Did anyone watch Harold Pinter's Nobel speech today? Very controversial but very...inspired. His disposition reminded me starkly about Hari Seldon. :.)
Maybe I'm a bit ahead of you, although not much of those in the UK.
It picks up after six minutes and he's in full swing by 11. I must say he holds a fast pace for a guy with throat cancer.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Unlike that other acclaimed Nobel laurete, Tookie Williams who said "yo, I founded da gangz".
Wow. they're translating speaches into Swedish and German now? Truly an age of wonder we live in, boyos.
quote:Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method.
...and right or wrong, has never been a "crime" (as he insinuates the US comitted). Who holds sway over what is a "crime" of invasion exactly? What country that's capable has not been guilty of it?
While I agree wiuith him on Guantanamo, the notion that invading Iraq was "an act of terrorism" is stupid in the extreme.
Stupid comment #1
quote:We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
Er...that was all already abundantly there- we just brought our own and upset the status quo of it. Dont agree? Ask the Kurds.
quote: The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
Stupid comment #2 I cant speak for every american newspaper, but every death from here in Florida is accopanied by an article, interviews and opinions of the family. I've read a dozen interviews and articles on wounded troops and their problems this year alone. Nothing is "hidden" just because a funeral is not a PR event. Who would want a funeral that was not "unobtrusive"? These soldiers gave their lives doing their duty- no diffrent than any other serviceman that's died serving their country.
There are numerous good points in the critique, but to point out all that's obviously wrong or immoral and then offer no alternatives is pointless. This kind of thing is why Plato's argument (in Repubicfor censorship of the arts is so compelling (though I dont agree with it completely, obviously). Of course Plato also said "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." so mabye this will inspire some to actually demand a higher moral standard from their leaders.
But I would'nt count on it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Er...that [torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death] was all already abundantly there- we just brought our own and upset the status quo of it."
Therefore... George Bush is just as bad as Saddam Hussein? Excellent point.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, yeah, but it's not as if "we brought them there and it was some peaceful hamlet before then.
WIthout getting into an "ends justify the means" debate, a lot of people over there are very happy we invaded.
BUt even without taking the ongoing violence into concideration, we'd be hated by a lot of people there- the ones that were in power or had a fairly good lifestyle under Saddam.
Having lived through natural disasters, I can testify that the nicest of people turn real ugly real quick without basic services...and the US invasion took that away from millions....and have done a crappy job restoring them too.
We've brought down the quality of life for the country and no "big picture" of a free Iraq will block that out.
All that being said, no- Bush is no where close in any way to being "as bad" as Saddam Hussein.
War monger or not, he's not genocidal- he actually thinks he's doing good for the people of Iraq (weither hey like it or not).
People rarely hear first hand accounts of what atrocities went on in Iraq under Hussein (or tune them out) but Iraq is a long way from the mass graves and prisons full of children that hallmarked Saddam's rule.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, even though people are still dying by the hundreds, it's better because they're being buried in individual graves? Even though innocent people are being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured, it's better because a smaller percentage (though still >0) are children?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Site me where "innocent people are being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured" and even one instance of a child being inprisoned (much less to serve as punishment for their parent's political opinion).
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Wow.
That was inflammatory and offensive. Stirring, provocative and utterly ruthless. I actually squirmed in my seat on several occasions. The Neruda reading was brutal. Can Harold Pinter regularly deliver such opinions on network news channels in the US please? Because the problem is that so few here will ever hear this message. I ache to hear the opinions of such intelligent and considered people speaking so candidly on a regular basis. Like to balance the headline (i.e. superficial) news monkeys. I have this fantasy that this is level at which politics and news are playing in other countries. But then I met this seemingly cool Polish guy (who had wonderful musical tastes, btw) in a hostel in Vienna and he was so pro-Bush it was terrifying.
Thanks for the link, Nim.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I agree, Balaam. This reminds me of quoted exchanges between politicians in the 1800's, fists slamming on tables and papers thrown everywhere. Too bad the people who most need to hear this are too insulated to ever get near it.
Jason:
quote:Er...that was all already abundantly there- we just brought our own and upset the status quo of it.
Right, like Abu Ghraib and Willy Pete. If they need to sort out their mess, it has to come from inside. Haven't you read Robert Pape's report?
quote:the notion that invading Iraq was "an act of terrorism" is stupid in the extreme.
