Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


A year later

By Oz_Media ·
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.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

My reply

by maxwell edison In reply to Very interesting, if you ...

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.

Collapse -

OK Max I don't want to start anything here but

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to My reply

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.


Collapse -

1964 - Mississippi Burning

by maxwell edison In reply to OK Max I don't want to st ...

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.

Collapse -

Have you ever dug through all those archives

by Oz_Media In reply to 1964 - Mississippi Burnin ...

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.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to 1964 - Mississippi Burnin ...

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.'

Collapse -

Thanks Max

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to 1964 - Mississippi Burnin ...

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


Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to My reply

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 **** 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.

Collapse -

American and Australian politics ....

by jardinier In reply to The 1960s "peace movement ...

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.

Related Discussions

Related Forums