Children freed from prison
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048

htey are ovbiously makign htis stuff up. Propagadna!

Hmmm...not sure if it's propagadna, but I would say it's propaganda to a degree.

Nevertheless, it's always good to hear these type of stories. Who says news can't be positive?

Propaganda? Mais non, c'est impossible, this one is a wire story from the AFP... or "l'Agence France-Presse", by its full name.

Propagadna...
 

... is what we get out of Baghdad Bob if he comes down with a really bad stuffy nose.

War of Misinformation
 

But of corse people saw propaganda coming (This was posted before the war began). Cynical, yes, but eerie now that some of it is coming to pass.

-Petyr

Well, now that I've read this article you linked to, I realize that everything is a lie and we are oppressing the innocent and noble Iraqi people, forcing our imperialist power and goals of world domination upon a peaceful and bucolic land in the midst of the noble desert. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Wait! No! I just reread the article about Iraqi torture and saw the pictures on the news of thousands of Iraqis celebrating like they'd won the World Cup or something important like that! We must be good guys!

But then...what about Peter Arnett's comments? He *must* know the real truth about our forces and the problems we're having, right?! Our government must have silenced him!

I'll bet there are pictures out there somewhere of American soldiers with wriggling baby Iraqis on their bayonets, we're just not being allowed to see them.

But then what about all those happy Iraqis embracing our troops?

I'm so confused. Someone please tell me the truth..??

Usually, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm willing to bet that the anti-war protesters have good reasons for mistrusting the U.S. government and war in general. However, it IS an evil, Stalinesque regime. So I think in this case, the U.S. is accidentally doing a good thing.

Don't get me wrong. Its not that I'm anti-war. I just feel that its a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. I can understand that its probably going to be a good thing that we get him out of there, but ultimately a lot of good people on both sides will die because of it.

Because, lets face it, its not like the Iraqi army had much of a choice in whether to serve or not. And we've given the Iraqi people good reason to not believe that Saddam is gone until they see it. Ultimately thats why the whole "shock and awe" thing didn't work. Whether they were shocked or awe'd isn't the point. They'd get beaten/killed if they said anything out of line.

But, then again, why aren't we going to help out the people in Congo? Millions have died there too, and conditions are worse there....

-Petyr

I think that's where we hit the line of "how much threat are they to us?"

You could make a fair case for the madman in Iraq spilling over and allowing things to occur in his country which could threaten the US. I'm not sure you can make that connection with The Congo just yet...but give it time.

So why aren't troops knocking down statues of Kim Il Jung?
Its hard to oppose this war, the lieration of the Iraqi people is after all a good thing. What makes me ill is not the war itself but the philosophy behind it, this stupid, niave, imperialist neo-con bullshit about spreading democracy by stomping all over the middle east, i mean Time is talking about discussion of rollingon to Syria and Iran for crying out loud, that something could even be suggested by *anyone* in power suggests an utterly insane point of view. Every time the west has weighed into the middle east they've fucked things up even further, this (sadly) will be no different, I have a horrible feeling that Egyptian diplomat's comment about this creating 100 Osamas is going to be right.

Will this question go away? I've already pointed out to you exactly why troops are not in North Korea. It must have been two months now since I've written that and I've seen this question five or six times. The United States <b>does not have a military option in DPRK.</b>

I was reponding to:
What threat *does* Saddam pose, i mean really they've cornered the guy and *still* no sign of a single chemical or biological weapon, clearly he's a massive threat..... The point is if you're talking threats Saddam was far from number one, irrispective of military possabilities. All it does is prove that this war is the brainchild of morons like wolferwitz who ahve had an axe to grind for a decade or more and little to do with realpolitik.

But it hardly proves that, though. Your question was, and I'm quoting here, "So why aren't troops knocking down statues of Kim Il Jung?", and I'm saying that it's irrelevant, because it is not a possibility. Yes, of course DPRK is a serious threat, and perhaps a bigger one than Saddam (we simply will <b>never know</b>), but it's one that cannot be dealt with via military options right now. Why ask the question if it's an impossibility?