Ok, let's go through the moves here. The invasion was unprovoked. They made things up as they went, counting on the world's hatred for Saddam to do the most of the work, and they were right. Then they wrap the whole operation in nice words and memos. So it's not terrorism because it is carried out in such an orderly fashion? Tis is one of Pinter's main points, the labels the politicians use to condone their work. Terrorism is what they do, we do peacekeeping and enforcing. I thought his other play with labels was good, in the last segment, his proposed Bush speech to the nation; their decapitation versus electricity and injections.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
[Direct invasion of a sovereign state] ... has never been a "crime" (as he insinuates the US comitted).
There exists such a thing as international law, or have you "prahaps" forgotten that B&B legally hinged the entire invasion on their own shady little interpretations of UNSC Resolution 1441?
Who holds sway over what is a "crime" of invasion exactly?
The international community.
What country that's capable has not been guilty of it?
A crime committed by many is still a crime.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, maybe international law exists. I mean, I'm on that side of the argument, but it's an interesting philosophical question.
Seymour Hersh claims that among the evidence shown to Congress in regards to Abu Ghraib are several videos of children being tortured. Of course, he hasn't included those specific claims in his New Yorker articles, and the New Yorker has a reputation for having an intensely rigorous fact-checking regime.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Who sets that International law you all are talking about? The UN? They've signed off on how many conflicts exactly? While I completely agree that the case for war was misrepresented as solid (by Bush's inner circle only-many in Congress voted on War with the same faulty info as the masses) it's certainly not definite that they rigged the evidence (as opposed to only focusing on whatever they wanted to see). One is willful stupidity- the other a crime (in US courts- punishible with impeachment).
There have been dozens of wars with no UN approval- I think the only actual times they signed off on a war were the Falklands and first war with Iraq- and if it's an official "crime" to go to war, it's nothing anyone has ever been charged with (including Saddam Hussein).
Invading another country, while certainly not right or moral, is by definition not "terrorism"- the author is only usuing that word to provoke a knee-jerk response. Terrorism is targeting a group of non-combatants to instill fear as a means to accomplish a goal (usually to get attention for whatever cause). Invading a country after affter a month's untimatum, and then invading while taking extreme measures to prevent civillian casualties...it's not terrorism. Not in any way. It was an extremely effective military invasion of an enemy country (warranted or not) and it's become a poorly organized occupation.
But it's not terrorism in any way.
quote:Seymour Hersh claims that among the evidence shown to Congress in regards to Abu Ghraib are several videos of children being tortured. Of course, he hasn't included those specific claims in his New Yorker articles, and the New Yorker has a reputation for having an intensely rigorous fact-checking regime.
I've not heard anything about that- not from Amnesty International who supposedly have all the photos gathered forr safekeeping (dont nayone to "misplace" evidence, right?).
Again guys, I'm not defending BusCo's policies, only taking apart what is an obviously impassioned speach with several errors in it- one that completely leaves out the good that's been done in Iraq.
Particularly bad is the nonsense about "The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark." Saying crap like that only undermines the good points to his speach and lets the Right -and mainstream for that matter- dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about. iF he really wants people to pay attention, he needs to write something that sounds less like an ad for Moveon.org.
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I agree, Balaam. This reminds me of quoted exchanges between politicians in the 1800's, fists slamming on tables and papers thrown everywhere.
Er...you mean the wildly corrupt 1800's? the good 'ol days of colonialism, invasions for land gain and "manifest Destiny" justifications for wiping out entire cultures? Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:There have been dozens of wars with no UN approval- I think the only actual times they signed off on a war were the Falklands and first war with Iraq
Korea.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, that's three then.
The problem with getting UN approval, is that the country to be invaded has to relativly debt free- otherwise shylock on the Security Council (the countries that hold real power) will vote it down (or they can kiss that money goodbye).
Does not help that almost every country has monetary and political ties with several others- it takes something really outlandish to get everyone on the same page.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In response to Jason, since Omega totally snaked me: More likely Nim means, as he said, the days when political debates were intensely intellectual affairs.
"Who sets that International law you all are talking about? The UN?"
International law is, simply, or rather not so simply, the sum of every treaty agreed to by various states. Not every state, of course, agrees to every treaty, nor is every treaty designed to apply to every state, hence "not so simply." The UN is a product of this process, as are any and all trade agreements, defense agreements, and so on.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...while taking extreme measures to prevent civillian casualties..."
