The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[BBOvenGuy]

I must confess to being fascinated by the ongoing war coverage. I don't agree with the decision to send those soldiers over there, but I respect their decision to go and put themselves in harm's way because they believe they're defending all of us. And the historian and storyteller by me is entranced by the inherent drama. I was especially taken with the footage of the Seventh Cavalry speeding across the desert. I mean - it's the Seventh Cavalry! George Armstrong Custer's old command, that was almost wiped out near the banks of a Montana river in 1876.



But still, there is the fact that they're there. And you know what the kicker is? They have to be there now. What's been done can't be undone. If George W. Bush suddenly found his brain and wanted to call off the war now, he couldn't. Leaving Saddam Hussein in power now - especially if he's been wounded - would leave him holding a huge grudge, and theoretically a bunch of weapons, too. There would be no way to resolve the situation diplomatically. It would turn Saddam into exactly what GWB has been trying to convince us he already is. The only option left is to see this fight through to the end. The Bush administration has gotten us stuck with the course of action they wanted all along.

"Sure it's simple, writing for kids. Just as simple as bringing them up." - Ursula K. LeGuin

[darkmagicwillow]

I agree with you that it's too late to back out now. We've got to go ahead and win the war, and do what we can to ensure that the promises of a better future for Iraq are fulfilled.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Kalita]

I certainly agree that, now that it's started, this has to finish. I really just wish it hadn't started.



If the Americans on the board will indulge me, could I get your perspective on what's happened over the last few months? Either your own, or what you see as the 'average American' opinion.

Do Americans find the UN Security Council to be the appropriate body to authorize military action? How did they feel things went in regards to Res. 1441, and the never-materialized 'second resolution'?

How is the media coverage of these things? Are you actually being told the opinions of the rest of the world, or just the American interpretation of those opinions? Is there as much coverage of protests (both domestic and foreign) as of the other events currently being covered?



I'm very comfortable with the coverage up here, good range of different feelings from different media outlets; the CBC in particular has been extremely thorough in catching every relevant issue.



I'm very glad to see this thread here, and that we're discussing this in such a civil manner. Another reason to love the Kitten.

"...not many people understood the karmic value of grilled cheese."

-Tara, Blue Athame's Angels and Goddesses

[BBOvenGuy]

I was a part of the Model United Nations group at my high school when I was a kid, and we even went to the national model UN in New York in the spring of 1980. We were Romania. Of course, things were very different then, in the middle of the Cold War.



I thought the UN could have handled this situation just fine - but then, I never thought Saddam Hussein was really much of a threat to use the weapons he has. I always felt like he just wanted to have them, as if they made him feel manlier or something. Geopolitical viagra.



And as for news coverage, I think CNN has been doing a great job, both with content and attitude. They've covered the protests as well as the battles, and they pointed out one very interesting thing today. In 1991, 94% of Republicans supported Bush I, and so did 85% or so of the Democrats. Today, 93% of Republicans support Bush II, but only 50% of Democrats do. Very interesting...



Meanwhile, today's big news - the US soldier who apparently started lobbing grenades into the tents of his COs - is really horrible. My uncle was a JAG in Vietnam and had to deal with cases like that. It's doubly tragic for the victims of the incident and their families.

"Sure it's simple, writing for kids. Just as simple as bringing them up." - Ursula K. LeGuin

[xita]

I disagree with the CNN coverage. It actively states that the US is in the right and that we must win the war. I don't think that's an appropriate stance.



As Americans take control of certain cities, CNN claims that the coallition forces have liberated certain cities. Unbiansed news sources would say that coallition forces have taken control of certain cities. That's just a fraction of what's going on with CNN. It's terrible.

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

Only 50 cents

[BBOvenGuy]

I'm sure it varies from anchor to anchor. As I type this, Aaron Brown just made a clarification/correction of something he'd said earlier. He was concerned that what he'd said before could have been misinterpreted as implying that anti-war and pro-war demonstrations have been equal in size, when in fact the anti-war demonstrations have been larger.



At any rate, whatever you think of CNN, I've found MSNBC and FOX News Channel to be much more pro-war biased. On the other hand, I've liked the ABC news coverage, too, but they're not on the air all the time any more.

