# Al-Jazeera TV broadcasts video of captured U.S. troops



## Pikache (23 Mar 2003)

http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=DA7477BF-1809-4DF6-A258-3CE34D5796EF  

Associated Press 

DOHA, Qatar (AP) -- The Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera aired footage from Iraqi television Sunday of interviews with what the station identified as captured U.S. prisoners, and also showed bodies in uniform in an Iraqi morgue that it said were Americans. 

There was no confirmation that the prisoners were U.S. soldiers, or if they were, what unit they were attached to. The U.S. Central Command had no comment. 

Four bodies could be seen lying on the floor of the room. 

The station said the prisoners were captured around Nasiriyah, on the Euphrates River. 

At least five prisoners, speaking American-accented English, were interviewed. Two were bandaged. Those interviewed included one woman. 

Two of the prisoners identified their unit only as the 507th Maintenance. 

One of the men, sitting up, was being interviewed by an unseen person holding a microphone labelled "Iraqi TV.‘‘ The soldier spoke in English and at one point said: "I‘m sorry. I don‘t understand you.‘‘ 

The narrator provided an Arabic translation, but it was possible to hear some of the comments in English. 

"I come to shoot only if I am shot at,‘‘ said one prisoner, who said he was from Kansas. Asked why he was fighting Iraqis, he replied: "They don‘t bother me; I don‘t bother them.‘‘ 

Another prisoner, who said he was from Texas, said only: "I follow orders.‘‘ 

A voice off-camera asked "how many officers‘‘ were in his unit. 

"I don‘t know, sir,‘‘ the soldier replied. 

One of the prisoners was shown lying on his back on a bed, with apparent wounds to both arms and hands and marks on his forehead. He had a bandage on one hand and what appeared to be dried blood on his shirt, arms and face. 

Al-Jazeera later showed additional footage of what appeared to be a fuel or water carrier parked alongside a highway and a body in uniform with full gear and still wearing a helmet lying behind the carrier. 

The U.S. army‘s 507th Maintenance Company is based in Fort Bliss, Tex. The unit is part of the army‘s 11th Air Defence Artillery Brigade, which includes Patriot missile batteries. 

On CBS television, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said that if those are indeed coalition soldiers being shown on the Al-Jazeera TV footage, "those pictures are a violation of the Geneva Conventions.‘‘ 

Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan had said earlier Sunday that Iraq was holding U.S. prisoners of war and that it planned to show them on television. 

"Within hours, you will watch American prisoners on TV screens and you will see films of burnt tanks at Souk al-Shyoukh,‘‘ he told a news conference. The town is about 32 kilometres southeast of Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates which Central Command has said was taken by U.S. forces. 

Ramadan, the most senior Iraqi official to appear in public since war broke out, said Iraqi troops engaged coalition forces at Nasiriyah on Saturday night. He said footage of "destroyed vehicles‘‘ would be shown to the press later on Sunday. 

Ramadan also denied claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may have been injured in the attacks that began four days ago. 

"I think for the past four days you have the president on television. You have seen the president more than once,‘‘ he said.

© Copyright 2003 Associated Press


----------



## logistik (23 Mar 2003)

I‘ve seen the pictures. It ****ing pissed me right off.


----------



## Pugil (24 Mar 2003)

Why those people are so afraid of those pictures? Those are the people wo wanted that war so badly. During the Fist Gulf war, we had seen picture of thousands of Iraqis burnt to death on the highway of death, most people werent shocked to see it on tv. Why should they now? Are they afraid to see the true face of war?


----------



## RoyalHighlander (24 Mar 2003)

i know of a site that has that video, very grafic and very disturbing.. I dont know if I should post the link to it, as it also has links to porn and what not. Ill let the mod decide or you can PM me and ill tell you


----------



## RoyalHighlander (24 Mar 2003)

http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm


----------



## greeves (26 Mar 2003)

It was interesting to see that on CNN this morning, the Iraqi troops captured at that hospital in Nasirya had their faces blurred by the tv editors...Is Ted Turner worried about being accused of war crimes??


----------



## SpinDoc (26 Mar 2003)

Hey, that was my idea!  (The blurring out faces bit)
I mentioned it in the "UK Plane Shot down by Patriot" string.   

I think the Red Cross is right, media should just cut out the habit of showing PWs altogether.


----------



## jrhume (26 Mar 2003)

SpinDoc, I saw your suggestion in the other thread.  I assume you‘re getting big fat payments from Ted for using your idea?  LOL

You‘re right about POWs.  Media shots should be from a distance, allowing the reporting of such captures but not showing faces.  Any pictures of POWs and such should come from the Red Cross.

Jim


----------



## greeves (26 Mar 2003)

I knew someone had mentioned it...just couldn‘t remember where!  Are you sure you‘re not Ted Turner?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2003)

I think it was the flinch factor.
One station didn‘t show pictures of dea dsoldiers (at first) so then the rest of the stations flinched and no one showed anything.

