| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: Truth is the First Civilian Casualty |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Truth is the First Civilian Casualty
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since 2003. But killings by U.S. troops are not nearly as common as the war��s critics would like us to believe. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8679662/site/newsweek/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha.
"It's okay to go in on the excuse of WMD because it's good for restructuring the Middle East."
Either talk about truth or talk about convenience, but please just pick one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Ha.
"It's okay to go in on the excuse of WMD because it's good for restructuring the Middle East."
Either talk about truth or talk about convenience, but please just pick one. |
So, what exactly is a "petard"?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Ha.
"It's okay to go in on the excuse of WMD because it's good for restructuring the Middle East."
Either talk about truth or talk about convenience, but please just pick one. |
Didju read the article. I don't care about the title, what is important is that the US is being vastly over charged w/ civilian deaths in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Of course I didn't. First I'd like to know whether you give a whit about truth. From what I've seen you don't (in a geopolitical sense, of course), and this 'truth is the first casualty of war' might as well be written as 'conversation is the first casualty of war' for all I can tell you care about it. A tool, nothing more. If I am to believe your other assertions that truth can be used when good for the g-political aspirations of a country, then this article shouldn't shock me a bit. Why should I care when we don't give a whit about what truth is? Tell me that first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paraphrased:
| Quote: |
| The civilians who died were probably nasty insurgent scum anyway. The Iraqi Body Count is run by a load of unpatriotic socialists pushing a political agenda with no regard for the truth. The number of civilian dead is much lower than they say because none of the dead Iraqi men can possibly be innocent. And if the US Army collected statistics and investigated deaths properly I'm sure I would be proven right. |
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Of course I didn't. First I'd like to know whether you give a whit about truth. From what I've seen you don't (in a geopolitical sense, of course), and this 'truth is the first casualty of war' might as well be written as 'conversation is the first casualty of war' for all I can tell you care about it. A tool, nothing more. If I am to believe your other assertions that truth can be used when good for the g-political aspirations of a country, then this article shouldn't shock me a bit. Why should I care when we don't give a whit about what truth is? Tell me that first. |
Sure I do, but if telling the whole story would make harder to win then that is also something that needs to be considered.
IF the US announced the real reasons for the war then it would humiliate Saudi Arabia and make any action they do to cut down Al Qaida as surrendering to US threats.
To say that anyone who thinks that the geo political realities also should be considered is just someone who doesn't care about the truth is pretty sanctimonious of you .
Besides you should be interested in the facts are otherwise you would find it even harder to find good moral reasons to oppose the US actions in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A little bit sanctimonious but what I didn't like about the op is the expectation that I am to read the article and become enraged by the lack of truth in the whole thing, when the US doesn't even keep civilian casualty lists and expects others to do the work for them.
I think the whole problem lies with the title. "Lack of accuracy in civilian casualty figures in Iraq" would be much better than the melodramatic "truth is the first casualty of war" title used in the article.
I did read the article though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
IF the US announced the real reasons for the war then it would humiliate Saudi Arabia and make any action they do to cut down Al Qaida as surrendering to US threats.
To say that anyone who thinks that the geo political realities also should be considered is just someone who doesn't care about the truth is pretty sanctimonious of you .
|
Hey Joo, I'm curious. A couple of questions:
1. During the buildup to the war, were you one of the people arguing that the reason for the war was the WMD?
2. If so, were you aware of the "real reasons", and hence lying to us? Or were you one of the dupes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:10 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hey Joo, I'm curious. A couple of questions:
1. During the buildup to the war, were you one of the people arguing that the reason for the war was the WMD? |
No , indeed at first I thought a war would be too expensive and then I read the book "The Threatening Storm" and read an article in the Washington Post called deadlier than war.
I thought it would be very hard to contain Iraq for another 20-30 years. Keeping US forces in South Korea is difficult and the mideast is far more explosive than South Korea.
Besides after 9-11 I came to the conculsion that the mideast was so messed up politically , nothing the US did could possibly make it worse.
| Quote: |
| 2. If so, were you aware of the "real reasons", and hence lying to us? Or were you one of the dupes? |
I read about the real reasons, but I wasn't aruging for the war before the war, indeed did not post on Iraq until April 2003 well after the war was underway.
I used to only post on Korean employment laws for the most part.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo:
Well, thanks for the refresher on board history. I had remembered it differently, but then things are always a little bit blurry with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I did read at least part of your article. From what I gather, it is trying to claim that the killing of civilians is largely at the hands of insurgents.
I don't doubt that insurgents (whoever they are) have killed a great many civilians and continue to do so.
But what are we to make of reports like the following?
http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/06/is_this_what_th.html#26165
Given the amount of spin that the US administration puts on everything, I think that it is safe to conclude that the "truth" is somewhere in the middle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know, it is a report like many others. Some worth less than others.
But there isn't much out there that indicates that the US has behaved worse than others during wartime.
anyway let the insurgents ask for independence if they don't want the US in their towns and cites. What gives them the right to tell the rest of Iraq what to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
As someone trained as an historian, I can say that all this speculation about the "real reasons" is rather silly.
Presidential directives, NSC minutes, memoranda to the President from JCS and CIA, telephone transcripts, etc., will not be declassified for at least 25 years.
Then we'll know. Until then, what you guys are doing is just politics, which is fine, but please stop talking about "real reasons" and "truth" at this premature point, particularly with respect to U.S. motives in Iraq. People are way too simplistic on this point (for oil! to avenge his father!...come on...Do you KNOW what the motives were, for a fact, or are you just playing around with circumstantial evidence and the bits and pieces of the story that have been leaked and possible distorted in the press?). |
well you tell us what this means.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1489979,00.html
US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq
Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian
U.S. is targeting the Mideast, not Russia
James P. Pinkerton
| Quote: |
May 12, 2005
The United States has a strategy of encircling Russia, and it's working.
But the real target of that strategy is beyond Russia - or, more precisely, south of Russia, all the way down to the Middle East. |
| Quote: |
So if the U.S. is not interested in "regime change" in Moscow, why is Uncle Sam so interested in positioning military assets across Eurasia? For the answer, one need only look at a map. From "New Europe" to Central Asia to Pakistan, the U.S. is building an arc of power above the Middle East, with the goal of completely surrounding the area. That's the real focus of American foreign policy in the 21st century, the transformation, by one tool or another, of the Arab countries, as well as Iran, into Iraq- and Afghanistan-like dependencies. For reasons of anti-terrorism, for reasons of oil, for reasons of neoconservative ideology, the U.S. wants to be ready to intervene anywhere in the region with overwhelming force.
Working closely with Israel, the U.S. hopes to enlist other countries, too. One possible ally is India, which has long been fearful of Islam. In addition, black African countries fear Islamism in their own neighborhood, propagated, most recently, by brutalitarian Sudan. |
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin124254947may12,0,4123195,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
