Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

A year later

0 helpful
48 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Well, hopefully with a year behind it, we can attempt to discuss the progress of the Iraqi invasion without too much hostility, we should be looking beyond the reasons for now and lookig toward the end of this conflict.

CBC aired the documentary again "Deadline Baghdad" they say it was banned by censors in the US and several other countries and the CRTC in Canada has tried stopping its airing but unsuccessfully as it breaches fredom of expression rights.

In a nutshell, 50 reporters that hav ebeen in Iraq from many different countriesd showed unedited footage and photos of what was really going on. Not a very pretty picture and i won't go into any details, lets just say it is NO WHERE NEAR as pretty and successful as we are generally shown it to be, even the soldiers are disgusted with the guerilla warfare style it is being fought in.

Besides that though, what has bene accomplished?

I notice the latest tout from the Bush Administration is that Lybia has stopped building neuclear arms, first I've heard of that goal as an objective, even though this has been a long term goal of all the worlds nations.

They also say that they hae uncovered parts for building nuclear arms and they are being shipped out of the country now, we should see more in the future.

Some say Iraq has enough money in it's own oil resources to pay for thier own reconstruction now, but from what I understand, they have only turned out 6 billion in oil this year and repairs are slated at over 100 billion to restore Baghdad (not the 180 billion as originally proposed).

So what are the stories from other parts of the globe?

Please try to keep this to just reporting the latest news as shown in your media and not personal opinions, as they usually get nasty. Nobody can flame YOU for delivering the news.

If we do this like big kids, we may be able to actually share news reports without it becoming self opinionated war.

48 replies

by jardinier

What is very noticeable in general reports about Iraq is that, while the USA keeps a tally of US service people who have died, and are continuing to die in Iraq, there is rarely any mention of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives, or been seriously wounded in this illegal invasion. It is most certainly not a war as, to the best of my knowledge, the USA never actually declared war on Iraq.

If a Labor Government had been in power at the time, Australia would definitely NOT have joined the accurately named COW. Mark Latham, the new leader of the Australian Labor Party, and very likely the next Prime Minister of Australia after the next election, made speeches about Labor's stance well before the start of the invasion. He especially referred to the young children who would inevitably be killed.

Now what REALLY gets my goat is that, even after acknowledging that the "intelligence" about the alleged WMDs was flawed, there has still been NO ADMISSION from the US that oil was a part of the equation, which even Blind Freddie could see.

As a friend said to me yesterday: the Arab peoples have always followed a tribal culture, and there is no indication that this will ever change. Even the oil producing Middle Eastern countries which are not in any way accused of terrorism have, on the back of the enormous income from oil, ended up with filthy rich dictators or oligarchies who neglect to give a fair deal to the citizens.

As the Iraqis have repeatedly declared, after initially thanking the COW of ridding them of their sadistic leader, Saddam Hussein, they do NOT want a Western-style democracy. More than likely, after the dust settles and the blood stops flowing, they will end up by choosing as their leader another dictator, who will be a Muslim of one kind or another, who will try and turn Iraq into a Muslim country.

The terrorist attacks in Bali, and more recently in Spain, were obviously directed at countries which supported the invasion. When will the American public face up to the obvious fact that the invasion should never have occurred in the first place?

And, more importantly, when will the US Government admit that its decision to invade Iraq was premature; was not supported by the UN Security Council; and could, as it has done, turn into "Vietnam in the sand?"

by oz_media

Julian, I really don't want this to be a debate about opinions. You offered some information updates which is great but we need to try and remove personal opinion from shadowing the reports.

Other than that, nicely said.

In another sense, "Haiti?s Crisis ? Reaction from Members of the U.S. Congress" http://tinyurl.com/3chuc

QUOTE: "I ask this President, how can he justify our attack of Iraq by claiming we are building a democracy while he sits idly by and watches a democracy in Haiti being destroyed by thugs whose only goal is to steal power from a duly-elected President? "

From what was reported over the weekend, Haitians citizens have never supported the Iraq war yet they are supposed to be one of the countries that were said to strongly support the effort. I wonder what the truths are, especialy with no stable government in place to speak on thier behalf.

by antipodes

I have sat back quietly for a while observing the nature of postings to the various discussions. I have deduced that some/most/or even possibly all TR members consider the media in general so biased as to not be a reliable source of FACTS.

As statistics are also scorned in some discussions, then things like relative body counts would no doubt also come into question.

From whence therefore do we get an accurate account of events in Iraq? Quite frankly I am astounded that apparently not ONE of the presumably well paid members of TechRepublic has taken a week or two off work and flown to Baghdad to actually get a first-hand look at and feel of the situation.

I most certainly would have done this myself if I had the money for the air fare, which I don't.

I daresay that "jul646" could have backed up his personal opinions with excerpts from the media with comments from important people who are or have been in Iraq. But if the media is biased, and "jul646" quoted from the media, then this would not, in the eyes of many TR members, in any way have validated his opinions.

by topesblues

How many Iraqis haven?t died in the last year? Not much is said about the mass graves that have been found. In the hundreds of thousands from what I have heard from the press. How many Iraqis aren?t being held as political prisoners and tortured tonight by the Hussein?s thugs? How many Iraqis haven?t been executed by the Fediyne (sorry about the spelling) in the last year? At least now they might have a chance at a better future.
As far as I know,,,The US hasn?t shipped any of the oil to ourselves. ( I may be wrong on that but I haven?t read any where that we were. I?ll get ready for the backlash on that one.) As far as the UN, the countries that objected (France,Russia,Germany) to us invading all had illegal oil contracts with Iraq. Against the UN resolution. The one thing I do agree on is that in the end Iraq will probably have a Muslim based govt that is not friendly to its own people much less the US?.and that?s my two cents!

by oz_media

well you startyed out offereing speculation and sheer defense, but no news or reports, we must watch that we keep personal predjudices out of this.

