Releasing the photos of the Hussein boys

[Griff]

Originally posted by tw

... But what surprised me is the numbers of us - we - people who would complain about dead Americans from an ambushed convoy, but not complain about same picture of a dead Iraqi soldier. This, my friends, is the same emotion that creates racism. The double standard. That Iraqi soldier deserved the same complaining from those who complained that Al Jezzera showed dead American bodies. Double standards that make me embarrased of some of our peers.

I read an article a few days ago by a guy who'd given up tv completely. To write his essay he turned on the tube for a few seconds on a few stations and wrote about what he saw. He picked apart the ugliness that the tv viewer gets used to. His main point was that folks who watch television become hardened to all kinds of things human beings should never take easily. I don't complain because I'm not watching news gore or reading those magazines which feature death.

We live in a society which accepts and worships violence. We have a nation full of folks who don't want to upset the economic applecart, assuming or wishing that our leaders know whats best. The defense sector is about the last of American manufacturing so nobody wants to kill that off. Our economic house of cards rests on violence and oil, so who wants it to collapse? The Bush wars are not about self defense but rather global hegemony and corporate capitalism, which to me isn't an acceptable use of violence. Unfortunately, to America this violence is necessary to feed and clothe us. This is our culture of death.

[Tobiasly]

I agree that the images had to be shown to the Iraqis. But the manner in which it was done seems a bit tacky. I agree with that Pax guy -- why not just release the photos to Al Jazeera?

But Griff, I think you're projecting when you say that TV has desensitized us. I remember that photo that tw mentions in the Time book (at least I think it's the same one). A farmer was shot because he ran through a checkpoint. This was a no-win situation. Believe me, not being able to tell friend from enemy is a horrible burden for these young soldiers.

I remember feeling overwhelming sympathy for that man and his family. No amount of gruesome pictures on TV or in a magazine will take away my appreciation of basic human rights, and my desire to protect them.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

But Griff, I think you're projecting...

I was ranting some as well.

I remember feeling overwhelming sympathy for that man and his family. No amount of gruesome pictures on TV or in a magazine will take away my appreciation of basic human rights, and my desire to protect them.

Thats why I'd never call for censorship. These images can be quite valuable if we can keep in mind that we're talking about people. The problem I see is among the folks vsp is trying to understand over on the scratch two dummycrats thread. Folks that are not committed to educated voting are the ones I worry about not keeping their perspective.

[Undertoad]

The Bush wars are not about self defense but rather global hegemony and corporate capitalism, which to me isn't an acceptable use of violence. Unfortunately, to America this violence is necessary to feed and clothe us. This is our culture of death.

No, this is YOUR culture of death, because everything you've said is based on YOUR take on the events and politics and so forth.

[juju]

Ehh, I don't get it. Is that a fancy way of saying it's only his opinion? 'Cause if not, how can one man have a culture?

[Griff]

Like this?

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The Bush wars are not about self defense but rather global hegemony and corporate capitalism, which to me isn't an acceptable use of violence. Unfortunately, to America this violence is necessary to feed and clothe us. This is our culture of death.

No, this is YOUR culture of death, because everything you've said is based on YOUR take on the events and politics and so forth.

Essentially, almost everything is opinion, except possibly physics and mathematics, and even they have their exceptions. Now, I am a Democrat who lived through the Clinton administration while ignoring the conservative conspiracy theorists who were SURE that Clinton ordered a hit on Vince Foster. Maybe the Bush adminstration is some karmic revenge for that.

I am trying to reach to my liberal side and see the other point of view and look at the Clinton scandals, in particular the body count, and compare them to the current administration. I have to give Bush some latitude for action related to 9/11, and I'll throw in Afganistan as possibly justified.

I'm still not comfortable with absolutes such as 'cuture of death', but I do see some of what the user is saying. Many people think the phrase 'military-industrial complex' was invented by hippies, but it can be found in a speech by Dwight Eisenhower. The reality is that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is being credited to Ronald Reagan since it happened on his watch, we were supposed to be enjoying a 'peace dividend' as we brought our military deployments down from Cold War levels to one capable of handling regional conflicts. We were supposed to begin dismantling the 'MI complex' and move to a peace economy.

