American "Shields" Learning the Truth in Baghdad

This might cover some of the Germany part.

<a HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=275279&sw=germany%27s+anti-war+crimes">Gerhard Schroeder</a>

 

You've responded to it yourself, apparently without realizing it.

First, to say the protesters are booing the liberation of Iraq is the same as saying they support Saddam -- which you explicitly say is "silly and makes no sense."

Second, as you note, there are legitimate causes for doubt as to how well the U.S. will follow through on its implied promise of freedom. The Iraqis who are cheering may not be aware of this.

Besides, many Iraqis are aware, and are much more wary:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_safwan030322.html

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_dear_raed_archive.html#90779364

An excerpt from the second link (which may have been posted on this BBS already; I recall seeing a thread about the source):

Support democracy in Iraq not by bombing us to hell and then trying to build it up again (well that is going to happen any way) not by sending human shields (let’s be real the war is going to happen and Saddam will use you as hostages), but by keeping an eye on what will happen after the war.

 

Hypocrisy (sp?) in my earlier post is duly noted. Trying to be even handed but some bias obviously popped out there.

That hypocritical remark doesn't touch upon the original point at all, though, so I don't understand what you mean by saying I've responded to it myself.

I was just speaking to a friend about this and he suggested the same thing- that the Iraqis just don't know what we know, and have doubts about the future. But that doesn't entirely make sense- almost every article that speaks about the newly liberated towns in the south touch upon how they were butchered when the US didn't finish the job in 91, and they might be wary. I suppose there's a mix, just like there would be anywhere else.

Thanks for the links, it's good to see the other side of the coin. I really like Raed's weblog, I hadn't seen that entry by him, it was really well done.

Isn't it ironic that that in hindsight, everybody wishes that the US finished the job back in the first war, but if we did- we would have been lambasted by the international community. George Sr. bowed out of a full invasion from international pressure. It seems to me the same people who are against the war now are the same people who would have vilified the US if they did the "right thing" over ten years ago. It's all so clear in hindsight.

 

You didn't ask for anything on the Russians..........but here is a good story about them.

<a HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13057-2003Mar23.html">
3 Russian Firms' Deals Anger U.S. Iraq Purchased Jamming Gear, Missiles, Night-Vision Goggles</a>

<i>.............The administration said it learned last month that an order of several thousand night vision goggles was due to be shipped by one of the Russian firms. Russian authorities were provided "enough information to stop the shipment before it went," the official said, but they replied variously by saying that only a few goggles had been given as gifts to Middle Eastern leaders or that it was the weekend and nothing could be done.

Night vision goggles have given U.S. forces a vast advantage in their ability to engage in combat at night, a superiority that would be diminished if Iraqi soldiers obtained similar equipment.

As Iraq stepped up its military procurement, the government of President Saddam Hussein increased its acquisition of antitank guided missiles produced by a firm called KBP Tula. U.S. authorities imposed sanctions on the company last year for allegedly selling antitank weapons to neighboring Syria, officials said.

Iraq purchased a "militarily significant quantity" of Kornet missiles from the company in the past two months, according to U.S. officials, who said they told Moscow that documents identifying Yemen as the purchaser of the missiles were wrong. They reported that the administration first asked Russian authorities to halt the missile sales last year.

The Bush administration reserved its highest-level efforts for halting the delivery of the jamming devices, which officials said sell for thousands of dollars apiece and can interfere with global positioning equipment important to aircraft navigation and ground forces. Guided bombs also use the technology, but are equipped with accurate backup guidance systems.

The threat was considered serious enough that very senior U.S. officials pressed the Russians to crack down on the Moscow-based manufacturer, Aviaconversiya. Appeals began at a low level in June 2002. For three months, according to the Americans, the Russians denied the company existed, despite its Internet site and extensive media coverage.

As time went on, successively higher-ranking Americans advised the Russians that the delivery of the devices "would be a violation of a number of U.N. sanctions that forbid the sale of any military equipment to Iraq," an official said. The same was true of the goggles and missiles, according to the Americans.

The jamming devices were initially imported to counter U.S. and British jets patrolling the "no-fly" zones of northern and southern Iraq, U.S. officials believe, citing intelligence sources, and were deployed last week when U.S. forces began their attack.

Complaints from U.S. officials escalated in recent weeks, and earlier this month Russian Ambassador Yuri Ushakov was summoned to the State Department to discuss the matter. Some of the administration's highest-ranking officials pressed the issue with their Russian counterparts.