I seem to remember during the gulf war seeing pictures and fottage of that highway of death.  Twisted vehicles, bodies everywhere.


----------



## Pugil (26 Mar 2003)

US accusations of Iraqis not adhering to the Geneva conventions is a brutal hypocrisy, remembering their treatment of Afghani prisoners in Guantanamo and the latest pictures of Iraqi POW with their hands bound behind. I have a word for them...WHINNERS

You wanted that war, now you have it so suck it up!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2003)

IRAQ isn‘t following the rules of engagement.  To me that means they are not an army, rather a group of criminals and terrorists with no rights.

Their screwing themselves over. Shooting at allied soldiers then hiding behind a white flag? Thats stupid.  If i was there i wouldnt think twice about shooting someone with a white flag after that. Next time they run out of ammo and decide they want a hot meal and some water and throw up the white flag  i hope they are shot in the stomach.

Correct me if im wrong history buffs but wasn‘t one of the reasons during ww2 on the russian front the germans hardly took prisoners or accepted surrending russian soldiers because often as the germans advanced the russians would surrender (or hide in their trench) thenw hent he germans fought past them they would pop up and shoot at the germans in the back?


----------



## PTE Gruending (26 Mar 2003)

Ghost, this is true; Russian soldiers would surrender, and then ambush the Germans who were advancing, which led to take no prisoners orders. Of course this had good effects and bad ones; On one hand the Russian soldiers new that they would be shot if they surrendered, thus they fought harder. On the other hand the POW‘s that the Germans were to have captured would have created a logistical drain.

I hope that the Coalition exploits these cowardly acts for use in propoganda, as it is totally wrong, and a violation of the Geneva Convention.


----------



## Marauder (26 Mar 2003)

> US accusations of Iraqis not adhering to the Geneva conventions is a brutal hypocrisy, remembering their treatment of Afghani prisoners in Guantanamo and the latest pictures of Iraqi POW with their hands bound behind.


Hey ****ie, if you were paying attention to your P-Dub drills, you should know you‘re *SUPPOSED* to bind their hands behind them. Makes it a bit harder for them to pull some dumb **** after they‘ve been subdued, dontcha think? Give your head a shake.



> I have a word for them...WHINNERS
> You wanted that war, now you have it so suck it up!!!


What the **** is your malfunction, jackass? Those troops over there include Canadian brothers, some who used to serve as reservists before the Regs said "Nope" and they went to the USMC to serve as warriors there instead. You want them brutalized, too, if they get captured or wounded? Those guys are troops doing the job they chose to do, no different from the Patricias who went to Afghanistan. If you disagree with Dubya and his posse, that‘s one thing. But reveling in seeing troops, guys who volunteered to do the right thing, like me and other soldiers like me, get wasted or worse, tortured and mutilated for the whole stinking mudball of a planet to see? Now I see why you support Hussein so much... you both seem to enjoy the thought of torturing and humiliating ordinary joes and janes. I don‘t know why so many Frenchmen have this inferiority thing going on with the States, but you just can‘t seem to get right, you sick ****.

Adiust you‘re headspace and timing, numbnuts, cause right now you are past being simply all fukt up.


----------



## logistik (26 Mar 2003)

Feckin right on Maruder. Well said.


----------



## Pugil (26 Mar 2003)

________________________________________
What the **** is your malfunction, jackass? Those troops over there include Canadian brothers, some who used to serve as reservists before the Regs said "Nope" and they went to the USMC to serve as warriors there instead. You want them brutalized, too, if they get captured or wounded? 
_______________________________________

Whats your problem marauder? You want to make this personnal? I never say that I want bad things to happen to coalition troops. When I saw pictures of american pows on tv, I felt pity for them. I have nothing against soldiers that fight in Iraq. All im saying was to the comment MADE by Rumsfeld, he says that Iraq is violating Geneva convention (which is true) and asked American tv not to show those images. But how many images of dead and POW Iraqis (which is also a violation of geneva convention) have you seen so far? He didnt complaint about that, thats why im tired of this selective argument.

DONT f*@king attack me in a public forum with offensive words and especially against my CULTURAL HERITAGE before you understand what im am saying.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Mar 2003)

Pugil - as far as I‘m concerned, you‘re the biggest whiner on this board.     

Edited to remove all of my ranting. Pugil has mastered the art of punching my buttons. I forgot to count to 10, before I typed     

Pugil - since you‘re so easily offended and want people to stop, my wife and daughter are American, and I find your Anti-American rhetoric offensive. Please cease and desist


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Mar 2003)

Now, back to the task at hand. Granted, I don‘t have a copy of the Geneva convention in front of me, but here is my understanding of the difference. The convention doesn‘t say you‘re not allowed to take pictures of POWs, it says (or implies) you‘re not allowed to parade them around in public (humiliate) them. The US was protesting forced interviews of wounded POWs on live TV, and the subsequent "tight" shots of dead soldiers. "Routine" shots of POWs, even American, probably wouldn‘t have ruffled too many feathers. I‘m not saying I agree, or disagree - I‘m saying that is the argument that the US is making.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Mar 2003)

muskrat, you are exactly right.  The convention is obviously open to wide interpretation. 