I'd hardly say "extreme measures". "Token gestures", maybe. Sometimes "a complete lack of any attempt". But not "extreme measures".
"Particularly bad is the nonsense about 'The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark.' "Saying crap like that only undermines the good points to his speach and lets the Right -and mainstream for that matter- dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about."
So, what's the problem this time? Because some of the flights take place during the day, they're not really in "the dark"? It's a metaphor. It means no-one gets to see them. And considering that the media really were banned from photographing the returning coffins, I don't see how you can argue that it isn't true.
Also interesting is the story that was reported by a San Diego news station recently about how, after the properly-flag-draped coffins are ceremoniously removed from the military planes at the Air Force base, they get boxed up and chucked into the cargo holds of commercial flights to be sent back to their families.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:"...while taking extreme measures to prevent civillian casualties..."
I'd hardly say "extreme measures". "Token gestures", maybe. Sometimes "a complete lack of any attempt". But not "extreme measures".
Um...do you actually know anyone that's served over there? I do- four of my friends are or have been to Iraq and have seen combat- they tell me that the orders are-and always have been to protect civilians and not to engage any enemy unless fired on first if civilians are present.
That means that if they see a known insurgent in a crowd, they still wont open fire if civilians could be injured. Thats extreme measures during a war- no other conflict has ordered troops to take such precautions or to put themselves at such risk by doing so.
Despite the well-publicised accounts of prisoner abuse, there are thousands of troops from Britan and the US going waaaay out of their way to protect the locals, stop the insurgents and not get, you know....killed.
Not a "token gesture" by any serviceman.
quote:So, what's the problem this time? Because some of the flights take place during the day, they're not really in "the dark"? It's a metaphor. It means no-one gets to see them. And considering that the media really were banned from photographing the returning coffins, I don't see how you can argue that it isn't true.
Nothing is covered up or concealed from the public's view. That's just not true at all- CNN and FOX might not be reporting live from the graveside, but it is reported- for anyone that wants to see anyway. Pick up a newspaper sometime- as I said, every death from Florida is reported on here. So there are no photos of coffins stacked up? Do you really need them (aside from useing them to sell newspapers with the shock photo that is)?
I dont think the military is hiding anything by keeping reporters away from coffins- that kind of goulish shit was common in the Viet Nam war and was totally banned in the Gulf War.
Really, by comparison with GW1, this has been a very public conflict with little restrant on reporters.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(I don't see the outrage in bodies being transported as cargo on civilian flights. I mean, guess what happens if I die and have to be shipped somewhere? That's just how bodies are shipped. It isn't inherently disrespectful. For example.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Intresting example from that "coldchef" poster.
Certainly does not seem hidden in any way.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
But Tim is talking about media coverage.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, if the media missed a funeral with hundreds of attendees and a 75 car procession, it's not like it was somehow concealed from them by the military or anyone else- no one has a gag order on talking to reporters- in Iraq or here.
The military has been very forthcoming with the names and numbers of servicemen killed in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I think the lack of media coverage is that their own choice- for example, Florida's Sun Sentinel and Miami Herald both have deaily Iraq sections. ...starting at page 14.
When they post headlines from Iraq, their readership drops considerably. Even the start of Hussein's trial was not front page news on the Sentinel.
What does that say about the public's desire to know?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: "...while taking extreme measures to prevent civillian casualties..."
I'd hardly say "extreme measures". "Token gestures", maybe. Sometimes "a complete lack of any attempt". But not "extreme measures".
This is grossly unfair, not to mention inaccurate. Given the nature of the fighting in Iraq, civilian casualties caused by coalition forces have been remarkably low. This is particularly true when you consider the destructive potential of modern weapons when used indiscriminately.
The primary problem in Iraq has always been a lack of troops to secure the country; this was the result of false assumptions about the extent of opposition as well as a desire on the American part to do it quickly and cheaply. The troops used were more than adequate to defeat the Iraqi army and take over the country in one of the most efficiently conducted campaigns in modern warfare. Post war, however, America assumed the situation would be such that troop levels could be maintained for a while then drawn down. This was wholly unrealistic. Remember, it took around 400,000 Commonwealth soldiers and policemen to put down around 45,000 communists in Malaya. And that took 12 years, with a broadly sympathetic population and a reliable local source of trained manpower.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Particularly bad is the nonsense about "The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark."
