Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Uh, Lief, the point about the Jessica Lynch story was that it was phoney- deliberately cooked up to be "glamorous".

On what evidence do you base that claim?

[Spock]

Saving Private Lynch story 'flawed'


By John Kampfner

Private Jessica Lynch was reportedly rescued after a tip-off

Private Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war, and the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict.

But her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived.

Private Lynch, a 19-year-old army clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was captured when her company took a wrong turning just outside Nasiriya and was ambushed.

Nine of her comrades were killed and Private Lynch was taken to the local hospital, which at the time was swarming with Fedayeen. Eight days later US special forces stormed the hospital, capturing the "dramatic" events on a night vision camera.

They were said to have come under fire from inside and outside the building, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter.

There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound

Dr Harith a-Houssona
Reports claimed that she had stab and bullet wounds and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.

But Iraqi doctors in Nasiriya say they provided the best treatment they could for the soldier in the midst of war. She was assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital and one of only two nurses on the floor.

"I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle," said Dr Harith a-Houssona, who looked after her.

Jessica amnesia

"There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only road traffic accident. They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."

Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.

"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the hospital.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Harith had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance.

But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.

Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen

General Vincent Brooks

When footage of the rescue was released, General Vincent Brooks, US spokesman in Doha, said: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."

The American strategy was to ensure the right television footage by using embedded reporters and images from their own cameras, editing the film themselves.

The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer.

Bruckheimer advised the Pentagon on the primetime television series "Profiles from the Front Line", that followed US forces in Afghanistan in 2001. That approached was taken on and developed on the field of battle in Iraq.

As for Private Lynch, her status as cult hero is stronger than ever. Internet auction sites list Jessica Lynch items, from an oil painting with an opening bid of $200 to a $5 "America Loves Jessica Lynch" fridge magnet.

But doctors now say she has no recollection of the whole episode and probably never will.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War Spin was broadcast on BBC Two on Sunday, 18 May, 2003 at 1915 BST.

[Lief Erikson]

Lol! Jeesh! If this is true, that's really very amusing!

This was released by BBC News?

[The Telcontarion]

Oh it's true body, very true...

Even the story with Tilman was not true, first they said he was killed by the tali band then they had to admit that it was friendly fire. All because they thought it would sound better...more patriatic; they even lied to his parents about it.

[The Gaffer]

Thanks for posting that, spock. A nice summary. That's a worrying misconception you had there, Lief

It's also worth pointing out that Hollywood producers and directors were hired to do news management.

I think this sort of thing gives the lie to the right-wing complaint about "biased/liberal media" who only report the bad news. It is also worth pointing out that, unlike during Vietnam, news outlets are not allowed to show footage of bodies returning to the US.

Lief, it's very honest of you to acknowledge that national interests take precedence over high morals here. I wish more people did that. Do you see how it is hypocritical to then claim the moral high ground, and try to use it as a way of winning the argument with "Freedom" type slogans?

The main point about WMD is that it was "intelligence" based, and no-one had ever gone to war before purely based on "intelligence". There is ample evidence that the US and UK administrations downplayed any intel which opposed their views and exaggerated any that did. Basically, the CIA was instructed to find evidence so that it could be used to justify an invasion. When it turned out it was wrong, Bush could blame the CIA. Nice bit of perception management, I must admit.

Also worth pointing out that it was not the Soviet Union but Iran that Iraq was our "buttress" against in the 80s. Saddam invaded Iran, remember, and used chemical weapons against Iranian troops as well as to put down unrest in Kurdistan. The Iran-Iraq war raged for most of the 80s and claimed millions of lives. Our man in Baghdad indeed.

On left-wing support for the war, I don't know what the proportions would be, but a sizable minority I would say, including many of my far-left cronies who would vote for the Scottish Socialist Party. (The word "Democrat" doesn't really mean left-wing here )

However, one of the main planks of the anti-war argument was that it would cause anarchy, civil war and possibly lead to a wider conflict. At the very least there was a "strong risk" that this would happen, such that it did not justify the benefits of clapping Saddam in irons. I'm very surprised you didn't pick that up.

Currently, oil is traded in US dollars. If it was traded in Euros, it would harm the US economy signifcantly. Basically, the reason why the US is able to run its economy at such a massive deficit is because anyone who wants to trade in oil has to use US dollars.

