I've been pretty disappointed with CNN and the BBC

"I’m telling you people, you’ll be on much less shaky ground if you stick with the weapons of mass destruction stuff. When that gets flimsy, retreat briefly to humans rights abuses. But leave the 9/11 connections to Art Bell’s callers. "

And I thought that if it was one thing that the USA learned from 9/11 is that you DON’T need WOMD to cause massive death and destruction.

I am too tired for this tonight but -

I am not even saying what we should do - but Tom’s flippant remark just made no sense. You don’t attack the just the individuals who caused the action, you attack the source of the action. In this case terrorism.

It does not have borders of countries and not necessarily even religious basis more a general anti-west, anti-American bent to it, so to fight that, you would attack the sources of that.

People love to talk about the poor, drugs, or crime rate and say we need to fight the source of the problem- but for some reason, this logic disconnects in this case.

I am against the war. While I would love to see Saddam gone, I think it is like if you called the cops on your neighbors for blowing off fireworks and the cops said - too bad. Even though your neighbor is breaking the law, it doesn’t give you the right to go over to his yard and grab his fireworks and arrest him. You are basically fucked.

And again - I don’t think that is what the original poster had in mind, which is why Tom’s remark just annoyed me. I am against the war, but feel alone - because I am not sticking flowers up my nose, stripping off my clothes and singing songs of peace love and happiness. Waiting for any mention of anything about the war so I can go off half-cocked in some miserable - let’s throw logic out the window because WE ARE ABOUT PEACE post. I see this on so many forums and conversations it amazes and depresses me. I am going to become pro-war just because the anti-war movement is such an embarrassment.

Chet

-posted this without seeing tom’s remark - but you know - i keep it the same. Yes, saddam is our bestest buddy and only hopes to have his friends come to america to plant trees of friendship and happiness.

I’m just anti-Bush.

And Iraq is the source of this how? I know I was being flippant, but at least I was making sense. You’re saying Hussein’s regime is the source of “anti-west, anti-American” sentiment?

You don’t fight terrorism by invading another country that’s only peripherally, if at all, involved with terrorists. And you certainly don’t help your cause by parking US troops in the Middle East. Reagan learned that in Beruit and Clinton learned it in Somalia. Apparently no one explained it to Bush. Or more likely he just wasn’t listening.

I think this war is folly, but of all the justifications for it, the terrorism connection in general, and the 9/11 connection in particular, is unsubstantiated rabble-rousing twaddle.

 -Tom

And Iraq is the source of this how? I know I was being flippant, but at least I was making sense.

Reread this thread. How were you making sense? Unless you have picked up some 18 year old girl at a peace march and she is only sleeping with you if you make 30 anti-war posts a day - your post made no sense in the context of this thread. You introduced the connection - no one else.

And that sums up 99% of the peace movement I run into.

And I think parking troops in the mid-east and containing saddam would have worked. The two situations you described were very different. If under the workings of the UN, the troops stayed around Iraq, as the troops were the only thing that prodded Saddam to open up the inspections. I think, since we needed direct backing of the UN or at least more arab nations, we should have kept pressuring for not only inspectors on the ground, but widening of of allowance for search including low level air and questioning of scientists outside the country.

But you mean to tell me, you think completely removing our forces from the region and sending Saddam notes of pretty, pretty please - nope? how about pretty, pretty, pretty please - would have been effective? Or do you see him as no threat, and just some happy go lucky guy we wronged?

Chet
[/quote]

Forget Saddam. True war reasons are much more “ambitious”.

Okay, we’re agreed on that. And I also agree that Iraq is one source of anti-west/anti-americanism. However, I think the tougher question is what to do about that. Coming in with a big hammer and just trying to beat the crap out of people just doesn’t seem like the right approach. Not that force is never justified or should never be used, but it must be used in combination with diplomacy and other tools in service of a longer term goal. It’s very important to “win hearts and minds”. Let’s hope we do a better job of that this time than we did in Vietnam.