So in short, the US attacks not those that are the biggest threat, but those it can bully without a serious risk to troops, correct?

Apparently you've never heard the phrase "choose your battles"?

It's not about a serious risk to troops. It's about a multitude of things <b>that I covered months ago in response to your question</b>. If you're going to summarize, try and do a better job of it, okay?

Let me ask you a question. You've got two tests in two classes. One, you currently are prepared enough to get a 70% on. The other, a 25%. You need a 100% on each test to pass the class.

What one are you going to study for?

Neither. If I wasn't prepared before, I probably won't be able to cram enough to pass either one of them.

jag said they've cornered the guy and *still* no sign of a single chemical or biological weapon.

You aren't paying attention, are you?

Lies...all lies, perpetrated against the world by a complicit media.

Besides, we gave them chemical weapons they don't have.

Interesting (apart from the barrels of pestecide, that one is getting a tad old). I wasn't aware of most of those, i haven't been following the war that closely. My point was more that they haven't been used but it's a moot point, you can argue it was merely the result of a breakdown of Command & Control, not restraint.

If the point was so moot, then why did you make it?

The point is moot for the purpose of this discussion because i know that's the response i'd get, on the other hand i don't think as an arguement it's without merit, it's degree of accuracy or inaccuracy is merely speculation at this point though.

Heroes and Villains
 

Noone is denying the fact that Saddam Hussein is/was a vicious rat bastard of a dictator. However, the US has supported a number of vicious rat bastard dictators in the past, including Hussein. This is not including the numerous others we have not actively toppled, such as Milosevic, but waited for them to fall at the hands of their own countrymen.

Right now every other dictator on our list is probably arming up with WMD's, vowing not to be suckered into giving up that edge like Saddam did.

In the case of Milosevic, the U.S. funded, encouraged, and helped train Otpor, the revolutionary organization that toppled him.

A tide in the affairs of men
 

And jaguar, you should really keep in mind that enabling dictators and dictatorships, by doing anything to keep them in continued existence, doesn't climb very high on the sanity scale either. One can never call the demolition of a totalitarian regime wrongful -- no matter where, no matter when, although sooner is better as a rule. Syria minus a terrorist-supporting regime is going to be a better deal for absolutely everyone, including Syrians. "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood..."

The Bush Administration understands more deeply than many that one root cause of Arab terrorism is autocratic Arab regimes -- in short, just about all of them.

Re: Children freed from prison
 

You know, we really need to use this in some sort of slogan that defines what we are fighting for and on whose behalf something like - "We now know Iraq is an evil regime - they have more kids in prison than in Texas".;)

Of course they have WOMD and we can prove it. The CIA still has the receipts.

aside- Damn, UT. I'm never going to argue with you. You seem to have infinate resourses/info at your finger tips for any subject.

That's OK Bruce, you won't have to - I'm taking a break from Current Events and this will be my last post here for a while.

You know irrispective of how much they hate thier own governments people often get extremely pissed off when someone else decides they know what's best for them, if you think stomping all over the middle east installing US backed regimes and handing out reconstruction projects is going to cause anything but an upsurge in Islamic terrorism you're insane.

That tide in the affairs of men, again
 

We do this right, and it will also cause an upsurge in Islamic democracy -- from nothing to several to quite a few, in a region which desperately needs a healthy dose of libertarian political thinking to avoid being condemned to further decades of mismanagement. Let the Islamists try and foment violence -- we come and kill them. And then tell everyone on the planet how fundamentally stupid such fanatics are. Say to the fanatics, "Go ahead! Come to us and get death -- stupid, profitless, sudden, painful, embarrassing death. The more of its idiots, crazies, and jerks Islam can send to immolate themselves on our guns, and the faster it manages to do so, the more the sane, sensible, and peaceable people can influence Islam and keep her on the rightful way."