It‘s not like the US government is doing the televising though.  TV in the US is not "state run", so how can the US government be faulted for what CNN (a global news network) is showing?

Iraqi TV, on the other hand - isn‘t it "state run"?


----------



## SpinDoc (27 Mar 2003)

I would imagine Iraqi stations would be state-run, or at the very least state-controlled.

I think the beef is that Al-Jazeera ISN‘T Iraqi-state run.  It‘s not even an Iraqi station... it‘s based in Qatar.  It‘s sort of like the Arab world‘s own CNN, a "for Arabs by Arabs" sort of thing.

Muskrat89:  As for the Geneva Convention, the initial intent of the article was probably "parading around the streets where people can throw things at you", but the wording of it is: "...must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity", nothing specific about parading or displaying their faces on film or TV... but it could definitely be argued that a mass media audience is "public curiosity".  I don‘t think the Geneva Convention prohibits asking interview questions -- Article 17 just states that PWs not be compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number, etc... the soldier is not bound to answer anything more and that the interviewer cannot use violence to elicit an answer.  An article I read somewhere made references that Western journalists DID interview and show Iraqi PW on TV, although I don‘t have a source on it, so I can‘t say whether or not any such interviews with Iraqi PWs actually occur.  What I AM sure is that TV crews did film multiple Iraqi prisoners being subdued on the ground with their faces shown (half of it) from roughly 5-10m away.

My opinion (right or wrong) is that throwing the book at someone is perfectly okay, but if one is going to do it to someone else, then one should also be prepared to "throw" the book at people on your (presumably) own side -- state-controlled or not.  The Geneva Convention isn‘t there to protect a belligerent‘s propaganda tools, be it the "good guys‘" or the "bad guys‘" -- it‘s there to protect the individual soldier, civilian, or detainee.  A member here mentioned that CNN is beginning to blur out PW‘s faces... Blurring the faces of the soldiers is probably a step in the right direction if the Convention is interpreted a certain way... I think I read somewhere that the people who are supposed to interpret it -- I think I read it was the Red Cross or some other Swiss-based org -- did say that both sides should cut it out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2003)

IRAQ broke the geneva convention in 91. Tourtured prisoners yadda yadda. Nothing was done by the allies.  (that im aware of anyways).

Maybe soldiers would be less likely to break the convention if they were held accountable for their actions. An order or rule with out the backing of force (or equilivent) is just a suggestion.


----------



## Jungle (27 Mar 2003)

Well... I‘m not the only one who‘s had it with the whiner. Personally, I think he‘s just a trouble-maker who likes to stir $hit... that or he is really stupid... or both ???
Pugil, i‘ve learned you‘re in the RMR... that was the unit I was in 20 years ago. I still know a few people there... hmmm.
Marauder, there are plenty of Americans who do not support the Pres, yet there are many French-Canadians who do (myself being one, and a large number of others I know), there are whiners everywhere, just watch the news...
Finally, regarding the reference to the Afghan prisonners in Guantanamo, they are not POWs because they were not part of an organised military force.


----------



## Pugil (27 Mar 2003)

Jungle,
Oh well, I see that you dont like me but that is fine. Ill stand up to my opinion whenever it is necessary. I know that my arguments can disturb you conscience and your war rhetoric, but that is not my problem. How lovely it is when you say that we should "liberate" the Iraqis people from Saddam and install a democratic government, a country thousands of miles away, when here you cant even respect the difference of opinion of the guy next door.


----------



## Jungle (27 Mar 2003)

I don‘t think anybody here likes you... get over it and move on. I respect everybody‘s opinion, until the same opinion is expressed every time they join a topic. We all knew your opinion on this subject after about 27 posts... the next 35 were irritating to everyone (I didn‘t really count them, just making a point). If you have nothing interesting to bring to a topic, stay out of it.
Finally, I suggest you start paying attention to the few of us who have experience around here. While I suspect you have never been on an operation, I have been around the world on training and operations, and participated in the "liberation" of the world‘s youngest country. I probably wore a UN beret for longer than you have been in the CF, and I won‘t talk about the Maroon beret.
So in your own words:


> You wanted that war, now you have it so suck it up!!!