You did say that " As far as the UN, the countries that objected (France,Russia,Germany) to us invading all had illegal oil contracts with Iraq."

Now from the US Embassy's Report to Congress, these countries were in turn trading this 'ill gained oil' with America, as the USA was unable to purchase directly from Iraq.

I'm not saying that the US is to blame but I this definitely implies the motivation for other countries to try and profit from US demand.

Just like a drug dealer, they only succeed because of junkies that buy it from them, supply and demand.

The first part about mass graves and how many more would have died is pure speculation. There's no doubt that UK troops found mass graves but to say you have saved all these people is pure speculation and just doesn't hold water.

What does the US news say about the mass graves? What updates have YOU heard?

What I find is that we are all getting a different story. What I se from Canadian news is dramatically different from the what the US networks say.

bu simply compiling links to information sources around the world, we MAY get someidea of how and why people formed positive or negative opinions.

Reinforcing a single point isn't going to work at all.

by oz_media

Actually I did consider what you had said today but as an aside to the topic here:
The soldiers that died are trained to defend thier country, they were under the impression this was in Americas defense.

Had you been told that your son had to die so that 100 Iraqi's wouldn't, I'm sure the support wouldn't have been so great.

If they needed you to sacrifice your life because thousands die of starvation in Ethiopia, I don't think support would last long once bodies came home.

But I say again, I really don't want this discussion to turn that way.

I value your opinion and accept it but am more interested in seeing how you have reached your opinion, was this in the news?

by cactus pete

"It is most certainly not a war as, to the best of my knowledge, the USA never actually declared war on Iraq."

The US was never not at war since the original Desert Storm in '91. They were still at war when invading a year ago - that was the rationale for not having to declare it again.

What gets me is that I still haven't heard them declare an end to the war yet.... I hope that happens before June 30.

by oz_media

"What gets me is that I still haven't heard them declare an end to the war yet"

Firstly I don't know how declaring war on a different country for different reasons is somehow carried over to incading another but I know nothing about that part of war anyway.

But why would you be surpprised that the war hasn't been declared over yet?? It's bad enough that they said that major combat has ended(or whatever the phrase used was). Do you REALLY think that this is OVER or even remotely close to over yet? If so, how did you get such an idea?

by oldefar

Libya's efforts to rejoin the community of nations by giving up on WMD and opening their books to both what and how they had proceeded.

Iran inviting UN inspectors in to view their nuclear program and admitting previous ommissions.

Syria increased participation against terrorist activity and reduced sabre rattling in the region.

A year of discussion versus testing from N Korea.

Pakistan and India in discussions instead of eyeball to eyeball over Kashmir.

Egypt leading efforts for a solution to the issue of Palistine and Israel.

Are any of these in whole or in part a side effect of the Iraq War? Has a realization that the big dog will bite put a fresh perspective on some of these long standing issues and moved things ahead? This will be an interesting subject for future historians.

by hal 9000

Firstly Liba has finally wanted to get back in the "Good Books" for a very long time now didn't they surrender the person responsible for the Pan AMM Flight Destruction over Lockerby?

Iran inviting inspectors in but only after an alleged break for the "New Year" with no firm date for the inspectors to enter. Sounds very much like they are hiding everything that they don't want to become obviously seen and even now they are unwilling to set a firm date for the inspectors to enter sounds more like diplomatic BS to me rather than a genuine attempt to get into the West's "Good Books" again.

Syria well that is just plain self preservation what would you expect with an army on their border? If they had of carried on with their previous actions they very well might have had the COW continue over the border and invade them as well. We can not always set out goals that will be followed to the letter as things change somethings quite rapidly in that area of the world and what is good today may be not so good tomorrow. Just Like Saddam Hussein as he was once considered as the West's most popular person in the region REMEMBER?

Pakistan & India that is a Religious thing and will never end until religion is thrown out the door after all both of those countries where all once called INDIA when ruled by the British and it was only in the hasty way that the British withdrew from the area that has caused this problem in the first place.

Egypt is hardly a stable place to begin with if I remember correctly they where a party to the 6 day war which started the whole mess in the first place between the Palisitians and Israelis so them wanting to fix up the mess of their own making is hardly surprising is it?

While these may be considered as "Side Effects" of the Iraq war it is more likely Political Opportunism coming into play here rather than anything else Good if it works but the real threat is still there and done nothing to go away and that is North Korea currently they have the weapons and crude delivery systems which they are constantly refining until one day they will be a world power.

Now every country in that region of the world has benefited from OIL but in every case the benefits have not ben shared around but retained by a select few who are a law unto themselves and do what they wish and allow the general population to suffer which is a perfect breading ground for the current wave of suicide bombers as they are brain washed into believing that a better alternative will arise with the demise of the West even if they are the main buyers of the oil that is so precious to all concerned. If they where successful in destroying the West they have not as yet realized that there would be a greatly reduced market for their OIL and the prices would drop accordingly so again there would be no benefit other than to a select few who ruled the place after the overthrow of the current administration. The whole area is less that Stable.