We have here at least two excellent opportunities: the opportunity to democratize a major oil nation which has surely had a bellyful of how totalitarian regimes do things (and in the belly of a region that contains almost nothing but), and the opportunity to make terrorism the province of losers, not winners. Terrorism must be shown to be the path of the completely shitheaded, of the beyond bashi-bazook. Osama bin Laden isn't getting the groundswell he's looking for -- even if he's healthy enough to try looking for anything. Terrorism is already what it always was -- a try at promoting a "cause" so unpopular on its merits that its adherents have to try violence in its name.

Osama's fighting not only us, but the al-Saud. He took violent exception to their pulling support from the mujahideen in Afghanistan in 1990 and gave the house of Saud such a hemorrhoid over it all that they stripped him of his citizenship just before he left for the Sudan. I'll say this for him; the guy doesn't think small -- but he doesn't think straight, either. If he's not sent swiftly to a long discussion with Allah, he's going to do his coreligionists grave damage with his remarkable ability to make them look bad.

Re: That tide in the affairs of men, again
 

Unfortunately, Islam ("Submission to God") and liberty do not mix.

WOW. G.W.Bush starts/causes the first reformation movement in Islams history. Right up there with Martin Luther....or is it Lex Luther.

Mosques got doors, and nails are not unknown in the Middle East... "Got Theses?"

Re: Re: That tide in the affairs of men, again
 

Hmm... you could say the same thing about, say, Roman Catholicism -- and with about the same prospects of being right. If a people want to be politically and economically free, and are not chained up by sheer governmental force majeure, they will find a way to have that liberty. It seems the natural inclination of the human mind. Unfreedom is an artificial construct. To make a slave, you have to actively keep him from thinking in terms of liberty.

I've heard a lot of this kind of thing about Islam lately -- and I don't buy it. While it is clear Islam is designed to be all things to all men, religion, government, and society all wrapped up in one big package, I stress that it is deliberately designed and constructed so -- and that what is constructed may be deconstructed also, when time and circumstance require a loosening of the joints, as it were. I note that we are not getting this kind of thing from Moslems in America, either the homegrown oddities like the Nation of Islam or from the immigrants. Our determined partition of Throne from Altar has a powerful influence, at least here. I would suspect the Nation also thinks that way, just from having been immersed in the separation of church and state while growing up -- and it may be argued that this is a very successful approach, too. Worldly success -- and we have trillions of dollars' worth of worldly success just in the United States alone, in large measure because our society is not committed to wasting talent -- may be construed as a sign of Divine approval of our undertakings, and it takes a mighty fanatical and blinkered Islamist to think otherwise. Most Moslems are not fanatical and blinkered Islamists. They are the silent majority that by definition we don't hear very much from.

Re: Re: Re: That tide in the affairs of men, again
 

There may be optimism for Iraq as well. Since Saddam's government was secular it could be that among some Iraqis that separation already exists. Maybe Turkey could be a model of sorts.

It seems the wealthy get more secular (or vise versa:D ) and the poor turn to religion for comfort. Most religions accept them like a nanny. But muslims seem to lash out at the wealthy/secular which leads to a constant struggle for power like we've seen in Iran. In order to stave off the clerics and retain power takes despots like Saddam. The Pope and Mussolini coexisted but Khomeini and the Shaw could not. I know a few muslims but they were all Americans first so they understood freedom and democracy before committing to Islam. I don't thing most people in the middle east can grasp what it is to have a separation of church and state. I don't think the muslim clerics would ever accept that willingly.

The war threads have been interesting to read and have added much to my thinking about all of this. The question was posed a few days ago whether any of us changed opinions based on the threads here...Well mine have certainly expanded as the events and discussion have unfolded. So thanks. On the day the war broke out I was outraged and terrified of what this would bring- due to the consequences of "preemption", the thought of urban guerrila warfare and Saddam's sacrifice of civilians and our troops. This fear coupled, with a healthy distrust of the motivations of the Bush Administration, and Bush's lack of skill in convincing me otherwise, made me very wary indeed. I grew up, shaped by watching Vietnam and Cambodia on the TV during dinner. Not that that distrust is gone, but I'm more aware,trying to be openminded, less immediately biased.

This foreign policy is all new, and I'm paying better attention. So thanks all you hawks, doves, and other mixed avians. Now lets get some healthcare support in there.