Afghanistan did not do much to change this. The country in effect had no organized army and a paper-mache government. The taliban were internationally recognized assholes who were definitely shielding terrorists responsible for 9/11. We had the credibility to take them on and noone complained. The country had no real wealth, so motives were clear and everyone could share in the cleanup without being accused of trying to engineer a takeover for private gain.

The Bush adminstration messed up with Iraq. Economically, politically, and militarily, it is a disaster. I say it is a military disaster in that we have to commit about 150k troops for the long term with no international backup at a time when our economy is already weak. We can't 'cash in' because our credibility is already razor-thin and if we make any sweetheart deals we'll be accused of 'carpetbagging'. Having an oilman president and vice-president with rich oilman friends making large campaign contributions to an adminstration which invaded an oil-rich country pretty much has us looking less like the Lone Ranger and more like one of the black hats in a bad Western.

Morally speaking, I'm not going to talk about civilian deaths or the motivation behind the war, which have already spawned any number of conspiracy theories. All I can say is that the Bush adminstration is using 9/11 to recover and exceed levels of presidential privilege and authority which were rightly limited after the Nixon debacle and which even Clinton could not sucessfully invoke.

No secret can be kept forever, and my prediction is that Bush and friends are going to have two choices. Either come clean in a Republican (maybe a GW or Jeb Bush adminstration) and get a pardon, or wait for the story to come out in a Democratic adminstration. The good news for them is that if Bush is in his second term he can do almost anything he wants, especially since Karl Rove and company have paved the way for an elected king. Cheney is not going to run for office and he doesn't owe anything to any Republican candidate other than his brother so he can issue any pardons or executive orders he wants with no real fallout to anyone he really cares about. Thats what really scares me.

If it does turn out that the Iraq invasion was really being planned pre-9/11 or even immediately after, and it can be shown that Bush had no intention of allowing a peaceful solution, then the 'culture of death' charge has a much firmer foundation and the president fully deserves to stand in a dock in the Hague and offer explanations, assuming of course that we do not 'take care of our own' mess and drop him in Leavenworth.

Of course, presidents deserve and get a very high burden of proof. Reagan proved this when he slid out from under Iran/Contra. But it is not absolute, and the stonewalling the Bush adminstration has been pulling makes me and a lot of other people wonder what is behind the stone wall?

For now. however, the 'culture of death' charge would probably not stick in a court of law, unless you want to talk about indigenous populations. If so, then all I can say is that what happened in America was not unique and was a reflection of the brutality of the world at that time.

[Annebonannie]

Bread and Circuses...

[Undertoad]

Rich, what's worse -- invading Iraq WITH congressional authority, or tossing missiles into Iraq WITHOUT it, starting on the first day of the Monica hearings and ending on the last day?*

Was anyone complaining about 70,000 troops in stable Germany during the 90s, post cold-war? Anyone? Was a stable, Democratic Germany a boon to the world and to the US? Would a stable, Democratic Iraq be an even greater boon?

There is one thing that the current administration is definitely stonewalling and lying about: Saudi Arabia. Everything else is just bias and spin. The 16 words? A ridiculous media event. They're jumping on it because it's easy and fun, but it's really a big ball of nothing.

Hey, to take this to the other thread, I would advise Lieberman to ask leading questions about Saudi Arabia. Why are they our buddies? Why do we treat them with such kid gloves? THIS is where the oilman connection is, not Iraq. Breaching the topic would show the country that a Democratic candidate has a concept of how to coach the offense in the War on Terror. And Lieberman definitely gets it.


* on this question: it's a good bet that 9/11 happened because bin Laden and his money men in Saudi Arabia believed that the US had become a paper tiger, unwilling to risk the deaths of US troops in foreign actions. The non-reaction to everything including the 1993 WTC attempt (connected to Iraq btw), the USS Cole, Somalia, etc. showed that the US was weak and political and scared of actually taking it to the enemy. The fact that we've shown, not as a government or President but as a PEOPLE, that we're completely unwilling to accept having the violence extended to our own shores, is the reason why all of the terrorism since then has taken place elsewhere.

[xoxoxoBruce]

questions about Saudi Arabia. Why are they our buddies? Why do we treat them with such kid gloves?

I am under the impression, we're afraid to show less than complete support for the Saudi Royals for fear of a fundamentalist takeover. Am I mistaken?

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I am under the impression, we're afraid to show less than complete support for the Saudi Royals for fear of a fundamentalist takeover.