----------



## Pugil (27 Mar 2003)

**I have been around the world on training and operations, and participated in the "liberation" of the world‘s youngest country. I probably wore a UN beret for longer than you have been in the CF, and I won‘t talk about the Maroon beret.**

I have nothing but praises and admirations for you (Im not being ironic)


**I respect everybody‘s opinion, until the same opinion is expressed every time they join a topic. We all knew your opinion on this subject after about 27 posts... the next 35 were irritating to everyone.**

You speak for yourself, I have noticed that you too participated alot in the Iraqi debate, dont get me wrong. The only difference is that I seem to be the only guy to be publictly against this war in this forum. I dont expect anyone to defend my cause in this forum, so I stand on my ground.

Thats it for me,  I dont want to get into a childish fight. You can reply to me if you want but I wont go any futher in this debate. " L‘affaire est clos"


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2003)

Pugil, mind if i ask exactly why you are against the war?
I was largely anti-war before it started then i got to do a lot of thinking. I‘m just curious about your take on it.


----------



## humint (28 Mar 2003)

Yes, it‘s not nice for the Iraqi regime to take the video, etc. But, you have to remember a couple of things: 

1. you are dealing with another culture that sees death far more frequently that we do, and how they deal with it is completely different as well, 

2. the regime is under seige, and they are going to resort to such tactics when the $hit hits the fan and they realize that their days are numbered, and 

3. to them, the Geneva Convention, as with most things, is seen as just another document produced by rich western nations for rich western nations. 

Given the above, it is not, nor should it have been, surprising that those photos came out -- it was merely a matter of time. If you want to understand their behaviour and why they do things a certain way, you need to start seeing/understanding things from their perspective. 

And, you can split hairs about what the US (or Western media) does or does not do (re: PWs and photos of the dead), it won‘t matter. To them, they are the victims, and the US soldiers (whether dead or alive) are the aggressors. Is US gov‘s crying foul going to do anything to change the Iraqi regime‘s behaviour?

My two cents: I still think the Bush and coalition  went in far too early. There could have been more diplomatic ways of resolving this issue. And yes, I still question the legitimacy of the war and even the justifications of it (i.e freedom, regime change, WMD, oil, regional stability, etc). And I think the OP NAME of IRAQI FREEDOM is a poor attempt at humour and to win over a moronic audience of TV viewers. 

However, now that they are there and are slugging it out, I hope they do well and clear this   f~ckin‘ mess up as quickly as possible.


----------



## Pikache (28 Mar 2003)

I question whether the validity of Geneva Convention applies in this war, considering that to my knowledge, Geneva Convention applies to countries formally at war with each other.

To my knowledge, no formal declaration of war has been issued by US or UK.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Mar 2003)

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950

Part 1, Article 2  "...In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. 

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. "

Here‘s the link, with lots of POW answers  POWs


----------



## Pugil (28 Mar 2003)

Ghost778,

Here are my arguments

1.) Deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fist-- The intifada lasted for more than 2 years, this conflict should be the priority for the Bush administration. It is the roots for all the anti-american sentiment in the arab world

2.) Iraq is not an imminent threat-- What threat Iraq can have when 60,000 of his troops surrendered during the fist days of Desert storm? What threat it is when when his troops even surrendered to unmanned planes? A little comparison, the budget of defense of the Iraqi army is around 1, 7 billion compared to 500 billions for the US. The Iraqi army doesnt have any projection power, it doesnt a modern air force, an inexistant navy and their army is poorly equiped and trained. The coalition forces destroyed 50% of his strentgh during the fist Gulf war. We are far the fearsome german army during WW2. 

3.) A war on Iraq will raise the anti-american sentiment in the Arab world-- Indeed it will legitimate the terrorist cause, it will prove that the US is trying to humiliate the muslim world. Al-Quaida and all the terrorists group will get support or even worst backing from some states.

4.) How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? A: Over 65 
How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? 
A: Over 400 
How many many nuclear warhead does Iraq have?<
A: 0
** Why Iraq not israel?

5.) "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history." Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief, December 1998

The inspections were working, indeed it destroyed more missiles during the 12 years than the allied had during the Gulf war. Hanx Blix only asked for a COUPLE of months to fully disarm Iraq. What hurt it is to wait for some months when we had waited for 12 years?


Finally, it is a noble cause to claim to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein.  Personnally I DONT like Saddam like the vast majority of people, but I believe that it is not the time to launch a war when Al-Quaida is still active, when there is a rise in anti-american sentiment not only in the Arab countries but all around the world, when people are still dying in the Israeli-Palestinian conflit. Iraq is not our priority for now, get the arab on our side and then we can start to think to liberate the poor Iraqis people from Saddam.


----------



## RoyalHighlander (28 Mar 2003)

*cough*        *cough* Ya wonder if we are all on the same side here hmmmm??


----------



## Pikache (28 Mar 2003)

Thanks *muskrat*


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Mar 2003)

Good points Pugil.

For agument sake, how could the US fix whats happening in Israel?
I don‘t think anything less then nato going in (And i say nato because if its americans only ,they‘re going to be a constant attack for suicide bombers) and disarming both sides will have any hope of success.  
Aside from trying to squash palistine Israel hasn‘t tried to invade many countries.