My mind referenced the fact that the Administration has banned the photographing of the flag draped caskets as they return to Dover Air Force Base.
I think the Administration feels it would be bad for the morale of the American people to see photos like this:
Photos like these, of numbers of caskets sitting together, reflect the fact that large numbers of American soldiers are dying. Additionally, this type of photo has a power that photos of single caskets can not have.
They reflect the reality of war which the Administration tries so hard to keep in the deep background.
*Do however read a bit of information regarding the photos.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I have NO respect for reporters. In the finest tradition of Hearst, they will MANUFACTURE a story for their own benefit. A couple of years after I graduated, a girl from my school came up missing. There was a huge search and fear of an abduction. The state had received a lot of rain in that period and a few days later her car was found in a ditch after the waters had receded. She had ran off the road, her car overturned and she had drowned.
Not half an hour after the discovery, there were THREE news crews at my former school shoving cameras and microphones in fellow classmates faces asking "How does this make you feel?" and other crap like that before anyone at the school had been notified or prepared to deal with the trauma to the students.
Of course, the reporters defended their actions as the publics "Right to Know" how these friends were being effected by the news. And of course it didn't hurt their ambitions to be on "News first at 4 p.m.". One of these same reporters did an expose' on "Good Samaritans". She was a blonde bombshell and she set up "Scientific Studies" of responses to her being stranded with a stalled car on the roadside. In one set of tests, she was dressed in a fat suit that made her look like she weighed 300 lbs., in the other she was dressed in a slinky outfit. AMAZINGLY, she got more people to stop for her in that getup than in the fat suit, though the numbers were not that far apart. This is what is considered "good reporting" now?
I think the first thing that should be done is eliminate ratings for newscasts and disallow the sales of ad space during the news. Then there would be less clamoring for ratings and you might actually get 15 min. of news during a half-hour news show.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
So... do you have a screencap of her in the slinky outfit?
Reporters are what they are. I've heard stories on the news and on programs like Dateline that, well, made me stop watching Dateline. But you know... there are other things to worry about.
Oh, and the idiot who went to your school and spread that info around in that manner should have been fired.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
After reading you post and it's tenuous connection to the topic at hand, allow me to offer you a couple of new signature lines Wiz.
"I reject reality and substitute my own."
And...
"I hijack threads for my own off topic rants."
You have no respect for reporters because of what you think a bunch of goofball local newies did. Well, good for you.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
My apologies for terrorizing this poor unsuspecting thread. Seeing as how the prior posts had nothing to do with media coverage (or lack thereof) I can see how terrifying my post must have been.
My point is that the media will report on what makes them money via ratings or advances the producer/editor's personal agendas. If they are looking for the revenue dollars, they are going to sensationalize ANYTHING. If I were a member of one of these soldiers families, I would NOT want some assinine reporter there with camera in hand snapping away. That soldier gave his life in the service of this country, right or wrong in this war. To sensationalize it for your benefit or to use it as a political piece only denigrates the sacrifice that that individual made. Even if you don't believe in the actions of the Administration, you can at least honor the fallen who did their duty to this country.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
But everything you say after "my point is" is plain common sense. How is that a point?
Something I thought about, if Pinter had been well enough to travel up here he'd not had the chance to makes as long an acceptance speech. Plus, he is getting this price for his writing and dramas, not for human rights. Although the motivation was "Harold Pinter - who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Photos like these, of numbers of caskets sitting together, reflect the fact that large numbers of American soldiers are dying. Additionally, this type of photo has a power that photos of single caskets can not have.
They reflect the reality of war which the Administration tries so hard to keep in the deep background.
You'd think a photo like that one would be preferable to showing a grief-stricken family (of voters besides), but I dont pretend to really understand most of the government's reasoning.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...they tell me that the orders are-and always have been to protect civilians and not to engage any enemy unless fired on first if civilians are present. "That means that if they see a known insurgent in a crowd, they still wont open fire if civilians could be injured. "Thats extreme measures during a war..."
Clearly I don't have a military mind, as, to me, all of that sounds like common sense, not "extreme" measures.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, compare it to, say, WWII where the "greatest generation" certainly did not adhere to such restrictions.