"We know that they're turned on. We know that they're attempting to use them," the official said of the equipment. "My pilots are taking signals from these."

Administration officials became infuriated last week when they learned that Aviaconversiya personnel are now in Iraq "showing Iraqis how to use them and how to fix them," said the official. The Russians "sure as hell should have been able to stop these guys."
..........</i>

 

The thing I love most about that picture is the inaccuracy and misrepresentation. Protesters are not protesting liberating any cities at all. They are protesting for peace. There is a difference.

That kind of dishonest misrepresentation is what gives the pro war side a bad name. The Anti-war demonstrators do stupid things too. Both sides have people who do a discredit to those that debate in good faith.

 

You do realize that it is the war that is liberating the cities, don't you. You can't protest one and support the other, they are one in the same. That is like supporting getting your cotton picked for free, but opposing slavery. The cities were under the control of Saddam. If there was no war, they would continue to be under the control of Saddam. All of the doubletalk in the world isn't going to change that. Can the anti-war crowd really have that much difficulty in understanding cause and effect? No, they are being disingenuous, and I think that gives them the bad name.

 

Yeah but a point could be made that the Bush Administration brought this anti-war backlash upon itself by discrediting our NATO and UN allies from the onset, and then when in the time of diplomatic crisis, they excerbated the situation by treating them in a cynnical quid pro quo fashion.

What isn't clear today is how our projection of American power overseas will be utilized and percieved. The American public's gravitation towards sound bites and a two party system lumps people who fear the American hegemony envisioned by Wolfowitz and Rummy into the anti-war crowd when their concerns don't neccesarily compliment each other. I don't think there would be as many marches if the UN had sanctioned this war in the first place, and I also don't think that the French where a major stumbling block in the UN until we gave them that role to play in. When you scare liberal interventionalists yearning to free an oppressed people out of war, then there are some signs that the government is not giving the right salespitch.

 

<b>treeman</b>: I'm with you about Rumsfeld. He does an awe-inspiring job (no shock, though). I have some faded memory that pre-9/11 there were some rumors which had Rumsfeld leaving the Cabinet. Anyone else remember anything like that.

~"Going to war without France is like going to war without your accordian!" --- Donald Rumsfeld (paraphrased).

 

Very good article. While reading how Schroeder backed himself into a corner on Iraq, I wondered if that had some bearing on France's quick refusal to Britain's last proposal to the security council...trying to protect Schroeder from humilation.

 

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
The thing I love most about that picture is the inaccuracy and misrepresentation. Protesters are not protesting liberating any cities at all.

That's the point.

They are protesting for peace. ...

Is this world ready for peace? Supporting peace under all circumstances is naive.

One thing I don't understand, is why weren't the demonstrators marching for years, for all of the Iraqi's tortured and murdered by this regime? If those marches had occured for the last 20 years, the world would be cheering what would now be a UN-backed intervention. Instead, the plight of the Iraqi people has been ignored by all.

 

You're absolutly right.
That is what Americans don't understand about Chirac's position.He's not against getting Saddam out of Irac,he protesting against the way Bush wants to do it:using guns,bombs and other weapons.
There are other ways of resolving a problem that using military solution.



ALA

 

WHile I support our troops and support our protestors, I can't help but think this is naive. I mean, do you honestly think Saddam would bow to international pressure and give up his position of power? Or even stop the use of secret police? What other solution do you propose that wasn't being done in the last decade?

 

Perhaps we can send in rambo to get him?

 

maybe we can wait another 12 years like we did before and see how many people he kills and tortures in that time period.

appeasers suck.

 

Again you don't understand my point.I'm not supporting what Saddam is doing,what I'm saying is that there are other ways of settling the conflict.


ALA

 

you don't understand my point...we tried the diplomatic routes...we tried for 12 years...now we're marching through Iraq and the people are begging us not to leave this time...not to let them down like we did before. these peoples' lives have been a living hell under this jackass. there is no room for negotiation with a tyrant. no room at all. we gave him 12 years...then we gave him 6 months of debate with the UN..then we gave him 48 hours to go into exile. he refused at every turn...he was not going to reliquish his power. so we'll help him turn loose of it.

 

Ok try this:
If it had been Turkemidztan(no oil,no stratigical advantages for US) would Bush have cared as much and pushed for quick results,bcoz u have to reconise that seemed very eager to send in the troops.

ALA