You said we waited 12 years for iraq, what harm could waiting a few more months be? Well that makes sense. You could also say what harm could it be waiting another 12 years?  It‘s like having a health problem that doesnt seem too serious. "I‘ll go get it checked next week, next month". By the time you get around to doing anything it went from a harmless lump to something fatal.

Aside from the fact that hussain is evil and has no regard for human life i think the americans are starting to see the light. Theres a lot of evil in the world and sooner or later $hits going to hit the fan, its better that we are the agressors rather then us waiting around to be attacked.

People have said, myself included, that in 91 the allies rolled over iraq. What kind of resistance can they put up this time?  I could be mistaken but i think a heck of a lot more vehicles are being lost this time around. M1 tanks, appache gunships etc..  For being so weak their doing a ****  of a job fighting the most powerful military in the world.

I don‘t think we will ever wipe out al-quaida. ITs a religion, a way of thinking. Thats impossible to wipe out. Theres going to be a next ossama bin ladden to pick up where he left off. HE may not even believe in the same thing but he will see the power and resources that are just waiting to be tapped into and for allah or himself he‘ll use it.
A good example is the book Battle field earth. I never finished it, got about 3 quarters of the way through it but in the book hundreds of years in the future most of the human race is wiped out and they are slowly starting over. Someone found some history books about hitler and to him this hitler guy and his ideas seemed like a great great thing so he started preaching fascism. Same way romans couldn‘t stamp out christianity.

To answer your question why iraq and not israel. Simple. The US has more to gain by defeating iraq. Thats not to say the US is bad. Thats just how it is.


----------



## Pugil (1 Apr 2003)

Ghost778, 

You are right on many things. No doubt Saddam will always stay evil. But the real question we should all ask, Is this the right moment to attack? Some governments threw the towel very quickly on diplomacy. Im not against all wars, some war are good. It is easy to say that we go to liberate the Iraqis, it is like if we speak on their behalf. If the US had strong and convicing arguments why couldnt they even convince the poorest and least influencial countries that were on the security council to vote for a new resolution? Making war is not like playing a Risk Board game, you know when it starts but you dont know when it ends. When force is necessary it SHOULD be used with coercion and reassurance. The Arabs feel threatned more than ever by the US. It will be the basis for all the hatred against the US, it will make the terrorists group even more stronger. 

________________________________________________
I don‘t think we will ever wipe out al-quaida. ITs a religion, a way of thinking
_______________________________________________

True, but we can marginalize it. For now Al-Qaida is supported by no goverment from the Arab world publictly. It is seen as a radical groups and it is supported by only a minority, most arabs still embrace the Western culture. But it can gain support if the war on Iraq drags for months and more civilians are killed. Radical political parties can gain more power and support. I think that is where the danger lies.


----------



## RCA (1 Apr 2003)

There are a number of interesting points being brought forward. I like to use a shotgun approach and address a number of them from my point of view. So in no apparent order:

    So everyone knows where I stand, Canada should be a part of the coalition force, not because we of potential backlash of the US, but because it is the right thing to do. Our troops putting their life on the line to protect business interests is grotesque.  As for standing with our American brothers because they would stand with us. Does anyone remember (not that long ago) an American general quoted as saying if Canada didnâ€™t participate in the new â€œStar Warsâ€ why should they stop a missile from hitting Ottawa. The either you are with us or against us is refusing us the exercise our own sovereignty. By telling other nations to expel Iraqis from Embassy, and when they refuse, accuse them of harboring terrorist didnâ€™t gain them much support either. It is the walking softly and carrying the big stick policy, only without the walking softly.

    As I said we should be a part of the coalition, however, I question the timing. First of all Saddam is a brutal dictator and deserves to be removed. Secondly, war is the bluntest instrument of national policy and should be used as a last resort, or self-defense. Is this the case here. If the US had followed up on the Canadian compromise, a deadline would have been set and consequences set out. Officials have stated that two or three weeks more would have made no difference. With the US no wanting to invest the extra time, they probably lost support when they needed it the most. Resolution 1444 had consequences attached that would have justified the invasion, but on a UN based deadline not US. The Canadian proposal would have set the deadline. As a matter of self-defense, there has never been a link between Al-Qaida and Baghdad. So this argument doesnâ€™t wash. And this is not a war of liberation. To be liberated, you first must be occupied. Not run by your own dictator

   What happens after the war. Who sets up the new Iraqis regime. The US shed blood to get to that point, so they will justifiably have a major say. Or do they pass it over to the UN. (Probably not). However, with so many opposing factions, the potential for another Afghanistan lurks on the horizon. And suppose the Iraqis democratically elect an Muslim cleric. What then. Right now the coalition is busy removing the devil we know and replacing him for a devil we donâ€™t.