"Sure it's simple, writing for kids. Just as simple as bringing them up." - Ursula K. LeGuin

[emma peel]

Bob, it's interesting that you mention ABC. I just found this on their website: abcnews.go.com/sections/w...30322.html



Secret Bids

Companies, Including Big GOP Donors, Invited to Vie for Iraq Contracts







W A S H I N G T O N, March 22 — Weeks before the first bombs dropped in Iraq, the Bush administration began rebuilding plans.



• Liberated Iraqis Doubt U.S. Motives

• Marine Scouts Wait for Second Push Into Iraq

• Satellites Give U.S. Missiles Dead-on Aim





MORE ON THIS STORY

FULL COVERAGE

• Extended Iraq Coverage







ABCNEWS has obtained a copy of a 99-page contract worth $600 million.

"We have never in our 40-year history spent this much money in one country in one year," said Andrew S. Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, an independent federal agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the State Department.



The USAID contract is filled with details about plans to construct Iraqi schools, airports, roads, bridges, hospitals, power plants and more.



‘Limitations of Competition’



But other details are being shielded by the USAID, which chose to conduct the bidding in secret.



"It's the scope and breadth that, I think, has made people take a second look at this in terms of the secrecy and the limitations of competition," said Steven Schooner, a law professor at George Washington University.



Normally, USAID puts out contracts on the Internet, and any company can bid. But to move this through quickly, the agency said it went to firms with track records and security clearances. It asked seven — about half the number that normally would have sought the business — to bid.



Among the companies believed to be bidding are Bechtel, Fluor, Parsons, the Washington Group and Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's old firm.



All are experienced. But in addition, all are generous political donors — principally to Republicans.



Controversial



The secret bidding is legal, but controversial.



"If you don't have an open process, the odds are you may not get the best price, you may not get the best contractor, you may not have the best quality control, which may impact your mission success," Schooner said.



British troops are serving alongside U.S. troops in Iraq. But the closed process blocked British companies, as well as any foreign firm, from bidding.



"We have a very keen diplomatic interest in ensuring that others not only are involved, not only will be involved, but feel as though they are part of this post-conflict exercise," said Eric Schwartz of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Washington think tank.



Also left out were international development groups, which historically have been essential to nation rebuilding because they emphasize the involvement of local people.



"They must have ownership over this full development process," said Mary McClymont, chief executive officer of InterAction, an alliance of dozens of U.S.-based nongovernmental relief organizations. "Otherwise, it's a recipe for failure."



USAID denies politics are involved in any of this.



"No political pressure was put by anybody outside the agency on us," Natsios said. "No phone calls have been made to me by anybody."



The agency says within a year, Iraqis will have better lives because of the rebuilding. But the secret bidding process makes it impossible to know how much better, or possibly worse, things might have turned out.





ABCNEWS' Jackie Judd contributed to this story.

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

Why am I not surprised?

Janice

Edited by: emma peel at: 3/22/03 9:49:09 pm

[xita]

Aaron Brown is really almost unwatchable. I am not surprised he had to make that apology because he is one of the worst examples. I have no doubt he did make a biased statement and was called on it. Yesterday, he talked through an iraqi press conference. I'd like to hear what they have to say. He can make his commentary afterwards but I would like him to just be quiet and let me hear it. I am not dumb enough that I am going to believe everything. I just want information. Does anyone have a site that is not leaning either way is very fair?



Oh and that missile accuracy, I heard on the radio that US missiles hit Iran. I haven't heard that on CNN. Iran complained and the US apparently said Iran knew it wasn't intentional.

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

Only 50 cents

Edited by: xita  at: 3/22/03 9:53:33 pm

[Kendahl897]

Oh God, FOX is definitely the worst..Especially those airheads they have on weekday mornings..They might as well have 'Bush's Bitches' tattooed on their foreheads.

[runnerbird]

Let me preface this by saying, I'm strongly opposed to this war and it is because of this I found it deeply important to educate myself about all aspects of this conflict in an effort to understand why we are fighting in Iraq again. I do firmly believe that Bush and our government feels it is doing the "right" thing to protect the homeland, but I also believe Bush and this administration grossly miscalcuated the ramifications of this war once the dust has settled.



Iraq: Why Now?

Despite the general feeling that this conflict arose quite suddenly (at least that was my feeling), the UN and the Security Council have been trying to disarm Iraq for 12 years and diplomacy, in the form of Security Council Resolutions, has not proven effective in dealing with the Iraqi government.