It's difficult to consider that (with all the bad press) our troops are held to a higher standard of engagment. ...though it's partly because the enemy is not easily identifiable.
Mosques are also off-limits areas- even when the troops know insurgents are hiding there, using it as a base and even firing from within, it's common for troops to fall back until the OK is given to take the building. Such are the extremes of not wanting civilian deaths.
That being said, an estimated 150-300 civilians are killed each month (if you include deaths attributed to both sides). Clearly, that's horiffic, but it reflects problems with overall policy and strategy- not the actions of the troops in the field.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Clearly I don't have a military mind, as, to me, all of that sounds like common sense, not "extreme" measures.
Depends on the military culture and type of deployment. In this type of deployment those things are basically common sense; in WW2 they did not. the Iraq occupation is essentially an old style ColPol (Colonial Policing) deployment, although more akin to the various emergancy situations which accompanied the end of empire. The US Army has rarely had to fight this kind of war; it's interesting that old British Army training manuals were circulated to some US commanders prior to the war.
As for Pinter, yes it's quite a good polemic piece. But that's pretty much all it is.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It also depends on the style of war being waged.
Iraq is without a doubt a limited war with both military and political goals. Well its an armed conflict if you will since only Congress can declare war in the United States and I�m starting to become very tired of the talking head media misusing the term.
In an unlimited war scenario a state does whatever it takes to win, including targeting the civilian population of a country to destroy their will to:
1) continue to fight 2) continue to support the regime in power
The British and American bombing raids over Germany in World War II, Sherman�s March To The Sea and Sheridan�s Shenandoah campaign during the American Civil War offer examples.
The Korean conflict offers and example of the conflict between limited and unlimited war. Douglas MacArthur wanted to bomb across the Yalu River into China thereby greatly escalating the war but was stopped by Harry Truman. Militarily attacking across the Yalu might have been the correct thing to do, but Truman didn�t see such an escalation as a goal of his in the conflict.
[ December 13, 2005, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well, compare it to, say, WWII where the "greatest generation" certainly did not adhere to such restrictions.
My grandpa's always proudly telling that story where he opened up with his Thompson on that crowd of doe-eyed French villagers because he thought he saw Jerry. We all laugh and laugh at the good old days.
Though there have been I think there have been plentyof reportsof US soldiersfiring into crowds, it was specifically the aforementioned sub-accurate mortar deployment of white phosphorous rounds (in civilian areas no less). Which, I suspect, was the point initially. Well, perhaps not THE point, but a A point.
I do think we are arguing at cross purposes here. Bad things are happening to human beings on both sides in Iraq. We could argue all day about the level at which this is transpiring and never get anywhere.
I think what Pinter (and many of us) find offensive are the reasons why this is occuring. The suicide bombings, and the leveling of civilian infrastructure searching for insurgents--these acts themselves are reprehensible enough. The deaths are horror aplenty.
What I find truly terrorist are the mercenary motivations behind this 'armed conflict'. The transparent lies and subsequent revisionist history behind our motivations for the present conflict are, at best, dishonorable and ignoble--at worst putrescent and murderous. The craven use of ephemism and media manipulation to lessen the reality, to falsly justify the squandering of human life, and ultimately to conceal the ugliness of our corrupt intent only compounds our sins.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Clearly, that's horiffic, but it reflects problems with overall policy and strategy- not the actions of the troops in the field."
Well, that's what the whole thing is about in the first place : the administration's policies. I don't recall anything that Pinter said that was directed negatively at individual soldiers (even in a generalized "the soldiers" sort of way).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I posted that in response to ypur post about "token gestures" not to the article.
From the linked article:
quote:Sgt Fargon Macksud said he was shot at by a lone gunman but at first held back from returning fire. "I saw the first muzzle flash . . . I didn't fire, I just put my cross-hairs on him," he told ITV News. "The second time he shot, I put a round in him and he fired at the ground. I put another round in him. He didn't move any more."
The army said it found two machineguns, a rifle and 2,500 rounds of ammunition on the roof of a neighbouring house, as well as some spent cartridges. There were bullet holes in two windows of a class room and some bullet marks on the walls.
Very tough situation- it would have probably gone down the same way in any riot situation where people are shooting at authorities and the crowd is violent -even if it's "only" stones- a soldier or cop that goes down will get torn apart by a angry mob- even in the U.S.
