenda, but that's another post. However, this didn't make it right either; not at all.
One has to practice what one preaches. If you don't want your POWs on television then don't display the cosmetic cadavers of two men, evil or not.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Aug 4, 2003 22:50:20 GMT -5
I actually understand the decision to show the brothers while still protesting about POW's, but at the same time, the US has lost all slack; they still see themselves as victims (9/11 and all ) even though they've now killed more people in avenging 9/11 than people died on that day, and now the rest of the world sees them as the agressors in many ways.
I really hope Bush loses out in 2004, otherwise things will get very hot on the international scene.... a new President preaching a tad more international cooperation will get far less flack for the same actions as Dub will if he does the exact same things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 4, 2003 23:09:16 GMT -5
One has to practice what one preaches. If you don't want your POWs on television then don't display the cosmetic cadavers of two men, evil or not. I don't agree Dis. It was not done for the Western people, it's was done for the Iraqi population. Their hate ran so deep for these two murderers that there was street celebrations when they were shown on tv. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 5, 2003 7:36:22 GMT -5
HA, I fully acknowledged that fact in my previous posts, buds. However, if the Americans wanted to prove to the Iraqi people that these two were dead by showing the Arab world visual proof, why didn't they show Ted Bundy's charred corpse immediately following his electrocution for the same reason? You know yourself he was a notorious serial killer. Honestly, I think the American or Canadian populations would've stood for it to tell you the truth.
However, the agenda I'm talking about is the "we'll-take-anything-to-deflect-attention-off-of-the-(lack of) WMD-at-this-point." And of course now we're getting the play-by-play of the Hussein hunt. Heck, they're even interviewing the daughters now.
However, the main platform of this war was based on the WMD. Where's the weapons? Buried? Moved out of the country? Moot ... where's the weapons? Hopefully, the press won't be distracted from that question for any prolonged period of time.
I guess I just don't like the way the things are being (mis)handled.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Aug 5, 2003 7:52:00 GMT -5
The American government stands naked in plain view of the entire world (except perhaps in America itself) after this whole Iraq fiasco. However that's no surprise to many.
Geneva Convention? Only applies to Iraqi actions. Besides they broke it first, so we can too. Nyah nyah. Like I said, time for a régime change.
|
|