If you're interested, I found this essay about it: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

The euro is now worth 1.28 dollars.

Now, there may well be a case to be made there. The consequences of the US having an economic crisis might well be worse than the consequences of invading Iraq now.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Thanks for posting that, spock. A nice summary. That's a worrying misconception you had there, Lief

It's also worth pointing out that Hollywood producers and directors were hired to do news management.

I think this sort of thing gives the lie to the right-wing complaint about "biased/liberal media" who only report the bad news. It is also worth pointing out that, unlike during Vietnam, news outlets are not allowed to show footage of bodies returning to the US.

Gaffer, there are reams and reams of photos of destruction, violence and gore from the war in Iraq for anyone who wants to look for it. You don't even have to want to look for it- you can see it on the news frequently. CNN and BBC have been graphic enough in showing bloodstained civilians.

I strongly believe that many parts of the news media are biased and do only report the bad news. BBC News is highly respected, and yet that's what it does. Frequently I encounter stories of insurgents being killed and such on CNN that don't show up on BBC, so from my personal observations, there is a real bias that exists.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, it's very honest of you to acknowledge that national interests take precedence over high morals here. I wish more people did that. Do you see how it is hypocritical to then claim the moral high ground, and try to use it as a way of winning the argument with "Freedom" type slogans?

Not entirely. I think our reasons for entering and maintaining the war are moral, so I think they are justified in claiming that ground. If I thought the cause of the war was the oil, I would agree with you that we have no right to the moral high ground. But I believe it's very possible we entered the war because of real intelligence errors.

The "Freedom" slogans are another matter. There are positives and negatives to them. On the one hand, it is true that values like freedom are very definitely at stake. We are fighting for the creation of a democracy in Iraq, and we are seeking their freedom in a very real way. Terrorism also is a very real and often very heinous enemy that we are confronting. There are real values at stake, so using these "slogans" can be very accurate when discussing the moral dimension of the conflict.

The problem with them is that they can sometimes be too general, an over-simplification. When they are used that way, issues can be obscured and sometimes incorrectly equated, and people can be led to the wrong conclusions.

So I see there as being both a positive and a negative side to the use of some these kinds of general, value-focused words.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The main point about WMD is that it was "intelligence" based, and no-one had ever gone to war before purely based on "intelligence". There is ample evidence that the US and UK administrations downplayed any intel which opposed their views and exaggerated any that did. Basically, the CIA was instructed to find evidence so that it could be used to justify an invasion. When it turned out it was wrong, Bush could blame the CIA. Nice bit of perception management, I must admit.

When you say there is "ample evidence" that the administrations purposely messed with the intelligence they had available, but that's not good enough for me. I'd have to see the evidence and then also examine the counter-arguments, etc.

The main problem here is that I'm just beginning a full college semester, and it takes a great deal of time to analyze things in necessary depth.


I'll try to respond to the rest of your post soon. Right now, school is ahead!

[The Gaffer]

Well, thanks for responding positively rather than just rejecting it out of hand. If I get time I will dig around for a synopsis of the "intelligence massaging" that went on to build the case for WMDs.

EDIT: The BBC I see does report a lot of the "good news" stories. The problem is that there aren't too many.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with them showing pictures of dead people. Should we not be aware of the consequences of our actions?

Good luck with school!

[Lizra]

I think it's very important to show dead people. Thaty's what war is about. You (GI Joe) are trying to kill people. People (the enemy) are trying to kill you. Result...dead people. Let's see em, so we know we're accomplishing something here....
My dad was in 3 wars.....he hates to talk about it....dead people, dead boys, that's what it was all about...not spin.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll have to look in more detail at the Iran-Iraq conflict to see if I think our support for Saddam was justified. I definitely plan to do that sometime; I want to learn all I can about the last century or so of the Middle East's history. That mistake I just made about the Soviet Union is embarressing. I'm sure I'll get over it, though .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On left-wing support for the war, I don't know what the proportions would be, but a sizable minority I would say, including many of my far-left cronies who would vote for the Scottish Socialist Party. (The word "Democrat" doesn't really mean left-wing here )

Reminds me of my history research on England in the 17th century. Their far left political party was essentially our modern far right. The different perspectives people have held to over time are certainly interesting.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, one of the main planks of the anti-war argument was that it would cause anarchy, civil war and possibly lead to a wider conflict. At the very least there was a "strong risk" that this would happen, such that it did not justify the benefits of clapping Saddam in irons. I'm very surprised you didn't pick that up.