   Whether the Americans like or not, they have failed to make the point yet war is not about oil. However, the oil fields are constantly mentioned. Rumsfeld went as far to say it would be a war crime for Iraqis to touch their â€œownâ€ oilfields. If the Americans so badly wanted a northern front, why are they so insistent that the Turks stay out and not to move without US permission. Or is it because of the proximity of the northern oil fields.

  Truth is the first casualty of war, and its showing here real time. Is not a showing of POW a part of reporting the news. The Americans are edgy, not because of the Geneva Convention, but because of Somalia. The US media are the first to jump on the freedom of the press, but seem to be practicing self- censorship but deciding what the public should or should not see. Is this unbiased reporting. A projectile lands in a market during daytime, and it may be a errant coalition missile or the Iraqis themselves. Nothing substantiated. Iraqis say the have shot down three Apaches, but the media annotates that the Iraqis have shown no proof. The Vice Chief of Staff states the American prisoners have been executed, but no proof is asked for or offered. The media has just become another branch of the Public Affairs. What we see is not necessary what we get.

  As for war crimes, the Iraqis seemed to be engaged in several, but yesterday civilians were shot driving up and possible through a checkpoint. Where they aware of the new ROE. It may have been justified because of the car bomb incident, but innocents died doing what the normal do in their own country. It is becoming a dirty war, and nobody will escape. And the car bomb incident â€“ war crime, terrorist act or resistance to an invasion of their homeland. And the target was combatants.

   What happens to the UN now? Is the US going to bypass when it does not serve in its own interest. Or is the US going to dictate the world order. The UN is a forum of necessary compromise and when sides (France is just a s responsible for a total no war stance) refuse, the body becomes impotent. The UN must make resolutions with consequences, and must follow through when defied. 

    I have probably stir something up, but the main point is we all support the troops overseas, and pray causalities (all sides) stay at a minimum (I personally now some of the troops over there). Nor am I anti-American. I am just pointing out some contradictions and points that should be pondered. Everyone has an opinion and should not follow someone elseâ€™s blindly. Governments must think long and hard before putting them into harms way. I think the cause is justified (Hussein would never of complied) but the timing is suspect. And has a dangerous precedent being started where the US picks and chooses the bad guy. As well has the Christian West stirred up the Muslim East?


----------



## RCA (1 Apr 2003)

Adding to the oil point. If this was a war against WMD, why has North Korea escaped the same harsh rhetoic as Saddam. It is documented they have more potential for nuclear weapons and  delivery systems then Iraq ever could or would. But they are treated like kids gloves. Reason -lack of oil, Hussain an easier target, or this time next year we will be engaged in the same arguments, but WRT mountain warefare as opposed to desert warefare. Who knows, but I have a feeling the US will be dictating the path.


----------



## logistik (1 Apr 2003)

> Whether the Americans like or not, they have failed to make the point yet war is not about oil. However, the oil fields are constantly mentioned. Rumsfeld went as far to say it would be a war crime for Iraqis to touch their â€œownâ€ oilfields. If the Americans so badly wanted a northern front, why are they so insistent that the Turks stay out and not to move without US permission. Or is it because of the proximity of the northern oil fields.


Well they want to keep the turks out of northern Iraq because the turks are sworn enemies of the kurds, who dwell in northern Iraq. If the Turks cross the border the kurds will be right pissed off and now you have second war/conflict on your hands.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2003)

Great post RCA. I agree 100%, i just can‘t word it as intelligently as you     I try and see things as good and evil, black and white but i know thats not how things are.  For every good point brought up about the US invading iraq theres also a bad one. Saddam is evil but we need oil.  They use suicide bombers and we‘ve shot innocent people by accident. 

"If the US had strong and convicing arguments why couldnt they even convince the poorest and least influencial countries that were on the security council to vote for a new resolution"

This is something i would disagree with. Once people have their minds set up theres often very little that can be done to change it. Saddams army uses women and children as human shields, just the other day one woman tried to run away and infront of US troops was shot in the back and rolled into the river. (Which obviously reporters who cover EVERYTHING from bombings to camels throwing a crap somehow missed). To me i see that and say, **** those guys are pretty heartless but to the peace protesters they have an excuse. Saddam is just trying to defend his country, its okay for him to shoot people who are trying to run away. They can pretty much justify anything. Long story shot we could have waited another 12 years and i dont think it would have mattered, only saddam would have had 12 more years to build up his army and plan something naughty


----------



## RCA (1 Apr 2003)

Logistik, I partial agree with you WRT the Kurds and Turks. And this potentially another fallout when the power vacuum occures when Saddam moves out. However oil is still also very much part of this equation.


----------



## King (1 Apr 2003)

Couple of things...

Israel is allowed to keep nukes for the same reason Britain and France are allowed to keep nukes, because Israel is a legitimate democracy not run my lunatics (like Saddam).