What will be interesting for further historians will be exactly what does come out of the current mess within that area and it very well just might be not what we want to see and even worse than the person who was removed. What would be the outcome if the Arab World was to finally unite?

Now there is a thought for nightmares.

Col

by oz_media

Is this the message the media portrays in Australia? or is this your thoughts as brought on by media, news, TV ?

Those are interesting views and I agree with much of what you've said. Where do you get such thoughts from though?

I ask because I always seem to see a side that others don't, with Iraq coming back into the spotlight with the one year mark, I am curious to see how the media rates the success around the globe.

by oldefar

I simply am speculating on the side effects.

Here is an another speculation - the bombings in Spain are a side effect of the Iraq War. Keep in mind that the linkage is equally tenuous.

Now it is equally possible that all the events are unrelated, that each would have happened regardless of the coallition actions in Iraq.

by oz_media

Exactly what I was looking for Oldefar!

I've seen those reports locally too, the main focus being Libya's decisions.

Another report on local news, saw that as positive yet interviewed various speakers who deemed it nice but not the focus or reason for the Iraq invasion. They also say that the same would have happened by joint coalition in the next few years anyway. These were subjects said to be discussed during the original objective meetings between all the allies and were deemed inevitable.

Todays news was focused on Hans Blix as he said he felt somewhat vindicated by the absence of WMD.
I think he is on a book signing campaign but he did have some relevant and very valid points.
He mainly said that the UN is/was successful in it's inspections and that the defectors who claimed WMD existed were simply looking to have Iraq Liberated by the USA. The issue that instigated the invasion was how the UN was not finding WMD in noted sites therefore they must not be successfully inspecting said sites, yet the invasion has only pr oven that the UN was not missing anything that they were sent to inspect.

So it looks like similar news but with a slightly different perhaps 'realist's?' message.

by oz_media

AuntP I see your point but this is an excercise in seeing exactly how the media portrays the success/failure of the invasion one year since it began.

Sorry but I really get off on the media. I hate watching all the political BS normally but since media and mass marketing is an 'interest' of mine,I am interested in seeing how media portrays events and how accurately.

I'm not trying to be a hypcrite by all of a sudden NOT wanting personal opinions. I still feel personal feeling is best for most of our discussions because they promote thought that is needed for public opinion, such as the 'gay marriage' discussion. I don't think there's a single resource LINKED to or a statement referred to other than the bible which is the center of the issue, fantastic discussion!

by voldar

asking for with this thread is simple and in the same time complicated to answer:
"How you form yourself an opinion" I think is your real question.
The problem is not how - it's easy to answer to HOW. Usually, you read, you filter what you read through your thoughts/convictions and you have an opinion. The problem is, is it your opinion the right one? And yes, here, at this point there are sooooo many to say about. I lived in a country where you read two newspapers treating the same object but from different point of views/interests so that you may end up a bit debusolated. And this is the real problem, how to CHOSE the real facts from a lot of b..t.
The answer is obvious, only if you ARE there, in the middle of the problems, you can say that you have an idea, but not more.
What is the media world in fact? A way to form and pass over an opinion of a "group of people with the same interests" to others. There are so little "independent" newspapers, and I even don't expect them to be so. The only thing to do is to gather as much information about a subject as you can get, make an "addition", and the result you get will be MAYBE closer to the reality. NEVER the reality! That's my point, and this is what I do believe. The way you think is driven a lot by the type of society you live in, transform/form your perception about things, happenings, life. And you are limited to this. Is it good, is it bad, I don't know, but for me is a fact. And really, I try my best to get out of this circle, to brake it and to see beyond.
I know a joke about a peasant who goes to the ZOO, saw a giraffe and says: "This is not real!" Why? Because he was not ready to accept that giraffes do exist, and if they do, then all his thoughts would be vanished in a glance. And nobody wants to find himself "nude" without a "point to relay on".

by oz_media

No Vlad, that's not my objective at all. I am looking at marketing angles used by the media based on demographic or geographic interests.

I don't really care where people form opeinions, the opinions they have are all welcomed norma;;y, butI am interested in what is portrayed in various countries or parts of countries.

It is more of a mass marketing interest for some work I'm looking at.

by voldar

Oz, if you did not already had my answer between my first answer, I say that, every country/group etc., will show the facts from the point of view that is "apropiate" to its needs/interests.

by voldar

I forget to say also, that from the "marketing" point of view, you'll sell things that you know that will be "vandable". I don't know about the latest news in the Iraq war, but I want to say you something. After the '89, when the "communist block" felt, like a sand castle sweeped by a wave of the ocean, I was a very interested by the media, eager to read as much as I could the latest news. But you know what? After an year and a half, I stopped. Why? Because the real facts were never presented in the "news", they were only images/thoughts/ideas (deformed a little or more) of the "news providers" about what was happening.

by oz_media

I manage and promote bands globally. I work with as many media outlets as possible and also stud yhuman psychology and demographic marketing.

The issue being addressed isn't the factor, war or whatever,I just want info on local current ebents. At this time, the Iraq war is entering year two, I want to see how the nedia reports progress.

Not to sound rude but th nature of this discussion is news interest from different countries, not why i'm an interested in this. In short, it's work and marketing tests/

by hal 9000

And News Articles that have been reported with a bit of first hand experience thrown in for good measure.

There was also a very informative lecture about the Oil and the Middle East at a Microsoft Meeting that I attended last year as well. Developers I think but as I attend so many I'm not really sure.