While I don’t support the war (for the same reasons you’ve stated – I don’t think we should be going in without UN authorization), I actually really was hopeful that our actions would be viewed more positively by the Iraqi people. I realize that we still don’t have a clear picture on how many of the Iraqis support us vs. how many don’t. However, I’ve seen quite a number of disturbing news reports suggesting that the Iraqis really do view as us a guy with a big hammer coming to beat the crap out of them instead of as a benevolent neighbor coming to rescue them from their father Saddam who beats them.

I think one thing I underestimated was the importance of having that UN backing in order to win the hearts of the Iraqi people. Think about it, if you were an Iraqi general, who would you be more likely to surrender to – a UN force sent with the authorization of the UN security council or a “coalition of the willing” headed by a country which you viewed as a bully and which was best friends with your mortal enemy (Israel).

I hear you on this one. I really am depressed about this war because I think going in without UN approval is going to cost us too much in the long run. I’m saddened by the damage we’ve done to our relationship with the UN, NATO, and our traditional allies from the past 50 years. But I’m also not out in the streets. So many of the protestors think any military action is always unjustified. The “violence never solves anything” theory is absolutely nuts when it comes to International relations. Our society would not survive for long if it thought force was never justified. So I agree, much of the anti-war movement is just nuts. At the same time, that doesn’t mean that the pro-war group is right either. In addition to the diplomatic damage we’ve done, if it turns out that most of the Iraqis really don’t want us there, we could have a major disaster on our hands. Stationing troops long term in a potentially hostile country might end up costing more lives than the war itself – Gulf War I cost 148 American lives, but the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon costed 241 lives.

your post made no sense in the context of this thread. You introduced the connection - no one else.

Not really. This was a thread about the media, and some Guest said showing the suiciding people of 9/11 would rally more support for this war.

The connection between 9/11 and Saddam was never meant to be a direct one. Secret services were amatuerlishly faking such evidence to win the support of the gullible, but the truth is, oppressive regimes in general help the terrorists winning recruits. Of course, aggressive, unprovoked invasion by the “Great Satan” will only make the situation worse and escalate the violence. That’s the kind discussion the media should be full with, not this embedded shit. Those irrelevant technical details of the war machinery cloud the view on the big picture.

The images shown by cbs were shown on sept 11th 2001. Are we to imagine they had prior knowledge of the event and that Bush would use it as an excuse to attack saddam 2 1/2 years later? No one else made that connection until Tom did.

Chet

Actually, the US government made the connection and I hear it parroted all over the place, including these threads.

And when you equate the connection between the carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor and Japan to the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, it’s pretty disingenuous for you to write it off as me introducing the connection.

Yes, Chet, that’s exactly what I think. And the notes should have little pink hearts on them.

I’m all for using force against Saddam Hussein, but there are many gradations of force. I’d like to think I live in a nation that has a few stages before going off half-cocked on a full-blown invasion.

Oddly enough, since you claim to be opposed to the war, I suspect we agree on this point.

 -Tom

I don’t agree at all. It’s the job of journalists to show a piece of truth, not to protect the feelings of a certain mother. It’s impossible to say (or show) anything meaningful without offending someone.

If people are so afraid of the truth that they won’t turn on their TV anymore, they might finally realize what a terrifying world they live in. Mainstream media however tends to treat everyone like children who need to be protected from unpleasant facts.

The newfound “voluntary censorship” is also nationalistic (to avoid the blurry term “racist”). Do they have a problem when the dead human being is an African, an Arab, a Chinese? These guys have mothers too, you know. No, they only get sensitive when Americans are affected.

Excuse me if I got worked up, but I believe if anything has the potential to destroy humanity, it’s patriotism turning into fanatical nationalism.[/quote]

How does showing someone’s bloody, battered corpse make their death ‘more true’ then if they just reported their death? ‘Oh look, I didn’t believe Tommy was dead until CNN showed his brains splattered against the wall.’?

