[Toshi]

http://www.thedubyareport.com/brasch-book.html

Brasch notes the Congressional testimony in October 1990 of a 15-year old girl who reported having seen newborns removed from incubators, and other atrocities, allegedly perpetrated by Iraqi soldiers. What was not publicized at the time is that the girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and her testimony was orchestrated by New York PR firm Hill & Knowlton. Hill & Knowlton received tens of millions of dollars from Kuwait to promote US support for the Gulf War "to preserve what we thought was 'democracy,' but was more probably America's obsession with oil for energy...."

i'm not vouching for the legitimacy of the site or the book, but i hadn't heard this above anecdote anywhere else. i like the title, in any case

 

[Changleen]

I liked:

Brasch notes, as another example of media selectivity, that on a day when the massacre in Rwanda continued apace, warlords were still fighting in Somalia, Haitian soldiers murdered two dozen fishermen, and South African politicians campaigned in the nation's first election on which all citizens could vote, the "story of the day" -- repeated ad infinitum on CNN and reported by other networks that night -- was that theater popcorn was dangerous.

This seems to me to be what I see every time I turn on US news. When I lived in SF I used to watch 'International News' for a joke - count the number of actual non-US stories. Now its 'Be scared of Arabs' 24/7.

 

[LordOpie]

an enemy is an enemy regardless of their age.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

http://www.albasrah.net/index1.html

its kinda too strong for the ones used to the western side of the story.
I´m not backing it up as completely truth, because as the US side of the story is deeply biased, but still makes good points.

and i dont see that page more profane, not more subversive, and no more biased than the side i got when i lived in the US.

and pics will explain the horrors of this war, and who was, and is more a threat for who.

 

[genpowell71]

I'll back the stories about the Iraqi soldier attrocities. I saw things there that would make you people cry. I witnessed a Fedyeen Saddam soldier shoot a civilian in the street because he wouldnt pick a weapon to fight the americans. Dont think that he's completely off.

 

[Jesus]

http://www.albasrah.net/index1.html

its kinda too strong for the ones used to the western side of the story.
I´m not backing it up as completely truth, because as the US side of the story is deeply biased, but still makes good points.

and i dont see that page more profane, not more subversive, and no more biased than the side i got when i lived in the US.

and pics will explain the horrors of this war, and who was, and is more a threat for who.

I checked out the website. It's awful, but how are we supposed to know the "real" context of the pics?

There could be a dozen scenarios for each one.

This is about as biased as a site can get.

Utter crap.

 

[Changleen]

I suppose they're all household injuries eh?

 

[Jesus]

I suppose they're all household injuries eh?

How do you know they are not from the insurgents?

How do you know the story behind the pics?

You don't, we just have to believe what the website tells us.

I call BS!

 

[MikeD]

True, but there's also the view of: "if the US hadn't invaded, there wouldn't be an insurgency that's killing kids, and there wouldn't be incidental fire from the US that's killing kids, etc." That's what the kids' parents and relatives will be thinking, not about any greater good or long-term plans.

 

[Skookum]

Yah anyone with half a brain can tell this picture is meant only to incite. Nice little forced perspective and insinuation to get a message out.

Pretty sloppy propoganda but effective nontheless.

 

[LordOpie]

True, but there's also the view of: "if the US hadn't invaded, there wouldn't be an insurgency that's killing kids, and there wouldn't be incidental fire from the US that's killing kids, etc." That's what the kids' parents and relatives will be thinking, not about any greater good or long-term plans.

yes, but if they'd only accept a few deaths and allow peace to happen, they'll be better off for it.

 

[MikeD]

yes, but if they'd only accept a few deaths and allow peace to happen, they'll be better off for it.

It's not the parents of most of these kids who can 'let peace happen,' it's the insurgents who can 'let peace happen.' You can bet they won't, because they're insurgents! They're trying to start a fight, not end one.

The parents/average Iraqis, meanwhile, live under threat of death from both sides...and the insurgents are closer to them, both physically (in order to threaten them if they don't support the insurgency) and culturally (you tend to root for the home team).

This is pretty simple stuff with lots of precedent. Unfortunately, precedent doesn't provide us with an easy solution, aside from staying out of fights when you don't have a chance to win cleanly.