Since 1991, Iraq has violated 17 Security Council Resolutions. As recently as Jan. 16, 2003, 11 empty chemical warheads were found in a bunker in Southern Iraq. These are the kinds of warheads one would use in a biological attack. These materials should have been declared to the UN Weapons inspectors and destroyed years ago. But they weren't. Iraq's history of lies, deceit and stalling the UN inspections process is pretty well-known and well-documented.



The ultimate fear is that Iraq is in possession of biological and chemical agents and perhaps, much more frightening, is only a few years away from developing a nuclear weapons arsenal. The threat of Iraq using these 'weapons of mass destruction' is all the more real because Saddam has used his biological weapons before to suppress an uprising in a Kurdish town (I believe). A few hundred men, women and children died in this attack.



The more pressing fear is that Saddam would sell these weapons to terrorist groups to use in future assaults against the United States and its allies. A firm monetary/resource link between Saddam and Al-Queda (for instance) has never been established. Although Al-Queda cells do exist and operate in the country (with a stronghold of operatives and sympathizers in the North).



US Military Action



A former UN Weapons inspector (who's name escapes me now) believes Saddam DOES possess these weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding them in and around civilan areas such as hospitals and schools. Based on perhaps this, other intelligence and Iraq's 12 years of non-compliance with the Security Council Resolution, the US has decided to launch this military assault on Iraq without the support of the UN.



This is not without precedent. In 1982 the U.K. launched a military strike against Argentina when it invaded the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the UN who tried, without success, to end the conflict peacefully.



Now, the 'justification' for this military attack hinges on the belief that Iraq DOES possess these weapons. The real question becomes will Iraq use them? And if these weapons aren't found, what then?



The US has already begun to 'rewrite' the history of this war as not a pre-emptive strike against a possible aggressor, but a campaign to liberate the Iraq people. Hmmmm.... I wonder if history will see it this way.



Ramifications and the Outcome



Unforeseen problems have already begun to develop with the Turkey/US diplomatic relationship at a all-time low. The possible conflict between the Kurds (based in Northern Iraq) and Turkey, who added fuel to a dangerous fire by deploying troops in and around its border wtih Iraq. A smaller conflict between the Kurds and Turks is a very real possibility and one that the US does not need!



Firstly, if indeed fighting terrorism is one of the objectives of this war, then my main question/observation is this....



The War on terrorism is not a war with can be won or lost on a battlefield. Unlike any war before, there is no nation-state we can fight. The key to winning this war (or least diminishing the terrorist's power) is through intelligence. Intelligence the US receives from other countries either directly, (through joint-cooperation with local and government police) or indirectly (through access to airspace, military presence, etc). Because of this conflict, the US has villified itself in eyes of foe and friend alike. How willing will countries be to share their intelligence now?



Secondly, how exactly will Iraq be rebuilt? What role will the US play in the (re)construction of Iraq? What part will the UN play? How long will US presence be felt in that region? These are VERY important question and when pressed during news briefings regarding these issues, the White House doesn't really seem to have an answer.



The 'Real' Issues



Wealth and Globalization. Palestine/Israeli Conflict. It is my belief that the root of the worlds resentment lay in these two complex issues.



The US has less than 5% of the world's population, but we control 90% of the world's wealth. No matter how you slice it, there is something very wrong with that.



Peace talks between the Palestinitian and Israeli people must begin again. An agreement must be reached to give the Palestinitian people their own soverign nation. That's the only way to end to cycle of terrorism and occupation that has existed in Israel for years now.



And in conclusion...

I'm just trying to put some facts and opinion out there. Although I may not agree with the politics and logic that started this war, I have to support our troops! Especially the ones I know. Speedy Victory. And safe return.



Who-Ra!

[cassiopeia191]

Quote:

---

I don't think waiting for the entire UN or even the Security Council to back the U.S. was necessary. In the end we have to act as our interests dictate.

---

See, I think this is exactly where the problem is.

