Arab TV Shows Captured American Soldiers

[topicolo]

Originally posted by taeclee99
It was not the US that released the photos of the Iraqi's surrendering. The photos were taken by the news media and released to the public. The photos were not taken by our government for propaganda purposes.

The main restriction of embedded jouralism is that the US government can censor anything the embedded journalists film. The fact that the video clips were shown to the public is because government allowed them to be shown and this is not different at all from the Iraqi government allowing Iraqi TV to show those horrid video clips of the American POWs and corpses.

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
Hey jelloshotsrule and pseudobrits, why don't you guys join the red cross and do some humanitarian work in Iraq right now? I'm sure the indigenous people there would welcome your help. I'm not kidding.

i wish i had the fortitude. indeed i do.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
Hey jelloshotsrule and pseudobrits, why don't you guys join the red cross and do some humanitarian work in Iraq right now? I'm sure the indigenous people there would welcome your help. I'm not kidding.

I'd seriously consider it right now. Sure beats workin'

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by taeclee99
Finally someone in this forum with some sense. Leprechan is totally right on this one. To equate those pictures of Iraqis surrendering with the images shown on Al Jazeera as motal equivalents is degrading and insulting. I think Psuedo gets his info from the Daily Worker or some other Marxist rag.

And you must get your info from FOX News or some other Fascist piece of offal.

Most of my info comes from British media. You know, home of the Marxists.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And you must get your info from FOX News or some other Fascist piece of offal.

Most of my info comes from British media. You know, home of the Marxists.

Actually I got my info from a variety of sources. including cnn, msnbc and gasp fox news.

Last I heard Brits have started rallying around Tony Blair and the flag. Finally some common sense.

I hope i did not offend you with the daily worker thing. The website you quote often www.whatreallyhappened.com does seem socialist in its leanings..

It is no question that many of the peace rallies held around the world are fronted by groups that have communist sympathies. It is truly sad that the peace movement has been hijacked by individuals who would oppose the US no matter what it did.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by taeclee99
I hope i did not offend you with the daily worker thing. The website you quote often www.whatreallyhappened.com does seem socialist in its leanings..

I posted links to two photos that the site hosted when I couldn't find where I originally saw them. That's often? Plus, if you read that site, it's more libertarian leaning than socialist. Very anti-government. Anti-Clinton and Bush, very skeptical. I like skeptical.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by topicolo
The main restriction of embedded jouralism is that the US government can censor anything the embedded journalists film. The fact that the video clips were shown to the public is because government allowed them to be shown and this is not different at all from the Iraqi government allowing Iraqi TV to show those horrid video clips of the American POWs and corpses. [/QUOTE

Maybe you are right. The US should have taken the moral high road in this regard. There is one crucial difference. We did not parade around pictures of dead Iraqi's. This in my estimation is shows our moral superiority over the evil Saddam Hussein regime.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I posted links to two photos that the site hosted when I couldn't find where I originally saw them. That's often? Plus, if you read that site, it's more libertarian leaning than socialist. Very anti-government. Anti-Clinton and Bush, very skeptical. I like skeptical.

Maybe the views expressed on that website is considered Libertarian where you are from. Here in America...anti American sentiment is stirred mainly by left wing groups that are sponsored by communist front groups. Libertarians in the United States are not against all government...only big government.

Whatreallyhappened.com is an interesting read...even though I disagree with much of the content. I

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by taeclee99
Here in America...anti American sentiment is stirred mainly by left wing groups that are sponsored by communist front groups.

I am in Lancaster County. That 'Murican enough for ya?

WRH is not what I'd call anti-American at all. It's just very paranoid, skeptical and conspiracy-slanted. Taking that into consideration, it provides some good links.