Actually I wasn't trying to have a go at Oldefar but put another light on what he said above, while he was trying to infer that all this had come about directly from the invasion of Iraq and I honestly do not.

It is really nothing more than that involved.

Col

by oz_media

But that's MY opinion I have formed as a result of all the reporting I've seen from around the globe. it is interesting how some only see a certain side. I am wondering if they see multiple sides and simply choose one, or do people choose a side based on patriotism (If our government says it's true, the others MUST be wrong syndrome). But what you are saying is that you have a collective opinion, from US and loal sources. I assume that the MS reps wer US citizens and am surprised at the views they shared. Although this could also be due to Seattle being NorthWest and VERY close to Canada therefore sharing many news reports.

by hal 9000

Thats exactly how a Buddhist Monk told me that different countries/communities would chose to see what would latter became known as "Religious" Events. The same event would be portrayed in different countries/communities differently as it was filtered to suit that countries need.

Col

by voldar

Colin, I am not even a Buddhist Monk!! :)
But I do like their way of thinking and seeing about/of the world.

Vlad

by mrbill-

From cnn.com:
?BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A fourth American missionary died overnight from wounds from a drive-by shooting in the northern city of Mosul, the U.S. military said Tuesday.? The report goes on to mention other ?foreign? workers killed, including 2 German, or one German and one Dutch depending on who the reporter talked to.

From foxnews.com:
?BAGHDAD, Iraq ? Two Germans working on a water-supply project south of Baghdad were shot to death Tuesday, and their deaths brought to six the number of foreigners killed in drive-by shootings in the past 24 hours.? ? ?It came after four U.S. missionaries were slain in a drive-by shooting in the northern city of Mosul, where they were working on a water-purification project. One of them died on the way to the hospital, and a fifth survived.?

CNN and FoxNews are almost polar opposites in their views on the current US administration. It is interesting to note the weight given to the deaths of the US citizens by each report. CNN quick to report the missionaries were American while Fox mentions them as an afterthought.

by oz_media

Personally I don't like either source as they are both extremely one sided, as you noted yourself.

But they do offer extreme left and right views.

Are these the best sources available to you? Do you also compare these reports to local Netwrok news? More importantly, do you get ANY out of country news, ie. Baghdad television, BBC news, Canadian news etc. or are you forced to rely on only local or US reports?

by hal 9000

We had a report here from Texas about the return of some of the troops and what was involved at a local school.

It was interesting the way that the problems where portrayed that both the school and kids suffered, but I for one can't help but wonder if the counselor proved to be responsible for more harm than good as she appeared to be emotionally involved which is never a good sign.

Col

by oz_media

While rebuilding a clunker PC (I'll send you an email with somewuestions you can probably help me with) I was listening to a local Washington news hour. Not really paying attention as it was in thye background but after the hour I felt so bummed at the world for some reason.

I then started to remember what I had been listsening to, it was the most morbid news reporting I had ever heard. Amber alerts for some freak on the loose. All these reports one after another of nut bags and rapists they were looking for and mulitple accounts of kids and women being shot or stabbed for various reasons.

It was one of the most depressing news reports I had heard. Now that was in the background and must have simply been consumed subconciously as I was working.

I am starting to wonder if this is the tye of reporting that creates such a negative attitude towards others. How people stop trusting each other, how some people have a smaller comfort zone and can't open up to others etc. What a detrimental way of reportnig news to our society, over dinner of all things.

It is truly disgusting that firstly, these horrible people exist and kill this way and secondly that that is the focus of our news. Now I am not saying we should turn our backs and not hear such tales but it just seemed that with an hour newscast, there was NO positive news whatsoever, it wasn't mixed up with good stories or 'people feats' it was all just morbid and dark.

I know that I say we need to see the reality in order to act accordingly in future, but this was all just local yahoos killing people, we already know we don't approve of that.

I only watched a half hour of local news mmmmm Tamata Taggart and the weather was my only interest, so I can't say it was any better.

What a dreary world we now live in, I thought it was all supposed to get better with time, yet we still can't fill an hour of news with anything but the morbidity we face each day in our society.

Many thousands of men and women already gave thier lives to make this a more peaceful place to live, I wonder how they feel when they see our world today ?

I'll have to ask some WWII vet friends.

No wonder I love Sesame Street!

by topesblues

Your right, the amount of people that weren?t killed is all speculation. As far as where and how I get my opinions is based on what I read-hear in the news. Including network news,PBS and BBC. Amongst others. There is also a show called Frontline that?s aired on PBS that does documentaries on very current events. It?s a lot more credible than the news as far as I?m concerned. Just a little belated.

by oz_media

I watch frontline in Canada sometimes too, I believe It is also aired in Australia and the UK. It is often an extreme humanitarian or 'left' angled but it doesn't MAKE up stories, they just show am angle of a story that is yet to be considered. It's good for weighing against other reports.

Now you mentioned that there are these mass graves and that the US stopping Saddam may have stopped further executions. Now I agree with this completely anyone who has seen the graves on TV would agree.

I have a question.
1) In Canada, that angle has been explored, they then spoke with leaders of other nations who say this torturous mass execution was known and was slated to be stopped by force anyway. The reluctance of the others to invade hastily was due to the only reason for invasion being that the UN was not doing it's job in finding the WMD. Now this has been proven wrong, they did do thier jobs and very efficiently. They had uncovered unused warheads and all other SAID sites were clean. The US didn't believe this as the defectors were saying that arms existed. Each time, the inspections were clean.