Apply this attitude to everyday interaction between people or hell, the whole democratic system and they all turn to dust. This sounds like: We do what we want to do regardless to the people we share this world with because we're right and they're wrong, but we won't obey the laws of this community when they displease us. Does this mean that when my government decided to raise taxes, I will just not pay because I think it's evil? And oh, one might make mistakes. You know, stuff like this happens but it doesn't really matter that much because we've taken action. Do you realize we're talking about war here? People are being killed ...yeah right, I forgot, we might make mistakes but that's okay. God bless us.

This war is lead in Iraq and not in America so maybe you might feel differently about it if it was actually fought in your country...this way, it is quite a lot easier, being spared the direct consequences of war, isn't it?



I don't want to attack you and I mean no offense, but your words stirred uo some bitterness in me because I just can't grasp this point of view ...

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

Edited by: DrG at: 3/23/03 5:16:24 am

[justin]

Quote:

---

This is not without precedent. In 1982 the U.K. launched a military strike against Argentina when it invaded the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the UN who tried, without success, to end the conflict peacefully.

---

The Falklands war was shortly before a general election. Right up to war the Conservatives were trailing in the polls, yet they won the election with a clear majority. So what was your point again?



People have mentioned the consequences of this war and we're already seeing them. America is having to work very hard to prevent Turkey from sending troops into North Iraq in order to deal with Kurdish "terrorists"



So the question is how many more deaths are we going to see if Turkey decides to follows America's example and protect their borders through a premptive strike?

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[Katharyn]

Without getting into the morality debate, factually I must add that the Falklands were and are sovereign British territory (whether that is right or wrong - every country bar Argentina recognises that) and as such that the Argentine invasion was (legally speaking) an attack on Britain itself. Every state has the right to self-defence of its territory against an act of aggression without reference to the United Nations. As such I am not sure that the example serves the argument as made.



What could be noted as a result of that example (as compared with 1991 when the coalition was assisting Kuwaiti self-defence) is that there is no (new) Iraqi act of aggression here to be countered. Which brings us back to the legal basis for the war...



Katharyn

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




If I want a little pussy, I got my own to play with.
Chance in Chance.




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

[Enigmatic]

The world is getting more and more anti-American. My parents generation are more friendly towards US, maybe because they experienced the cold war and the close relationship with the US, but the young generation here are very anti-American. It doesn't mean that Danes will become the next terrorists, but it means that people here have started to stop and think, before they blindly follow (maybe expect our Prime Minister).



I recently saw a show called American Pictures, and I was shocked to see, that there are people in America who eats clay. People, who are so poor, that they can't afford decent food. Tell me again...how much was it a Cruiser missile costs?



All this high technology, I miss WW1. A real war, where people stood facing each other in trenches, ducked and shot. *Insert wink smile*

And btw, what's with all the accidents that has happened? A UK plane was shot down by a patriot missile...it makes you wonder if the accidents could happened when they shot at the millitaery targets in the big Iraqi cities...



In my opinion, this is an unlegal war. One simply can not invade a country without the permission of the UN. That makes it unlegal, nomatter how many good thoughts you had about it.



Sarah



ETA: didn't mean to give you a headache...so the wink smile is there now Garfield.

I know you're gone, you said you're gone, but I can still feel you here...

Edited by: Enigmatic at: 3/23/03 5:52:12 am

[urnofosiris]

Hmm, no winking smilie, I am not sure whether you mean that or not. All that high technology can lessen the chance of hitting those hospitals instead of military targets, no guarantees obviously. The people facing each other in WW I weren't the people who started them, but the people who had to fight in their names, and it was not so easy to refuse and it was a horrible and bloody war (all wars are of course, there is only horrible and more horrible). During WW II entire cities on both sides got bombarded either by accident or on purpose. Those bombs that just follow the path of gravity ensured that innocent people would die, more so than today. One of the few small mercies I think is the technology of the US army, though on the other hand without it, they might not have started at all. Then again lack of weapons or technology never really stopped mankind from fighting wars. I better stop now, I am giving myself a headache.

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


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

Edited by: DrG at: 3/23/03 5:38:48 am

[oneyedchicklet]

Yes, its true that there are many people here who can't afford to eat and literally live on the streets. I have always said that the main thing that bothers me about being American is that we have jumped to help other countries when we have millions here who need government assistance. I was one who needed help and was denied. I have always been willing to work and I just needed a hand up. I was not looking to live off my government for the rest of my life. It seems we help others more then we help our own.