There‘s a lot of overblown rhetoric about this being a war for oil, yet I have not once heard any of the  "war for oil" boosters explain to me exactly how the US will take over Iraq‘s oil reserves. Afghanistan was supposed to be about the US building some kind of oil pipeline, but considering the fact that there‘s still a lot of shooting going on over there, nothing has yet martilalized. So after over one year Afghanistan is still too unstable for oil companies to invest in it. George Bush is up for re-election 19 months from now. Will Iraq be stable enough for oil companies to invest in by that time? Even if they do start investing in Iraq, how many extra months will it take for the US economy to see the benefits of all this oil? Will it happen in time for the economy to turn around and Bush to get re-elected? Considering all that and considering the money spent on this war, I say no. The only comprehensive study I ever heard on this subject was done by economics professors at Harvard University who said it would take 2 to 7 years for the US to profit from Iraqi oil (although since I can‘t find a link for it I could just be making it up, you‘ll have to take my word).

Although I don‘t think anyone mentioned this I‘ll say a bit about it anyway. Is this war about Bush taking the American publics mind off of the poor job he‘s doing as President on the home front? Maybe. But the attitudes of the American people change quickly. It only took approx. 5 or 6 months after the greatest terrorist attack in American history for public opinion in the US to switch from  fighting terrorism as being #1 to the economy as being #1. Terrorism ranked around 5th or 6th below things like social security and education. Can Bush drag this war out for another 19 months at the intensity it is currently at? If it were part of some grand conspiracy he would be telling the 3ID and the 101 Airborne to hold back, instead it‘s been 12 days and they‘re on Baghdad‘s doorstep. True, America may have troops in Iraq in 19 months, but they still have troops in Afghanistan who are still engaing in combat and for the intent of public opinion polls, everyone has forgotten about them. My guess is 19 months from now the economy will be #1 yet again. If Bush wanted to gain electorally from this war he should have started it last October, shortly before the congressional elections. In the end the Republicans cleaned up and took control of Congress, but at the time now one ever would have predicted that. Polls showed the country evenly divided between democrats and republicans. Bush was at risk of losing total control of Congress, war then would have made more sense if the intent was to win elections. Bush started this war at the worst possible time if his goal was to win a second term.

Waiting another 2 or 3 weeks... do you really think it would have made a difference? If Bush had of waited another 3 weeks Hans Blix would still be saying he needed yet more time and the French and Germans would still be opposed, and Chretien would have a fence poll up his ***  as always. You‘re right RCA, 3 weeks wouldn‘t have made any difference at all, either way. Why prolong the inevitable? Chirac was never going to agree to this war no matter what Bush said or did.

Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions all of which said he had to cooperate fully with the UN in disarmament. It was the condition of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War, he broke it, in fact he never lived up to it in the first place. This should have happened years ago. 

The UN will not be de-legitimized, mostly because it‘s largely worthless institution in the first place. There is no precident for asking the UN to go to war. Only twice has it ever been done, 1950 with the Korean War and 1991 with the Gulf War. George Bush senior broke a long tradition or not asking the UN to go to war which lasted throughout the Cold War. Nations don‘t go to war based on precedent, they go to war based on self-interest. The UN will remain the UN, the a shop of egotistical, self-rightous talking heads. And America did get many "poor" countries to go along with this coalition, pretty much all of eastern Europe and a good part of western Europe too.

After the first night of bombing the Palestinian Liberation Authority released a press release condeming the attack and saying that one of its members was killed in the very first strike, the one that was targeted at Saddam and his inner circle. What was a PLA official doing in Baghdad meeting with Saddam? Must have been discussing an aid project for the west bank since there is no "proven" link between Saddam and terrorism. Saddam does fund terrorists, maybe not Osama, but he‘s not the only one out there. 

North Korea??? First of all they already have nukes. You treat the nuclear countries differently then you do the non-nuclear ones. Second, they are a backward hold over from the Cold War. North Korea has no exportable ideology, they are geographically isolated. The only thing they do is sell nuclear technology to other rogue states, like Iran. The North Koreans won‘t actually use their own nuclear weapons. Does anyone seriously believe they would nuke the continental United States or one of America‘s allies in the pacific? If you do please explain why. North Korea exports its technology, but ultimately killing that regime is like killing Osama and declaring the war on terrorism over, another leader will just pop right back in and replace him. In the long run Iran or Iraq can get nukes elsewhere.

Seething Arab street? Where are they all? We had tnes of thousands of people protesting the war in places like London and Toronto but only 5000 in Cairo. Hmmmm... The people of the middle east have faced years of bull**** propaghanda from their governments. Their governments encourage them to blame America and Israel for all their woes because they know the second they stop, the people will realize that their own leaders are total screw ups and not fit to hold the positions they do. Then revolt might come. That‘s why you get the House of Saud uttering that they are good friends with America but still handing Osama money on the side. that has to change. North Korea is an excuse created to avoid doing this messy but necessary work.