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I am in Lancaster County. That 'Murican enough for ya?

sweet! i'm over in waynesboro, pa when i'm not in school.... ha

 

[runningman]

I think one to think what the UN is about in this situation. It's about politics and cold hard cash. The UN is all about restarting oil for food campaign which has billions of dollars going thorugh the UN every year which are kept in banks designated by the UN until the food is delivered. The opposition in the UN stakes a moral high ground in there opposition to this war, which is fine as long as it is truly a moral high ground. But in essence the UN, the French, the Russians and the Germans all have huge economic stakes in Iraq that could be compromised or lost if the US replaces the ruling party. With that said we also have to look at the track record of ruling parties that the US has put in place after taking down a former regime.
Though you do have to give it to Dennis Miller with his criticism of the UN stating that the head of the world disarmament committee for the UN is chaired by Iraq and the human rights committee is chaired by Libya.

 

[leprechaunG4]

Was it right for the footage of surrendering Iraqis to be shown? I would say not all of it. Some of it is fine as it does not single out any soldier, backs are shown instead of faces etc. There is some that I would consider pushing it a bit by the media, but still in no way can that be made as a comparison to the treatment of American POWs. Do we still hold the moral high ground here? I would definately say so. Jello you mentioned the instance of a reporter looking at the belongings of a surrender soldier, how does this compare to forcing the soldier to do a tv interview? how does this compare to beating the POW? how does this compare to executing the POW?

America is at fault for not censoring the media enough (something those against the war would yell at the military for as well, some people just can't be pleased). Iraq is at fault for a coutning toll of war crimes.

 

[skunk]

NOT HIGH ENOUGH

Where's the moral high ground? Let's face it: EVERY PERSON KILLED IN AN UNDECLARED WAR IS A MURDER VICTIM. Why beat about the bush? (Pun possibly intended). "Collateral damage" means unintentional murder. We have become so anaesthetised by the obscene "newspeak" used by our politicians, our business people and our military (and repeated mindlessly and uncritically by our press) that plain English doesn't seem to mean anything any more.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by runningman
But in essence the UN, the French, the Russians and the Germans all have huge economic stakes in Iraq that could be compromised or lost if the US replaces the ruling party.

And the US has huge economic stakes in Iraq that will be gained or strengthened if it replaces the ruling party. What's the difference? Nations don't go to war simply for these reasons anymore.

As much as I disagree with this war, I won't stoop to that level and oversimplify to say this is about oil.

The French and Germans aren't pointing fingers and saying the US is going in for oil, so why should we attack them and say they're trying to stop us for oil?

Such a stupid, shallow argument...

 

[runningman]

Re: NOT HIGH ENOUGH

Originally posted by skunk
Where's the moral high ground? Let's face it: EVERY PERSON KILLED IN AN UNDECLARED WAR IS A MURDER VICTIM. Why beat about the bush? (Pun possibly intended). "Collateral damage" means unintentional murder. We have become so anaesthetised by the obscene "newspeak" used by our politicians, our business people and our military (and repeated mindlessly and uncritically by our press) that plain English doesn't seem to mean anything any more.

Undeclared war?
The USA declared war last time I checked.

 

[runningman]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And the US has huge economic stakes in Iraq that will be gained or strengthened if it replaces the ruling party. What's the difference? Nations don't go to war simply for these reasons anymore.

As much as I disagree with this war, I won't stoop to that level and oversimplify to say this is about oil.

The French and Germans aren't pointing fingers and saying the US is going in for oil, so why should we attack them and say they're trying to stop us for oil?

Such a stupid, shallow argument...