The cost of one Tomahawk missle would feed and house many Americans. The budget for this war is more then the budget to help the homeless. And we are risking the lives of many of our military and innocent civilians that we will help rebuild their lives after the war is over. Figure that one out.

I've had people ask me "do you think we will win the war?" In my honest opinion, no one ever wins a war simply because lives are lost on all sides and money is spent. So in that case, everyone loses.





Barb

I'd sacrifice all those nights if I could make the earth and my dreams the same. The only difference is to let love replace all our hate. So lets go there, lets make our escape.

Edited by: oneyedchicklet at: 3/23/03 6:00:57 am

[DianaBouvier99]

Quote:

---

Either your own, or what you see as the 'average American' opinion.

---

I consider myself an average American, it is my opinion that this war is wrong and immoral. But, I totally support our troops and armed forces. Those men no more want to kill civilians than you do. Bush frightens me to the core of my being; while he doesn't invoke images of Hitler to me, he is a fanatic that believes its his duty to fight evil whatever form it may take. The problem is: only he and the Christian Wrong (Right) truly knows who is evil.

Quote:

---

Do Americans find the UN Security Council to be the appropriate body to authorize military action?

---

It is against our Constitution to allow our armed forces to be commanded by a foreign body. There have been a few exceptions to this law, but basically the UN has no ability to govern any aspect of America or authorize any action by its military. Plus, a lot of Americans feel that the UN is nothing more than a drain on our budget since we do pick up most of its bills. Now, as an average American's opinion: I personally, feel the UN sticks its nose in things that it has no business doing so, but its the only place that has all the countries talking so its needed.

Quote:

---

How did they feel things went in regards to Res. 1441, and the never-materialized 'second resolution'?

---

A Second Res wasn't needed. My Opinion: I do not agree with the war and I think inspections were working, but no second res was needed for us to attack.

Quote:

---

Are you actually being told the opinions of the rest of the world, or just the American interpretation of those opinions?

---

It is my opinion that we have a very limited Right wing tainted news coverage. You have to realize that all our TV networks are commercial. In (I think 1988 can someone here help with that?) Regan deregulated the television/Radio industry which has created mega-companies. The parent companies of those TV stations have a huge interest in this War, they are going to make a lot of money off of it, thus it doesn't make "good" business sense to run negative news casts. I get all my information from the other countries newspapers online. That's why the US Congress is trying to regulate the internet.



You have to remember this kind of war has happened before with the newspapers/news media in the Spanish-American War (over sugar) and WW 1 etc.

Quote:

---

Is there as much coverage of protests (both domestic and foreign) as of the other events currently being covered?

---

No.



Also, all the people in my family when told of the potests in the rest of world say: "Who cares." No one cares what Germany/France/Turkey/Ruissia etc think about the war or the protesters.



To them, those countries are betraying us, and they are very hurt by thier actions. My mother's first husband is buried in France (WW2) and she's so angry she's spending her life savings to dig him up and bring him home.



They have swallowed Bush's images of firemen and police getting murdered on the streets by WMD given to terrorist by Saddam.



All those were my opinions as asked. I am just a simple country girl from the back woods of NC. Please do not flame me.

Edited by: DianaBouvier99 at: 3/23/03 12:34:32 pm

[littlesplinters]

One thing that keeps bugging me is this: if SH has weapons of mass destuction and if he is such a threat to the world then why isn't he using them now when his country is being invaded.....just a thought

[daddykat]

There are definitely problems with hunger in the US; I've seen some of it having lbeen staying at a homeless shelter since dec. 5. And the programs we ahve to help it tend to spend a lot of money, help some low-income people become obese, and still leave people hungry. So there can defintiely be a more intelligent arrangement of American expenditures.

However, clay eating is generally not a hunger thing. There are groups of people who have odd superstittions as to what is good to eat and think of eating clay as a healing experience. Others just have odd tastes.

[BBOvenGuy]

Quote:

---

if SH has weapons of mass destuction and if he is such a threat to the world then why isn't he using them now when his country is being invaded

---

Well, it's possible that he doesn't have any. But it's also possible that he can't use them for political reasons. His only chance of "winning" is to drag out the conflict long enough that political pressure will force Bush into a cease fire. If he uses chemical or biological weapons, he'll pretty much blow that chance. Even France has said they'll support the war if Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons.