Has this been in your news reports or is it a different message?

This is why I wasn't in favour of a hasty invasion, it has uncovered NOTHING AT ALL that we weren't already aware of and willing to act upon. GWB AND his informants (said to be simply looking to get Liberation from the USA and lying about WMD sites)were wrong. They have been proven wrong and US news STILL won't air it as such. Instead the focus is turned to Liberation, and now how Libya has stood down. THIS is an example of propaganda in the first degree, I don't think any different than the German propaganda that said how well they were succeeding and had all the German citizens looking at the Allies as bad people that neede stopping. The German citizens had NO idea what was really happening and turned against the rest of the world.

Since the invasion and the time leading to it, I've seen US citizens turn against France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia etc. for not supporting them. Perhaps it is due to a difference in reporting style, perhaps it is because bad news is not accepted, propaganda or perhaps many things, not REALLY my focus as to why just how and what.

I REALLY don't want to argue these points with you as you are no more informed than me and we simply see different angles, although we both see some truth here. I am just looking for your honesty in what has been reported as you've shown so far.

Thanks!

by john_wills

One result of the occupation of Iraq is that there is far less reporting of the Free Palestine movement, although there is plenty of material of use to that movement in the SF Chronicle. When there is a Free Palestine march it is nowadays part of a more general march, focusing mainly on Iraq, and so unlikely to get much sympathy for Free Palestine. It seems that the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and possibly that of Afghanistan, have distracted the demonstrating classes from the Holy Land Question Set, rather as U.S. side-taking in the Vietnam War minimized concern for Palestine. From a Zionist perspective, therefore the Iraq occupation is a good thing of the same kind as the Vietnam War: it doesn't matter which side U.S. people take as long as their government can continue funding and arming Zionism.

by oz_media

today i saw posters all over the Victoria area stating Boys Back Home March 20th along with Pictures of the soldiers on them.

Curious, I stopped to read on. Boys Back Home is an art echibit for the Vandouver Art Gallery on March 20 through ?

It depicts the cencored war photographs submitted by reporters to thier editors that were refused. Apparently it will be a VERY graphic and morbid photogrographic portrayal of the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel etc. Mainly Canadian troops that are still stuck in these countries but also some pictrues from Iraq.

These posteres are EVERYWHERE in our provinces Capitol, almost every lightpost, telephone pole, store bulletin board, EVEN the Parliment Buildings have it plastered on thier public message boards outside. Victoria harbour (one of my fav places when tourists are away)is literally plastered with the slogan.

So in our communities, we are seeing such a horribe protrayal of the war, not that I expected a pretty one. Perhaps THIs is the type of advertising that sets so many Canadians on the humanitarian or 'leftie' path. We are allowed to see these things, the realization of war is promoted to us, we are shjown graphic depictions of what really happens. No media slant can adjust a photograph, video diary etc. Certainly we MAY see some bias in what is left out of the picture but for the most part, a picture's worth a thousand words right?

Why is this type of material censored by so many?

Why would this not be pubically aired everywhere else so people get an understanding of what's really going on?

CNN and FOX are complete smoke and mirrors networks. Many of the US news networks I watch will show similar accounts as CNN or FOX. Canadian news just reports people stories and the odd nasty interviews with a pissed off protester. But much Canadian news is still focused on the Canadian troops still in Afghanistan etc. Not too much focus on Iraq anymore as we have had our say and didn't want ot be part of the invasion at this time for whatever reasons.

Is this all part of target marketing or is it an indicator of how some countries censor information heavily and we are given the whole story, which I doubt?

As some have said, unless you go there, you do not really know. Then again, pictures from the front line depicting both happy and sad soldiers, wounded and successful soldiers are very imilar to seeing it first hand. Nothing is hidden this way, it is a photo, not a report. It is a video not a speculative or colored interview.

Is this form of marketing seen elsewhere? Is it ignored as extreme left?

by hal 9000

I see the bombings in Spain recently as more of an excuse to continue with the actions that started this whole mess in the first place no matter who eventually is found responsible.

What has happened in Iraq even though it was warranted has only fallen into the hands of these fanatics to justify their actions {not that they really needed any justification} but to the general Arab community it is now more likely that these things are more acceptable than they where previously.

They are attempting to throw the place into chaos particularly if the reports are correct that they plan to disrupt countries elections by bombing them just prior to elections which are soon to be held. If that is correct we can all expect to see random acts of terror this year.

Not something to look forward to is it?

Col

by jardinier

For some reason this discussion has evoked in me memories of the American anti-war folk songs of the 1960s. Many of you weren?t even born then, and thus are possibly unaware of how profoundly and permanently the hippie movement, following on from the beatnik era, changed society. Bob Dylan was the chief spokesman who articulated the feelings of a generation of young people ? young people who, I believe, had good cause to feel restrained by the conservative social values which had taken root after the trauma of two world wars, the Great Depression, and the beginning of the cold war. For at least two decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki people lived under what was seen as a real threat of all-out nuclear war between the two super powers.

I will just give the lyrics of one or two verses from each of these songs. I am sure that, whatever age you are, you will readily recognise the lyrics and composers/performers of these songs:

Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky
Yes ?n? how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry
Yes ?n? how many deaths will it takes till he knows
That too many people have died
The answer, my friend, is blowin? in the wind
The answer is blowin? in the wind

Come gather ?round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you?ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimmin? or you?ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a ? changin?