We have a bad rep for supporting wrong people. Shah of Iran. Castro. The many governments of S VietNam. Attacking the Druze and Shiites in Lebanon. Chung Kai Chek in mainland China. Many of these mistakes are directly traceable to top American government who knew what had to be done - reality and knowledge of history be damned. Its called having too much political agenda and no fundamental facts, experience, or knowledge (ie the reason we invaded Iraq).

Robert Baer wrote a new book that says we will have to attack Saudi Arabia. That is the National Inquirer or Daily News summary. At face value it makes no sense. However in interviews, that is only a worst case bottom line. Baer notes a serious internal political instability in Saudia Arabia created, in part, by inferior leadership. Who might be the next Khomeni of Sudia Arabia? Baer is not someone to ignore.

If this was from someone with wild ass proposals (ie. Curtis LeMay, Oliver North, Project for a New American Century), then I would not even be mentioning this. Intend to read his book because he has such strong credentials and too much personal experience; even wandering among the warring parties of Lebanon while the USS New Jersey was shelling those people. If Robert Baer says there is serious discontent in Saudia Arabia, then I will listen. History is full of such people who actually come from where reality happens, who told us what would occur, and yet were ignored by people with too much power and no education (ie George Jr).

David Halbersham told us what would happen in VietNam before we even committed to the war. Too many American intelligence official with insider experience warned about Kuwait and were ignored (which is why George Sr made a special trip in 1991 to the CIA to apologize).

Again, this is the problem. A smart America stays out of internal politics until a smoking gun makes interference necessary. Just another reason why we should, instead, be addressing our global warming problems rather than advocating more consumption. Currently one of the world's top three in oil and natural gas production is also a net world importer. We waste that much making interference in internal Saudia Arabian politics almost a forgone conclusion. Our current leaders advocate brute force solutions rather than admit to and address the real problem.

The worst case alternative: the ill informed with too much political rhetoric, like George Jr administration, solve problems by conducting war without any declaration - VietNam, Somolia, Lebanon. Already they are trying to make the US the world's policeman in a world full of domestic disputes and violence.

How to avoid a smoking gun scenario. Let people inside solve their problems and encourage the intelligent thinkers to make government work for the little people - not make the people work for the government. We create the quagmire called VietNam because extremist rhetoric could not understand that N VietNam could have been an American ally. Fundamental to intelligent decision making is the Powell doctrine - which our current adminstration is shredding. Will we also make enemies of Saudia Arabia as we did and still do to Iran? If using the intelligence of this administration, then we just may have to invade Saudia Arabia.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Undertoad


* on this question: it's a good bet that 9/11 happened because bin Laden and his money men in Saudi Arabia believed that the US had become a paper tiger, unwilling to risk the deaths of US troops in foreign actions. The non-reaction to everything including the 1993 WTC attempt (connected to Iraq btw), the USS Cole, Somalia, etc. showed that the US was weak and political and scared of actually taking it to the enemy. The fact that we've shown, not as a government or President but as a PEOPLE, that we're completely unwilling to accept having the violence extended to our own shores, is the reason why all of the terrorism since then has taken place elsewhere.

Tonys ahead of the curve again. I caught Jeff Greenfield on the radio this morning referring to this idea. Apparently Friedman did a column on it over the weekend. Its a compelling idea, that America had to hit someone to prove we would retaliate but I'd say it assumes that we've been innocent non-actors on the world stage, which is false.

[Griff]

Originally posted by richlevy


If it does turn out that the Iraq invasion was really being planned pre-9/11 or even immediately after, and it can be shown that Bush had no intention of allowing a peaceful solution, then the 'culture of death' charge has a much firmer foundation and the president fully deserves to stand in a dock in the Hague and offer explanations, assuming of course that we do not 'take care of our own' mess and drop him in Leavenworth.

Some in the Bush government have sought an Iraqi intervention for a long time. I don't think you'll find anything with W's signature on it, so he can forever pretend it was WMD and bad intelligence that lead to the conflict.

We'd never let an international court touch one of our own for any reason. Its hard enough keeping an eye on everyones political agenda here, without trying to decipher the intent of a politically motivated international tribunal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Saudi's are coming to Washington tomorrow, to protest the suggestion of their involvement with 9/11/01, to Bush.