MD

Edit: The average Iraqi probably would have 'accepted a few deaths' if the war was short, instead of this ongoing low-intensity war we have now. The length of it has gone beyond most people's tolerance for the presence of foriegn troops and the ongoing violence that accompanies them.

'Accepting a few deaths' could also be applied to America or Israel...see how ridiculous that sounds now. "Accept a few deaths, it'll lead to peace!" I can't see that making much headway as a political slogan anywhere.

 

[fluff]

"Accept a few deaths, it'll lead to peace!" I can't see that making much headway as a political slogan anywhere.

How about:

"Dying for Peace"

or

"Killing for your kid's future"

Catchy eh?

 

[LordOpie]

'Accepting a few deaths' could also be applied to America or Israel...see how ridiculous that sounds now. "Accept a few deaths, it'll lead to peace!" I can't see that making much headway as a political slogan anywhere.

I thought you advocated Israel taking the higher ground and stopping their attacks/retaliation on Palestine and accepting some israeli citizen deaths during the time it took palestine to accept that israel wanted peace?

I agree, accepting some deaths is ridiculous.

 

[MikeD]

Ha. Opie's solution for all foriegn affairs problems seems to be, "Let the other guy stop doing everything that my side doesn't like!" and getting either really aggressive or whiny when he's told that's not realistic. Yet, he won't bone up and say he'd be willing to take the offensive action needed to impose his ideas on the situation. It's the "aaaaaaaaaw, come on, guys!" doctrine.

This whole propoganda thing goes back to what I wrote in response to N8's "what doesn't get reported about the war on terror" post. The [mis]information war is another dimension of the battlefield, and you've got to be prepared to fight on it. You've got to expect that the anti-us element in Iraq will propogandize every injured/killed adult, child, and kitten, and be prepared to counter it or accept the damage.

MD

 

[MikeD]

I thought you advocated Israel taking the higher ground and stopping their attacks/retaliation on Palestine and accepting some israeli citizen deaths during the time it took palestine to accept that israel wanted peace?

I agree, accepting some deaths is ridiculous.

I didn't advocate anything. I just pointed out that Israel's policies weren't making it more secure, and that the Palestinian radicals likely weren't going to stop their attacks anytime soon.

I sure don't think a lot of Israelis are going to accept a halt to offensive action...but that may be their downfall, too.
---------------
To quote myself in the other thread:
"I don't, despite what you think, hate anyone. Quite the contrary, I'd love to see peace over there and elsewhere, and have (perhaps a bit too subtly) made a case for peace this whole thread. However, I realize peace is sometimes an ideal of which the human race often falls short...and I realize what needs to happen in a fight. Starting fights you don't win decisively is not comfortable. Long wars are worse than short, brutal, decisive ones. And delusions about what someone else 'should' do will just bring you to tears when reality comes back to say hello. You can only control your own actions, and try as best you can to predict the actions of others. I don't think the Palestinians are going to change their course of action anytime soon, and neither did they start this fight, so I think the ball's really in Israel's court. If they don't want to acknowledge that, well, they're gonna stay in the hurt locker."

and

"All I've said is that 1) Complaining about the Palestinian's methods as immoral (instead of simply fighting them, or finding a lasting political solution) is hypocritical, 2) Israel's current policies aren't helping its security, and 3) if Israel truly wants peace, it will have to make concessions in geography and politics. And even concessions aren't going to be a guarantee...

There are a lot of radical Palestinians who (quite comprehensibly) don't want peace, just like the radical elements of Israeli society, and the Palestinian leadership under Arafat was a self-serving den of gangsters and vampires who fed off the conflict, and when faced with serious political attempts to end the violence, were unable (due to their reliance of radicals) and unwilling (because of the self-marginalization) to make it happen."
------------
Do I think 'accepting deaths' will happen? Yes, it always does in the long-term and large-scale. It has to. Japan and the US aren't still clashing over the atom bombings, after all. Do I think many Iraqis will 'accept deaths' on a personal level? Well, I think they were accepting them for a while, especially while we were fighting Hussein's boys, but I think the conflict has been going on too long for it them to do it anymore.

MD

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I checked out the website. It's awful, but how are we supposed to know the "real" context of the pics?

There could be a dozen scenarios for each one.

This is about as biased as a site can get.