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be last
As the present now will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin?
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a ? changin?

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never shared
No-one dared, disturb the sound of silence

?Fools!? said I ?you do not know
?Silence like a cancer grows
?Hear my words that I might teach you
?Take my arms that I might reach you?
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

Well how?s that for an off-topic post to an off-topic discussion?

Here are a few websites for those interested in getting a different slant on the news:

democracynow.org [the radical, leftie, independent American radio station's website]

csmonitor.com [The Christian Science Monitor has always been, and contines to be, a relatively impartial source of news]

www.ihug.com.au [This is the website of my secondary ISP. They collect stories from publications and news services around the world]

www.globalpolicy.org [A UN website which always has many interesting stories from around the world.

by maxwell edison

.
The peace movement (folk music, et al) of the 1960s had its focus, generally speaking, on two primary issues: the war in Vietnam and the civil rights movement.

Since the word "conservative" was used to describe what the movement was against, even though it "may not" have been used in a political context, but since it is now, most generally, associated with the Republican party, some historical perspective may be in order.

Civil rights:

The Civil Rights Act of 1957: This law, the first civil rights legislation passed in 80 years, was introduced by the Republican Eisenhower administration in 1956. It created a Civil Rights Commission and a civil rights division in the Department of Justice. It prohibited interference in the exercise of voting rights, and was an important first step which helped pave the way for additional legislation related to civil rights.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Passed with the very strong support of Republicans and moderate support of northern Democrats, in both the House and the Senate, despite very strong opposition from House of Representatives southern Democrats who voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11, and a filibuster in the Senate led by southern Democrats. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill, while 18 Democrats led the charge against the civil rights act. Twenty-one Democrat Senators voted against the Civil rights Act of 1964, while only six Senate Republicans opposed the bill.

Republicans, in general, were in favor of strong civil rights legislation, while Democrats, in general, especially southern Democrats, were strongly opposed. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes from 1933 to 1964, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96% of the votes.

Some of the Democrat Senators who voted AGAINST the Civil rights Act of 1964: Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee (Yes, his father), Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas (one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors), and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (also a Ku Klux Klan member, and who has voted against all Supreme Court justice nominees who happened to be black, including the very liberal Thurgood Marshall). And let's not forget about Democrat Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama, synonymous with racists and segregationists.

The Republicans don't always get the credit they deserve when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights activist Andrew Young (a Democrat mayor of Atlanta), wrote in his autobiography, An Easy Burden, that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South." Mr. Young admitted that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and were "among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement." By Andrew Young's own account, the elder Al Gore was a segregationist and not a champion for civil rights.

Vietnam:

In the late 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, after consulting with U.S. advisors he had sent to Vietnam to assess the situation, advises that the French that they are involved in a hopelessly losing war in Indochina. He declines any significant involvement.

In 1961, President Kennedy, a Democrat, sent the first wave of 100 special forces troops to Vietnam.

Vice President Johnson, another Democrat, while personally touring South Vietnam in 1961, assures the South Vietnamese government that it is crucial to US objectives in Vietnam, and vows American support. In 1964, President Johnson turned down an offer for peace talks proposed by North Vietnam, and in 1965 he (Johnson) authorized the use of American combat troops. President Johnson oversaw the huge military buildup in Vietnam, going from 100 in 1961 to a peak of 550,000 in 1969.

In 1968, LBJ decided to not seek a second term. In 1969, President Nixon, a Republican, seeking an end to Johnson's Vietnam debacle, began to withdraw troops and initiated peace talks. In 1969 President Nixon signed a bill repealing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a resolution signed into policy by President Johnson 5 years prior.
----------

Conclusion:

The protestors of the "peace movement" of the 1960s weren't protesting any "conservative" position in the political sense. To the contrary, they were a very vocal movement against the policies of the current day Democrat party.

Very interesting, if you think about it.

by oz_media

Yes it is Max, and believe it or not, I actually read the whole post ad found it somewhat educational. Personally I have never taken te time or the interest in this matter but your post was very informative and without bias. A little off the beaten path but relevant all the same.

One question, when you say "It prohibited interference in the exercise of voting rights",
couldn't this also be a way to stop future protesting? I would think that protesters of a specific government would be sen as interfereing with the voting process. It's a wierd take and perhaps it wasn't such a blanket law, or else this is where the freedom of speech protests also stem from? My point being, if you're not allowed to interfere with teh voting process (unless this is further detailed) you would not be able to protest a government or political position. THis would raise massive free speech issues as they are restricting people's right to express thier beliefes??

I'm obviously not too sure or even close to guessing, just something I read into it.

I just wish I was around in the 60's. Perhaps as a teenager, not so I could protest but just look at all the fantastic music that came from it? Joan Biaz, Janis Joplin, FREE, Jimi Hendrix, Mamas and Papas etc. (Yes, I am a Woodtock junkie) what an era. As I type this I am thinking:

"All the leaves are brown and the sky is gray.
I?ve been for a walk on a winter?s day.
I?d be safe and warm if I was in L.A.
California dreamin? on such a winter?s day."

then I would have actually enjoyed the 70's instead of watching my brother go clubbing in those big lapel shirts with brown polyester bell bottoms. Boy was I jealous!! All I had was cords.

by jardinier

Your very interesting and enlightening references highlight the impossibility of drawing any parallel between the two major American parties and the two major Australian parties.