Now this is bait.
Countries go to war all the time over economic reasons. Gaining land mass, gaining territories, gaining natural resources are all economic reasons. Do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait because they had extra soldiers and had nothing to do with them after the Iranian war. Also I never said this war was over oil I said that the French, German and Russians have huge economic stakes in that region. As far as the USA doing this for oil I would agree. It would take 30 years to off set the cost of this war with the oil production from Iraq and this would be if the USA pocketed a 100% of the profits. The argument is neither stupid nor shallow just as your other points or neither stupid or shallow it is an opinion offered. Wether you agree or disagree is another matter. But how you represent yourself with the counterpoint demonstrates if your approaching this logically or emotionally and calling someone stupid and shallow is dealing with a disagreement emotionally. But to each their own.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by runningman
Now this is bait.
Countries go to war all the time over economic reasons. Gaining land mass, gaining territories, gaining natural resources are all economic reasons. Do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait because they had extra soldiers and had nothing to do with them after the Iranian war. Also I never said this war was over oil I said that the French, German and Russians have huge economic stakes in that region. As far as the USA doing this for oil I would agree. It would take 30 years to off set the cost of this war with the oil production from Iraq and this would be if the USA pocketed a 100% of the profits. The argument is neither stupid nor shallow just as your other points or neither stupid or shallow it is an opinion offered. Wether you agree or disagree is another matter. But how you represent yourself with the counterpoint demonstrates if your approaching this logically or emotionally and calling someone stupid and shallow is dealing with a disagreement emotionally. But to each their own.

My apologies, I should have pluarlised that. Such stupid and shallow arguments -- either side that claims oil is the reason for this war or the reason for the opposition -- are overlooking the big picture on purpose. It's not insignificant, just a small slice segment of the big pie.

Iraq invaded Kuwait over decades-old land disputes and animosity.

Nations do not declare war (or try to halt other nations from going to war) on other nations simply for purely economic reasons anymore. There are other, deeper reasons for wars.

 

[pseudobrit]

Re: Re: NOT HIGH ENOUGH

Originally posted by runningman
Undeclared war?
The USA declared war last time I checked.

Check again. Congress did not declare war.

 

[skunk]

Re: Re: NOT HIGH ENOUGH

Originally posted by runningman
Undeclared war?
The USA declared war last time I checked.

Against whom? Afghanistan? Iraq? The Taleban? Somalia? Am I missing something?

 

[runningman]

Re: Re: Re: NOT HIGH ENOUGH

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Check again. Congress did not declare war.

thank you I stand corrected.
However they did authorize the use of force to rid Iraq of it's nuclear, biologic and chemical weapons with or without the United Nations.
But I thank you for pointing out there is no decleration of war from the congress.

 

[runningman]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
My apologies, I should have pluarlised that. Such stupid and shallow arguments -- either side that claims oil is the reason for this war or the reason for the opposition -- are overlooking the big picture on purpose. It's not insignificant, just a small slice segment of the big pie.

Iraq invaded Kuwait over decades-old land disputes and animosity.

Nations do not declare war (or try to halt other nations from going to war) on other nations simply for purely economic reasons anymore. There are other, deeper reasons for wars.

I would disagree I think that Iraq invaded Kuwait over oil and access to the gulf. Iraq has around 20% of oil production adding Kuwait to the pie for Sadaam would increase that significantly and give him broader access to the gulf. All very compelling reasons to occupy a rather small poorly defended country with significant natural resources and prime real estate.
Sorry again about the war comment.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by runningman
I would disagree I think that Iraq invaded Kuwait over oil and access to the gulf. Iraq has around 20% of oil production adding Kuwait to the pie for Sadaam would increase that significantly and give him broader access to the gulf. All very compelling reasons to occupy a rather small poorly defended country with significant natural resources and prime real estate.
Sorry again about the war comment.

That is definitely part of the reason that Saddam invaded Kuwait, however, to say that's the only reason is oversimplifying.

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by taeclee99

Originally posted by topicolo

Maybe you are right. The US should have taken the moral high road in this regard. There is one crucial difference. We did not parade around pictures of dead Iraqi's. This in my estimation is shows our moral superiority over the evil Saddam Hussein regime.

I agree, although you can also argue that by not showing the gruesome images of dead americans and iraqis on tv, the government is artificially making this war more palatable--like some crappy new reality tv show being broadcast on CNN 24/7: In tonight's episode, US forces engage Iraqi forces in Umm Qasar. Stay tuned to see who wins!