----------



## RCA (2 Apr 2003)

I honestly believe Bush thinks he is doing this for the right thing for the right reason and not re-election. However his unilateral approach is the problem (it is not just Iraq that he uses this approach.) What is more dangerous a rogue state with the bomb or the one without. It seems George Bush gets to make the decision, and either you are with him and if not, then you must be against him.

  As for waiting the 3 extra weeks, I think Bush would have gained more then he lost. Where would it have left Canada if it were Canada‘s compromise deadline thay was broken, We would have had to move with the US. As well, other countries would have seen the US as willing to compromise. France would have vetoed anyway, but the point was the US was willing to wait to at least the end of March. Then they could have unleashed the hounds. Do we honestly believe that all the people that are protesting the war must be dead wrong and we are completely right?

  And oil is a factor. Maybe not the main one but the Iraq oil reserves are to huge to ignore.


----------



## SpinDoc (2 Apr 2003)

Just a point in response to King‘s question of how the US would control Iraq‘s oil reserves:

It is VERY simple.  The way to do it is to install a government that will "play ball" with the US on a long term stable basis.  By installing a government (autocratic or democratic, doesn‘t matter) favourable to the US (either by ideology or because they "owe" the US), the new Iraq would ensure a stable output and export of oil, potentially offsetting any fluctuations that may occur in the future as staged by the rest of OPEC.

i.e. if OPEC countries reduce production, a friendly Iraq would step up (up to production capabilities) production to offset the shortfall, which would ENSURE that the price of oil would be within US tolerances.

Then you can also throw in the secondary control aspects with US-based petroleum companies investing and joint-venturing in Iraq oil production.  We already see a hint of what‘s to come with the Congressman from Florida tabling a bill that would ban one form of cellular phone standard (most common in Middle East and the world) in favour of CDMA standard (a North American standard).  Also, the British govt is alarmed/dismayed (or so the news report say) by the number of US-based companies that are already lined up for reconstruction work in Iraq.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Apr 2003)

Can‘t fault that logic.
Knock down a building then send workers to go fix it and get paid.

Like when mechanics  find something wrong with your car. "I wonder how THAT got broke"

Government making sweet deals with civilian companies, who says canada never influenced the states


----------



## sarsteve (2 Apr 2003)

Gotta go with RCA on this. Would 2-3 weeks made a big difference? Sure, it would have given the Yanks a chance to move the 4th out of Turkey. And, as mentioned, Johnny Cretin would not have been able to sit on his a$$ if it had been his proposal shot down by France.

Not sure who brought up the protesters(and frankly, I‘m too lazy at the mo to check  :blotto:  ), but what makes them so wrong? Days before the war started 45% of Americans wanted the US to stick with the UN process. Thats about 150,000,000 people. Are they all f^cked in the head?


----------



## King (2 Apr 2003)

Can 150,000,000 people be wrong? Sure. Most Europeans were wrong with their initial attitude torwrds fighting WWII. About 45% of Canadians who voted in the last elected voted Liberal, are they "wrong?" I‘d say they are misinformed. Not to sound like an elitist, but most people are misinformed or just don‘t give a ****.

Waiting 3 weeks and thus following the CDN compromise might have gotten Canada on board. Maybe not. Considering the totally confusing way the Liberal have handled this conflict so far, I don‘t know if anyone can say for sure they might have done. After all, the compromise would have been vetoed at the UN and Chretien would have the same public opinion situation he has today, no go if it‘s not sanctioned by the UN. I wonder, who would have been shown that the US was willing to compromise and thus get them on board with Bush? The French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians would have said no regardless if the US waited 3 weeks or 3 months. Last spring the word was Bush was starting this war in the summer, then in the summer it was pushed back to the fall, and by Xmas  the conventional wisdom was the war would start in late January. The deadline kept getting pushed back because for various reasons the US was willing to play the inspections game for a while. I think the US administration got fed up and made one last ditch effort and tried yet another UN resolution, which ultimately failed. Again, Saddam had 12 years to disarm, Bush waited longer then most thought he would. If none of that convinced the major players (i.e. France, Germany..) that needed convincing then nothing would. 3 weeks would have changed nothing in terms of the international political scene. In retrospect the US could have put more troops in the region, but would they have done so?

As for my oil question, I should have framed it better. Yes America could take control of Iraq‘s oil reserves, but what evidence exists that shows they would do so? Companies can "line up" all they want. But has the Bush administration done anything
specific to allow them to rush in and take what they want? Bush has said he won‘t, the whole world is watching.


----------



## SpinDoc (2 Apr 2003)

Here‘s the New York Times‘ view on possible things to come (just one point of view, that‘s all):

US Rejects Criticism on Awarding of Iraq Contracts


----------