It was the right-wing, conservative party (named by its founder Bob Menzies as the "Liberal Party") which sent troops to Vietnam, and the left-wing Labor Party which recalled them. The Liberal Government was returned to power from 1975 - 1984, following which the Labor Party held office from 1984 - 1993, under Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Both of these PMs took a clearly centrist stand, to the extent that most people, including traditional Labor supporters, complained that there was no difference between the two parties.

Australia therefore no longer has a left-wing party, but a right-wing and a centrist party. Because neither party commands a majority in the senate, it is the minor parties and independents that determine which legislation shall be passed. As this group of individuals who hold the balance of power for the most part support Labor, the Howard Government has been obliged to modify most of its legislation to make it acceptable to the Senate majority.

While the newly appointed Labor leader Mark Latham is pouring out masses of lateral-thinking policy, the Howard Government, in order to have a reasonable chance of winning the next election (which must be called by November of this year) is continually trying to match Latham's policies.

by cactus pete

"Firstly I don't know how declaring war on a different country for different reasons is somehow carried over to incading another but I know nothing about that part of war anyway."

It's still called Iraq, so it's the same country, right?

Why am I surprised? The regime we wished to change has been deposed. With whom are we at war? Iraq? No, some people [Al Qaeda] that are no IN Iraq? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we should still have a declared war with the whole nation. I haven't heard anything on this angle in the media... I'm surprised.

by oz_media

I thought you were referring to the war in Iran and that being reason to not declare war in Iraq. Despite the later determined AlQueda connactions, I thought these two wars were entirely independant as 911 was not the reason for the Iraq invasion.

I think we're not talking apples and apples here though.

by hal 9000

Good News?

What I find frustration is the way things are portrayed on what passes for "News" over here the so called "Current Affairs" programs are even worse as they have a small amount of real content and the rest is no better than free "Maybe" advertising that is wrapped up to look like current affairs with no real substance.

But the one story that I do really remember from the same news show was how a pedestrian was killed by a car on one of the main roads at the Gold Coast and how the drivers seemed upset that the roadway was partially blocked. Seems that no one was prepared to stop and actually went out of their way to drive around the corpse on the roadway. I really don't know what this world is coming to in this at all and I feel that I'm either far too old for the current times or that society in general has lost the plot as now it all seems what can I get rather than what do I have to offer.

I can remember seeing a pedestrian {who was plastered out of his mind} attempt to cross a main road and ran into the side of a car that was traveling at 70 KPH. I stopped blocking the left hand lane as that was to protect the guy unconscious on the roadway and put on my hazard lights and got out of the car and directed other drivers around the scene. The two main lanes where blocked and other than those of us who actually saw what happened no one stopped at al but it got even worse as a passing Police Car stopped and insisted that the roadway was cleared even though there was this guy on the road and when they saw just how bad things where left claiming that as a call had already been put in they weren't needed and someone would be out soon. Talk about passing the buck but I guess they didn't want all the paperwork that goes along with things like that.

Col

by oz_media

You recently shared a story about a guy who was left dead under his car for 12 hours while motorists drove by.

All I can say, you guys are the kindest bunch of guys, you really kow how to party and enjoy life, but you seem to do it with blinders on. It seems that if someone dies or is in need, peolpe just go avout thier business. This really undermines the attitude I got from Australians that showed them as very compassionate and caring people.

Has this changed in the last coulpe of years or something, or did I just meet some oddballs?

by hal 9000

It is something that would never happen in the "bush" as there everyone stops to see if you need any help {except for the"City" people.}

When the Social Worker ran me down on the Ducati there seemed to be a lot that stooped and helped but then again that could only have been because I was blocking the road and they really wanted to get past.

A few years ago everyone would just stop no matter what but these days particularly in the City regions everyone only seems interested in themselves and to hell with everyone else. It is not something that I personally look forward to but it is the way things are going. I can't say what is going on out in the country now as I haven't left Brisbane for well over 15 years now. But then again when my wife ran out of fuel in a new car on a toll bridge someone was sent to see if they could help and arrived there just after I arrived with a can of fuel but as a lot of people jump off the bridge they could have been sent just to prevent that from happening.

I really don't know for sure about how most people are behaving today but when I see stories like this I begin to wonder. As the people don't seem to be acting like the Aussies that I expect to see on our roads.

Col

by maxwell edison

.
To put it in context, voting rights were "guaranteed" for quite some time, but in many parts of the country, primarily in the south, many people were kept away from the voting booths for fear of injury - or even life itself. In many parts of the south, whites were actually a minority, and preventing blacks from voting, especially for black candidates, was the sport of the day. Local authorities didn't do anything about it, as they were the ones who could have (and would have) been voted out of office. Voting wasn't the only issue, of course, as was every other area of civil rights.

Those discriminated against could have, at least in legal theory, filed suit against those who denied those rights, but only on the local level, and only under fear of local retaliation if they did. The civil right act of 1957 took the local authorities out of the equation, and allowed the federal government to step in and act on behalf of those targeted. In short, if the local authorities wouldn't ensure the safety of those attempting to vote, and the rights of those attempting to just live their lives, the feds would. The U.S. attorney general and the newly established Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department (thanks, in large part, to President Eishehower) would not have the fears that southern blacks had, and they could pursue civil rights cases on behalf of the isolated and individual southern black citizens, and without fear of retaliation. So it wasn't intended, in any way at all, to stop any civil rights protests.