And just think about the state the countries you just mentioned are currently in and the way their government is run.
Oh, and it’s rare that most American news outlets are shown in those countries, and even more rare that those shows actually show something like that of ANY nationality.

I don’t think we should ignore death, of course not, but there is a reason people request closed casket funerals.

Speak of the devil: the TNR editors are complaining about the US media’s refusal to show anything remotely controversial.

“But the race in the desert came to an end, and cruelties were visited on American troops, and the gravity of history reasserted itself, and the battle for Baghdad was begun. The thrill is gone. And the stimulations of the media have left many Americans poorly equipped for exposure to the actuality of the conflict. The debate about Al Jazeera’s display of the executed American soldiers is an indication of our unreadiness for what is taking place. Why should Americans be spared this knowledge? What illusion, exactly, is being protected? The feelings of the families of these victims certainly count for something, but the suppression of these pictures is still a suppression of the truth. The atrocious images will anyway be interpreted in many ways: They will make some Americans hate the war, and they will make other Americans hate the enemy. But surely they are essential for a proper understanding of the circumstances of, and the reasons for, this struggle. (Nothing made the culture of Al Qaeda more plain than the tape of the execution of Daniel Pearl, which was similarly suppressed. It was not a snuff film; it was a political commercial.)”

Jason bite my ass, if they DID start showing that crap you would be the FIRST to start screaming about how wrong it is and how it’s just a tool to drum up support for the war.

I rather doubt showing American corpses would make Americans more supportive of the war. It sure didn’t in Vietnam.

I like how the anti-war contingent think their last shining hope is to get as many grizzly scenes on television as they possibly can in order to enflame the people to their cause. For peaceloving citizens of the world they sure seem eager for scenes of death and destruction. If you’re loosing the war of rhetoric, might as well move on to viceral reactions to graphic images.

Look, you dipshits, I’m not for putting bodies on the television because I want us to lose; I hope we quickly win and all the crazy theories of the neocons turn out to be right.

It’d just be nice for the western world to acknowledge the reality of what we’re doing. So far, war has just been a bunch of pretty lights, and a few names of dead soldiers, and a bit of interviews with patriotic parents of dead soldiers.

This extremely (and I do mean extremely) disturbing page of photos is the cost of this war. Maybe the good that’ll hopefully come is worth it, maybe not. I think one or two of those are way, way too visceral for television viewing; but at the other end, I’m expected to believe American’s delicate constitution can’t handle shots of intact dead bodies from a distance? Can’t hold up to televised interviews of POWs?

I think we got a lot more honest reporting, visual-wise, in World War 2.

Excellent point, I could see going into Iraq without UN backing under some cicumstances but the current situation was not one of those. It’s true that Saddam has had 12 years to disarm but it has only been fairly recently that Bush started to reapply the pressure. Bush should have given the process another 6 months to a year in my view. I can’t help but think that he wanted to just go in anyway.

On the other hand, now that we’re in Iraq, I believe we need to get the job done quickly and to get out. The longer it drags out the more enemies the USA will make in the middle east.

I get your point. You’re saying that we need to get everyone who was involved with 9/11.

My point would be that the US hasn’t made a connection between Iraq and Quada but not for want of trying. Since there is no connection, you can’t use 9/11 to justify the current invasion. Doing so implies that we’ll just invade whatever random countries we choose–such as invading China because we’re in the neighborhood or Canada because of a loss on our Southern border.

There are some good arguments against the war on this very board and more on the web. From what I see, both camps have their share of nuts. The neocons who want to send an aggressive message to the entire world make me cringe moreso than the Love Thy Neighbor crowd.

Jason,

Please stop. Your attempts to play one side against the other are transparent and rather fruitless. Try a new tack. Congrats on the attempted originality though.

Anyway, I’d have to revise my suggestion that the best war coverage comes from CBS. The Daily Show is head and shoulders above anyone else, especially their analysts.

Oops, this just in today Tim… Al-Qaeda trained Iraqi soldiers. Guess there is a connection.

Now shut up.