Utter crap.

of course is ultra-biased. as much as the news in fox. i said that.

but you gotta know both sides of the story.

because what is really going in there is something that lies roughly in the middle of their version, and the US version.

 

[Jesus]

True, but there's also the view of: "if the US hadn't invaded, there wouldn't be an insurgency that's killing kids, and there wouldn't be incidental fire from the US that's killing kids, etc." That's what the kids' parents and relatives will be thinking, not about any greater good or long-term plans.

If whats happening in these pics is really from Iraq. These pics could be from anywhere.

Hell, the pics showing soldiers could be from the last Gulf War for all we know.

I just don't trust ANYONE, be it left or right...especially the left.

What did Mulder say..."trust no one".

 

[MikeD]

If whats happening in these pics is really from Iraq. These pics could be from anywhere.

Hell, the pics showing soldiers could be from the last Gulf War for all we know.

Damn skippy. But they'll have the same effect, regardless of their origin...

 

[MikeD]

What did Mulder say..."trust no one".

Oh, was that it? I thought he said, "Nice cans, Scully!"

 

[genpowell71]

May I point out a few aspects between the last gulf war (of which I was apart) and this current war (also of which I was and still am apart) you holiness?

1. We didnt use winchester shotguns in the first gulf war. We used 1/16 lb of CR to breech doors.
2. We also didnt use M4's with 203 (40mm grenade launchers) attached. Those were for the Special Operations gurus.
3. The uniform you see there is a current issue uniform. The ones we used in Desert Storm pt 1 were commonly refered to as "chocolate chips" and were also in wide use by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
4. I didnt wear body armor in the first gulf war.
5. The mount you see on the dude's helmet is for a Gen 3 Night vision monocular refered to as the PVS 14. The ones we used in Desert Storm were Gen 1 and sucked on All levels possible.
6. The case you see on the floor holds Iraqi currency. The reason for this is because the average rich person in Iraq does NOT trust the banks. the managers "tax" them to keep thier money in there and to keep it safe. It's a crappy system and it sucks. No one is arguing that here.

So in conclusion, please take it from someone who was there (both times) that this picture you see is recent in nature and not a fraud. Fox as while biased on some things, for the most part has played this war right down the middle as far as coverage. Now Personal Bias is another story all together. Bill Orielly cas slurp my fat white arse as far as I care. I dont agree with his politics and I dont like him personally. But out of the big networks they have been the most objective (and that aint much)...

 

[MikeD]

May I point out a few aspects between the last gulf war (of which I was apart) and this current war (also of which I was and still am apart) you holiness?

1. We didnt use winchester shotguns in the first gulf war. We used 1/16 lb of CR to breech doors.
2. We also didnt use M4's with 203 (40mm grenade launchers) attached. Those were for the Special Operations gurus.
3. The uniform you see there is a current issue uniform. The ones we used in Desert Storm pt 1 were commonly refered to as "chocolate chips" and were also in wide use by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
4. I didnt wear body armor in the first gulf war.
5. The mount you see on the dude's helmet is for a Gen 3 Night vision monocular refered to as the PVS 14. The ones we used in Desert Storm were Gen 1 and sucked on All levels possible.
6. The case you see on the floor holds Iraqi currency. The reason for this is because the average rich person in Iraq does NOT trust the banks. the managers "tax" them to keep thier money in there and to keep it safe. It's a crappy system and it sucks. No one is arguing that here.

So in conclusion, please take it from someone who was there (both times) that this picture you see is recent in nature and not a fraud. Fox as while biased on some things, for the most part has played this war right down the middle as far as coverage. Now Personal Bias is another story all together. Bill Orielly cas slurp my fat white arse as far as I care. I dont agree with his politics and I dont like him personally. But out of the big networks they have been the most objective (and that aint much)...

Oh, I thought he was talking about the pics of arab fighters on the website...they don't change kaffiehs on a fiscal year lifecycle schedule. Kinda took it for granted that the stuff in your posts was pretty easily detected...

MD

 

[LordOpie]

Ha. Opie's solution for all foriegn affairs problems seems to be, "Let the other guy stop doing everything that my side doesn't like!" and getting either really aggressive or whiny when he's told that's not realistic. Yet, he won't bone up and say he'd be willing to take the offensive action needed to impose his ideas on the situation. It's the "aaaaaaaaaw, come on, guys!" doctrine.

winner!