Of course, toward the end of the war, Saddam might decide that he has nothing more to lose and could use them then. I sure hope he doesn't.

"Sure it's simple, writing for kids. Just as simple as bringing them up." - Ursula K. LeGuin

Edited by: BBOvenGuy  at: 3/23/03 12:40:12 pm

[runnerbird]

Quote:

---

The Falklands war was shortly before a general election. Right up to war the Conservatives were trailing in the polls, yet they won the election with a clear majority. So what was your point again?

---

Sorry, I had my facts incorrect on this one so I guess there really was no point.



(note to self: no more self-deprecating humor)



ETA: Just came across an interesting article about this conflict on salon.com. Not sure I agree with this author's point of view, but it's an interesting read and definitely a prespective I haven't heard before.

Edited by: runnerbird at: 3/23/03 3:30:17 pm

[Kalita]

DianaBouvier99, thanks for answering my post - it's brought up a point I want to cover.

Quote:

---

No one cares what Germany/France/Turkey/Ruissia etc think about the war or the protesters.

To them, those countries are betraying us, and they are very hurt by thier actions.

---

The problem here is, the United States is entering the world stage. Is America the only nation affected by Iraq's arms? Is it the only nation that is concerned over who controls Iraq's oil?



I think anyone can answer 'no' to those questions, and more. So why is the US ignoring international opinion?



As a Canadian citizen, I also have a very strong sense of being a citizen of the world. A Canadian life is as important to me as an Iraqi life, an American life, an Israeli life, a Palestinian life, an African life, a French life, a British life...



I suppose my underlying question in all of this is, what is it about America that keeps itself isolated from its fellow humans? Is there any way that the average American can be given a stronger sense of the community of man beyond their borders?



I have no answers for these questions, most especially as I am not myself American. I do believe it to be a great concern given our current situation.

"...not many people understood the karmic value of grilled cheese."

-Tara, Blue Athame's Angels and Goddesses

[feena191]

Sky News are reporting that the Pentagon have said they've discovered a "huge" chemical weapons factory.



edited for link: Sky News

Quote:

---

'CHEMICAL PLANT FOUND'



A huge chemical weapons factory has been found in Iraq, according to Pentagon sources.



The facility was found by advancing US troops in An Najaf, around 100 miles south of Baghdad, the sources say.



The general in charge of the factory has been arrested and is being questioned, the sources said.



Sky News Foreign Affairs Editor Tim Marshall said if the claims are substantiated they will in part vindicate President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.



They have argued the case for war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had banned weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons.



The Iraqi regime has always denied this and UN weapons inspectors sent back into the country at the end of last year failed to find any evidence to suggest otherwise.



Last Updated: 01:04 UK, Monday March 24, 2003

---

Feena

-x-

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

The inward eye, the sightless sea, Ayala flows through the river in me...

Edited by: feena191  at: 3/23/03 5:09:25 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

Kalita, I have no other solution to convincing Americans to be less arrogant that time. Eventually, American power won't be so dominant in comparison to the other great powers, and the U.S. will be more cooperative and act more like just another nation, but until then, the U.S. will act arrogantly as the dominant imperial powers have always acted from our immediate predecessor Britain all the way back to the ancient Persians who thought it would be easy to conquer those Greek barbarians at Thermopylae.



It's not so much that Americans don't think feel concern about people in other countries; it's just that for them, that sense of community means that everyone should be just like Americans and helping them become that way is for the best. They don't care about what other countries think because they arrogantly believe that they are right and that they are, in fact, helping those same protestors who they would call ungrateful.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[The Partisan]

Unlike many; I had always been tentative on whether or not to support a war, although I do support the troops wholeheartedly. With this report of a discovery of a chemical weapons factory...I find I have a hard time rejecting the call for war. Assuming that the information is accurate, that is.



Would further inspections have worked? Maybe...but to me, I don't know if maybe is a good enough answer when you're dealing with weapons of this nature. The Kurds found out that one the hard way. The inspections hadn't found it thusfar, and maybe, as much as it pains me to say it, a war really was the only viable option to disarm him.



As much as I'd like to, I cannot say that I believe the inspections would have found this, if allowed to proceed, without deceiving myself.



I'm a conflicted kitten.