From the second linked article:
quote:Even so, al-Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent said on the air that "US forces opened fire around midnight after someone in the crowd threw a stone at them."
So, we see what actually happened in one news source, then Al Jeezera spins it, and this blog picks it up and repeats it like it's a fact.
Makes me doubt the validity of everything else on that site.
The third link (CNN) is the same senerao as the first- a gathering with soldiers near erupts in shooting at the soldiers, then the crowd starts trying to stone them (because not everyone can get their own gun, thankfully), and this time a news crew is stoned as well....after they stoned someone speaking his mind (without violence!) in favor of the americans. Pattern? Insurgents are mixing with crowds to encite violence- not a new ploy, but effective, I guess...not doing their own people any favors either.
Neither of these incidents looks like the troops were doing anything but defending themselves (though that last one is pretty sketchy on facts).
Note that "throwing stones" is a pretty broad term here- recall that the Taliban used to publicly execute people by stoning- they are not talking about the rock fights you might have had as a kid. A few dozen people slinging baseball sized rocks is going to be as lethal as a gunman.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Didn't you read TSN's previous post, Jason? This is splitting hairs, Pinter's point was that the whole campaign is questionable and that no matter how professional and courteous the troops would be, there is no question that they will make the lives of the iraqis worse.
I remember an interview with a former staff aide at the time of 9/11, who said that after the president had gotten news of middle-eastern involvement in the attacks, he called meetings to draw up plans for invading Iraq, before a connection had even been made. He and his gang had been planning for an occasion like this ever since the 90's, waiting for an excuse to launch the campaign and create something Bush will be remembered for. This is Pinter's core argument; the US has taken a new path in history, and as with their 'looking the other way' of Contras in Nicaragua, their view of the greater good has been twisted from that of the other countries in the "free" world. They are killing villages to save them.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You're thinking of Dick Clarke, who was national security advisor to the president until 2003, and wrote Against all Enemies about (among other things) BushCo's obsession with Iraq post-9/11.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: This is Pinter's core argument; the US has taken a new path in history, and as with their 'looking the other way' of Contras in Nicaragua, their view of the greater good has been twisted from that of the other countries in the "free" world.
As near as I can see, the US government's concept of the greater good is expanded democracy and rights by any and all means, whereas in many other areas it is simply stability, irrespective of the consequences for the local populations.
Personally, I'm half and half. Where democratic institutions can be encouraged or practically established, they should be. However, I do think where conflicts are initiated by the west there should be reliable, comprehensive planning and reasoning. Neither can be based on idiotic ideological assumptions, as they appear to have been in Iraq.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Richard Clarke...Dick Clark is of American Bandstand fame.
No need to thank me for the correction. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
An additional book about our misadventures in Iraq.
I've been reading The Assassins' Gate : America in Iraq, or at least trying to but finding it harder due to post surgery fatigue...among other things.
George Packer, the author, starts the book with something of an intellectual history of the Neocons that is fascinating.
[ December 14, 2005, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If you check Cartman's post, he did say "Clarke", not "Clark". And I assume you realize that "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard".
"I posted that in response to ypur post about 'token gestures' not to the article."
But my point is that the whole conversation up to that point, including my post, was about policies. It's impossible to have a generalized discussion about the individual troops' actions. They're all separate people who act differently. Some (most, perhaps) do their jobs properly and try not to endanger civilians. Others may not be so careful. And still others are reported to have actively gone about abusing random civilians.
Basically, the discussion stemmed from Pinter's speech, which criticized the Bush administration and its policies. The individual soldiers didn't enter into it until you brought them up.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No, it was you that was dismissive of what wss going on- as much as the administration is at fault for the situation, it's being handled as well as any wartime situation.
Your exact words regarding civillian casualties were:
quote:I'd hardly say "extreme measures". "Token gestures", maybe. Sometimes "a complete lack of any attempt". But not "extreme measures".
and that's what I was replying to- it was a statement completely devoid of truth, but one which a lot of those critical of BusCo's policies seem to believe, so I responded.
Even the most scandalous report of prisoner abuse only details the actions of a dozen or so indivudals...among over 200,000 troops.
As for the speach itself, I already detailed my grievences with it, ...and it's not like topics dont normally stray from course here in the Flameboard.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Even the most scandalous report of prisoner abuse only details the actions of a dozen or so indivudals...among over 200,000 troops."