Oh well .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Currently, oil is traded in US dollars. If it was traded in Euros, it would harm the US economy signifcantly. Basically, the reason why the US is able to run its economy at such a massive deficit is because anyone who wants to trade in oil has to use US dollars.

If you're interested, I found this essay about it: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

The euro is now worth 1.28 dollars.

Now, there may well be a case to be made there. The consequences of the US having an economic crisis might well be worse than the consequences of invading Iraq now.

Most of the oil the US imports comes from other countries, so, (forgive my ignorance of how these economics work) how would Iraq's switching to Euros so badly hurt our economy?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

EDIT: The BBC I see does report a lot of the "good news" stories. The problem is that there aren't too many.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with them showing pictures of dead people. Should we not be aware of the consequences of our actions?

I guess I'm resentful that these photos are playing a significant role in breaking down our nation's psyche. I'm not saying they should all be banned, for that would block our rights to free speech and freedom of the press. But I think these photos are helping to strengthen Al'Qaeda in Iraq.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Reminds me of my history research on England in the 17th century. Their far left political party was essentially our modern far right. The different perspectives people have held to over time are certainly interesting.

It's also interesting how politics varies from one country to another.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Most of the oil the US imports comes from other countries, so, (forgive my ignorance of how these economics work) how would Iraq's switching to Euros so badly hurt our economy?

I'm no economist either, so I recommend you read the article (It won't hurt, and only takes 15 minutes or so!); it explains it in a way that even I understand.

Because oil is traded in dollars, all countries who want to buy oil have to buy dollars. That inflates the value of the dollar, and essentially makes the US the hub of the world economy. It puts the US at a significant advantage. If it was replaced by the Euro, there would be very significant effects on the US economy. Your buying power would be less, for example. Your massive budget deficit would (probably) become untenable.

There has been movement towards using other currencies more, and if Iraq, with 20% of the world's reserves or whatever it is, had gone the same way it would be bad news for the dollar.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I guess I'm resentful that these photos are playing a significant role in breaking down our nation's psyche. I'm not saying they should all be banned, for that would block our rights to free speech and freedom of the press. But I think these photos are helping to strengthen Al'Qaeda in Iraq.

I can understand that. One could also say that about any discussion which questioned the basis of the war. Unfortunately, the alternative (mass censorship) is, I would hope, unacceptable.

[brownjenkins]

I think every thread I've ever "started" on this board is due to mods insisting on splitting stuff as soon as the discussion gets interesting.

[The Telcontarion]

Now you have got to a key point...

The possibility of Iraq switching to the euro.

Guess who else is threatening to switch to the euro, Hugo Chavez, president of oil rich venezuela...you know, the same one that was threatened with assination on national TV by Pat Robertson.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, though he is also trading oil in direct barter for goods and services.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, though he is also trading oil in direct barter for goods and services.

Yep, and the bushites don't like that.

Hugo Chavez is a great man.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Yep, and the bushites don't like that.

Hugo Chavez is a great man.

Yeah, right. He has a crush on Condi, and he's accusing HER of having one on him. What a moron.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think every thread I've ever "started" on this board is due to mods insisting on splitting stuff as soon as the discussion gets interesting.

Thats cause theyve got you on The Trouble Maker List of course.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats cause theyve got you on The Trouble Maker List of course.

I think we're all on that list ...at one point or another.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Yep, and the bushites don't like that.

Hugo Chavez is a great man.

HAH! A human-rights abusing dictator who goes arm in arm with Ahmadinejad, the world's great funder of terrorism. "Great."

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

HAH! A human-rights abusing dictator who goes arm in arm with Ahmadinejad, the world's great funder of terrorism. "Great."

And they've got a statue of him already, I think in Tehran. Yeah, they're pals.

[Lizra]

I thought Osama was hot for the thin black women that look a little white? (whitney Houston) Condi could be more valuable than I thought!
Maybe they should buy oil with Euros....things might get "more real" around here and settle down a bit? Im a *have-not* either way...