The civil rights movement as we have come to know it (the marches and boycotts) really started with the Rosa Parks bombshell in the mid 1950s, which resulted in a boycott of a bus company, and which led to the rise in prominence of Martin Luther King, jr. The civil rights marches, as we picture them, really started in earnest with the march on Washington in 1963. This is where Peter, Paul and Mary sang in front of the Lincoln Memorial about (Bob Dylan's) Blowin' in the Wind and (Pete Seeger's) hammer of justice, bell of freedom, and song of love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land. I was a teenager in the 60s, I wore the bell bottoms and the beads in high school, we sang those songs in school assemblies, and I was quite the Bobby Kennedy admirer. I turned 16 in 1969, the year of Woodstock (and the hemi-cuda). And, as many people know, I have a strong attachment to the music of that day. (And still have those original vinyl recordings, The Beatles, PP&M, Bob Dylan, and others.)

What I find very interesting, however, and being the political animal that I am, is that any "protest" movement today is generally associated with the liberal wing of the Democrat party, even though it had its roots protesting against the Democrat party policies of that day, both the civil rights problems and the Vietnam war. The irony is that if the "protestors" of today had any consistency in the basis of their principles, they'd still be protesting against the Democrat party policies of today, just like they were 40 years ago.

People are still categorized by race, primarily a Democrat party tendency, something protested against in the 60s.

"How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" Why do these words come to life only in the context of 500 dead soldiers, but they are conspicuously silent when 500,000 innocents are murdered by the hands of a tyrant?

"How many years can some people exist, before they're allowed to be free?" How can a person be truly free when his government seizes his personal property (money) just so some third party politician can give it to another as a payoff for a vote, a payoff disguised as an entitlement?

Where's the "hammer of justice and bell of freedom"? And "How many times can a man turn his head, pretending he just doesn't see?"

The freedoms that we protested for in the 60s are indeed Blowin' (away) in the Wind.

by hal 9000

As you've already raised the subject I'll ask. When exactly was it that those Federal personal where killed in the South while attempting to find out what had happened to a black person or something along those lines?

I know they made a movie about it but as usual being the person that I am I didn't put much faith the the accuracy of the movie as I was under the impression that a lot of "Poetic License" had been used to show the white who where killed in the best light and those who killed then in the worst possible light. You know something like Bonny & Clyde, the movie was so different from the real facts that they where turned into hero's rather then the uncivilized mass murderers that they actually where.

Col

by maxwell edison

.
Three civil rights activists, two white, one black, were killed by order of the Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan of Mississippi, and with the help of county officials. The FBI's all-out search for the conspirators who killed the three young men, depicted in the movie "Mississippi Burning," was successful, leading three years later to a trial in the courtroom of one of America's most determined segregationist judges. Seven defendants, mostly from Lauderdale County, Mississippi, were convicted, including a Deputy Sheriff and the KKK Imperial Wizard. The sentencing, however, was a travesty, as none of the seven served more than 10 years in prison.

The movie was a pretty accurate depiction.

by oz_media

Quite an uinteresting history lesson. I was actually well aware of the rights being fought for in the 60's, where I was born on the Isle Of Wight, they also had a 'woodstock' like festival the year I was born. It turned into a bit of a riot though and made Woodstock look civil.

I don't know if Joan was actually referring to the same problems you had associated blowin in the wind (that was Joan Biaz right?)but I see why you have filled it with your more modern day examples.

As for which party these protests were tagereted at, I think that is irrelevant to the topic really but I see where your point is aimed.

Whether we protest today's Republican government or yesterday's Democratic government, does it make any difference if the protests are for the same reasons? A hate of war?

I think that you are saying it is really the Dems and not Republicans that should be targeted this way, but it is the principle not the party that I am interested in.

When the party becomes involved, so fo the armchair quarterbacks and all hell breaks loose.

I do appreciate you timeline though and know that coming from yourself it must be somewhat researched and acurate. These are NOT lessons we learn in school, just cultural exposure. although the names and incidents are familiar, the details aren't often dicussed.

Your recounts of civil war politics are interesting, I welcome such information when it applies to future discussions.

What I have seen too much of, not neccessarily from yourself, is everyone referring to the founders said this, and God says that, but rarely such in depth detail as to HOW or WHY these issues apply to modern times. Geez, I feel like I just had a history class.

by oz_media

I firget exactly what got me started one day but I ended up finding a whole mess of pictures of lynching and hangings in the South during the slavery years (prior to the civil war I assume).

have you ever dug through those types of archives or read the feeling of the survivors etc? It was fascinating and educational (for me) to say the least.

I think my search was spurred by one of the slavery discussions regarding america's roots, slavery etc.

It just seemed like a flashback to the holocost where Germany was destroying so many German lives. Not in the same scope, but with the same mentality of the differences in race.

How can we come so far ahead in our appreciation for mankind and then find ourselves at war so often? I know that the events of Iraq were entirely different and thet it is about how OTHERS don't accept people's differences but this is still a war over differences in society, culture and religion, isn't it?

Perhaps I'm thinking too hard today or something but this all seems so insane the longer it drags on without conclusion.

by oz_media

Sorry, I noticed that aside from spelling mistakes i had said Germany destroyed so many German lives, where it should have read 'destroyed so many Jewish lives.'

by hal 9000

After I logged off my wife informed me of the name of the movie but neither of us knew exactly how accurate it was.

Col

This discussion is closed to new replies.