Yeah, but those actions are the ones that are a problem. And they're also the ones the administration are failing to properly not condone.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...I think they were pretty vocal in denouncing that treatment as both criminal and abbarant.
...though whatever they say is so much bullshit as long as Cheney insists on allowing for torture "in extreme cases". Whatever exreme means from day to day.
It's worth noting that media will endlessly focus on the worst news only- no headline reads "estimated one in 24,000 soldiers is abusive"...it just wont sell papers if it does not sound commonplace. Then, like the old game of "whisper", the facts distort untill every soldier is a bloodthirsty mainic (though the drinking of blood part is usually reserved for Al Jeezera and Moveon.org).
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:...though whatever they say is so much bullshit as long as Cheney insists on allowing for torture "in extreme cases". Whatever exreme means from day to day.
And so we're back to square one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Torture-wise, in the viewpoint of the world, if nothing else, yes....untill mid-year elections anyway.
I wonder how much damage control BushCo can do between now and then- it's gonna be tough for him to continue his agendas if the democrats win majority in congress and the house.
Not that they have their shit together or anything.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...as long as Cheney insists on allowing for torture..."
He doesn't have to insist much with the CIA running its clandestine terror prison network, now does he?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah! But so much can change in a day or so:
-Cheney got the smackdown from McCain, who went directly to Bush and (wonder of wonders) convinced him to sign the ban on torture! Man, the press is calling it a "major defeat" for Cheney (as though his agenda were seperate from the Presidents). MvCain is probably the only Republican I'd like to meet and shake hands with.
-12 million voted in Iraq's elections- many women and minorities voted for the very first time, and the day was (gasp!) peaceful! Shows some good is happening over there at least. The Miami Herald had a bueatiful pic of a woman holding up her ink-stained fingers in a peace "V". Very cool.
-The senate shot down the extentions and broadening of the Patriot Act as grossly violating civil liberties.
Annnd.... -Bush himself is in hot water for (according to the New York Times) ordering the NSA to eavesdrop on private citizens with no warrant or showing just cause) as far back as 2002. Connie Rice refused to comment.
Overall, a throughly amusing news day. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The senate shot down the extentions and broadening of the Patriot Act as grossly violating civil liberties."
The news reports keep making it sound that way, but they didn't. The bill hasn't been defeated. It hasn't even been voted on. All they've done so far is filibuster it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yet....it's not just the Democrats that opposed it- meaning the Republicans will not try their "nuclear option" if a Fillibuster results and the Democrats wont easily cave in (again).
Besides, take whatever ray of sunshine you can with this administration, pallie.
Besides, this made me actually hopeful for the future of Iraq. A pretty cool report- if these two can have hope after all they suffered through, who are we to be so cynical?.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Yet....it's not just the Democrats that opposed it- meaning the Republicans will not try their 'nuclear option' if a Fillibuster results and the Democrats wont easily cave in (again)."
Only four Republicans voted in favor of the filibuster, and at least one of those (Frist) only did it because he already knew they wouldn't get cloture, and this will allow him to bring the issue back up again.
And the "nuclear option" only applies to judicial nominees. Even these Republicans are not insane enough to try to eliminate the concept of the filibuster entirely.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dis you just say the Republicans were not insane enough to do something stupid?
'Cause, that's jjust asking for trouble..
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Jason's disblief show's as his typing stutters....
I have to agree with Jason though. I am still waiting for Bush to declare himself king.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye we can accomidate him...I hear Anartica is available.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's a terrible thought. Have you forgotten that the only people who live in Antarctica are scientists?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, thye will have to move then.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Just ship Mr. Bush back to his ranch in Texas so he can cut the rest of the brush.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, I like the idea of him freezing half his dubya off.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...the scientists can spend their long cold winter nights trying to explain why evolution is not "just another theory" to him.
Better yet- they can show him John carpenter's The Thing and claim it's a classified CIA report. Man, that would be funny as hell...untill we nuke Anartica, that is.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
We can open resorts on the new balmy shores.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye he'll accept Global Warming as more than just a natural process then...
So...anyone wanna guess at the ramification of Bush's little wiretapping program? Arlen Spector is pissed. He's talking official hearings already.
In the words of the robot policeman from Futurama: Awww Yeah.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)