Edited to add:



I'm well aware of the irony of being called The Partisan, and yet being undecided on what is such a partisan matter.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/23/03 5:17:36 pm

[BBOvenGuy]

Back to news coverage - just this evening I stumbled onto the fact that C-SPAN is running the Canadian CBC coverage of the war. It gives an interesting perspective. For one thing, they just did a story about the American networks' refusal to show the Iraqi interviews of the American POWs. The President and the Pentagon are screaming about how it's a violation of the Geneva Convention, but at the same time the reporters embedded with the US troops have been given plenty of access to Iraqi POWs.



Ah, Canada. I'd forgotten how refreshing I'd found their perspective back during the summer I was working in Ottawa.

"Sure it's simple, writing for kids. Just as simple as bringing them up." - Ursula K. LeGuin

[xita]

i am confused about that POW thing. Yesterday, I think it was CNN but it could have been MSNBC, this one reporter was embbeded with the troops. They had Iraqi POWs. I heard on the news today that they weren't supposed to show them after they were captured. Then I heard they couldn't show their faces. This reporter showed the Iraqis up close, showing that they had water and were covered and had some food ration. It really bothered me that he was talking about these people without talking to them. And that his face was on tv and I thought , they aren't supposed to be showing this, right? And so I am really confused. We've seen plenty of shots of them arresting them but this was one of the few that I saw post capture. Is that a violation of the geneva convention?

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

Only 50 cents

[sprhrgrl]

In San Diego, KPBS is running BBC World for newsbreaks. It's interesting to hear news from a "Coalition" country that isn't so. . . Um. . . American, I suppose.



This is an interesting situation for me because it's one of the few times that I'm appreciative of the gender inequality in the United States. I'm very happy that the country is backwards enough that if they were to call up a draft, they wouldn't include women in it. This is important to me as I'll be eighteen in April.



I participated in the emergency response rally here on Thursday, and I feel horrible not doing more, but my mother's. . . Frightened. Ever since the N30 protests in Seattle (where I used to live), she's been afraid of nonviolent protest turning otherwise and police retaliation. She works in the federal building, where the protest was, and the whole time she had her coworkers watching me out the window to "make sure I was okay."



So I participate where I can. I did the juvenille thing and started a clique called Us? Apatriot. which has the proud distinction of being rejected by the fanlistings. There are only two members, but I feel that it's a good thing.



Of course, then there's always the Le Tigre reminder. . .

sprhrgrl.com

counting*stars

racism=sexism=homophobia

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. – Gloria Steinem

[The Partisan]

Just to speculate here...but it might make a difference as to just who is doing the interviewing. If the American POWs are being interviewed by the Iraqi State media, that is, media controlled by the Iraqi government, it might be a violation.



If Iraqi POWs are interviewed by non-governmental media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.), then it might not be, since it's not an act of a government.



This is purely speculative on my part, and I may well be wrong, but I offer it nevertheless.



Edited to Add:



Did some research, found what I believe to be the relevant section of the Geneva Convention, Article 13



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

Article 13



Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.



Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.



Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

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



I guess it all depends on what you define as using POWs as a "public curiousity".

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/23/03 7:01:41 pm

[Pipsqueak]

Okay, my family and I were just watching the Fox News Channel (whose staff apparently believes that the sun shines out of Dubya's ass), and they were raving on and on about the Iraqis showing pictures of the American POWs to the public, and how this violated the Geneva Convention. And something about that struck a chord with me, and I thought "didn't the United States violate the Geneva Convention somehow when we went to war with Iraq?"



So I looked it up on the web, and apparently the U.S.'s treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (because technically they are prisoners of war) is a violation of the Geneva Convention. However, I wasn't able to find an in-depth discussion of this, and I know nothing about conventions or treaties or what-not, much less what has been happening with the prisoners. History & foreign affairs are not my strong suits. So can any of you Kittens elaborate on this for me? How are the Guantanamo Bay prisoners being mistreated? Did America violate the GC in any other way?



If I've misunderstood something, please let me know - I'm still trying to get my brain wrapped around all this political mumbo-jumbo. Quantum physics I have no problem with, and yet a simple historical document leaves me bewildered. Go figure.

Live each day as if it were your last; and one day, you'll be right.
| Pipsqueak's Music Videos |

Edited by: Pipsqueak at: 3/23/03 7:36:02 pm