Pictures we all should see

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 5:40 pm

We seem a little too lighthearted about Sadaam and sons.

The press just does't give this much attention. You sadly have to hunt for it behind all the prison coverage.

Pictures say a thousand words and yet the only pictures we see regularly are the ones about a handful of prison guard perverts and their criminal acts of abuse.

More pictures need to be shown of just what kind of dictatorship gripped Iraq.

pics:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/feature ... lery1.html
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq20 ... 30514.html
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/events ... /24267.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/ ... .irq.main/
http://www.hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102568,00.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/m ... 190916.asp
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0305/S00209.htm

The reasons for invasion aside. We stopped a countless slaughter.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 17, 2004, 5:43 pm

I guess this means the fact that there was no Al Queda connection has finally sunk in.

On to the next point:

If Sadam's actions justify an invasion, then why do we not invade all of the asian and south african countries that possess even worse human rights abuses by their governments? Why was it acceptable to invade a sovereign nation in this case, but not in these others?

I am speaking rhetorically, of course, since we both know the answer and we also both know what each other are going to state is the answer.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 17, 2004, 5:45 pm

Yippieee another thread started that will end up saying the same thing the other 3,789,834,345 threads have said.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 5:48 pm

My post is in direct response to what I feel is an under reported subject.

This is unrelated to the Iraq/Osama connection.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 17, 2004, 5:51 pm

I have yet to see a single post by any person here who does not support the war who thinks Sadam was anything other than a very bad guy.

Being against the war != Being for Sadam

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 5:55 pm

BTW,

Though this is tangental to this thread, Bush responded to your question during a press meeting.

Q: Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 17, 2004, 5:57 pm

Well i have to admit, i haven't seen any pictures of Saddam's atrocities on any of the radio programs i enjoy, and those are conservative.

WHO KNOWS WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS EXCLUDING!?!

the pictures of gassed Kurds has been widely seen on all major news networks internationally for over 15 years.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 5:57 pm

Aaeamdar,

Sure I agree.

However, pictures have power that words can't keep up with.

The pictures of what that meatgrinder of a dictatorship has done aren't seen expect page six of a newspaper.

That lack of prominence slants public opinion.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 17, 2004, 5:58 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The reasons for invasion aside. We stopped a countless slaughter.

Stopped a slaughter with a slaughter. Why don't you link some of those pictures, plenty out there.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 5:59 pm

*shrug* Why the drama Voronwe? I linked a CNN story.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:01 pm

Forthe,

Wasn't the number you quoted 10,000 people from that unamed source?

Well if you follow the articles I linked from both liberal and conservative news sources you'll see mass grave numbers exceeding 30,000 with who knows how many more to come?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » June 17, 2004, 6:08 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:We seem a little too lighthearted about Sadaam and sons.

We do? How on earth did you make this observation?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 17, 2004, 6:13 pm

It was common knowledge to any informed person that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. THere are dozens of others like that around the world, and you don't see daily updates on the atrocities they commit on the nightly news do you? Is that the LIBERAL MEDIA just trying to surpress the info to stave off propaganda for future Republican Administration led wars?!

basically, you know the reason you are posting this because you are trying to butress the position that there was a righteous cause behind this war.

that is true, that the aim of removing Hussein for the good of the Iraqi people is a righteous cause.

Here is the problem. Because you have a righteous cause, that does not mean all actions you take in pursuit of that cause are embued with the same righteousness by default. And that is the error of this administration. And that is why we have had the the intentional procedural torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war in violation of treaties we had signed.

Adex, you should not try to cling to the straws of the public propaganda for this war to try to present them as the argument.

There is one arguement for this war, and it has been stated publically. This war was chosen by the United States in the interest of installing a representative government in the Middle East that was pro-Western in order to shift the social climate for our long term security.

You often like to deal in matters that are akin to 'black and white', and i htink in this case this is one. The executive branch of this government made a choice to engineer the political state fo a strategic region, and there are many costs to that. Time will tell whether the long term gains outweigh the costs, but Saddam Hussein could have been growing daisies and handing them out to children, it wouldn't have saved him from this war.

If Saddam Hussein was in Rwanda instead of Iraq, he could have butchered 10 billion more people for the next 300 years and nobody on Pennsylvania Ave would bat an eyelash.

edit: the 10,000 number is from the International Red Cross who has reported civilian casualties in war for over 100 years. The Pentagon has not argued with the veracity of this claim.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:21 pm

With so many side agendas coming into this it is easy to move away from my reason for posting.

I'll say it again.

I had a hard time finding stories or pictures that dealt with the slaughter going on in Iraq. I found pictures. They moved me. I decided to share.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 17, 2004, 6:22 pm

There is no slanting of opinion, imo. If there were, you would be seeing posts about how Sadam was not really that bad. They don't exist.

Some people who supported the war based on Bush's lies would not have supported the war based on the truth. I think I most likely would have. I don't have a problem with "selective enforcement." The US can't clean up everyone everywhere, and on a list of "bad guys" we could reasonably do something about, I think Sadam made a decent pick.

The fact remains, Bush did lie about it.

Further, even if he chose not to lie (and thus went into Iraq with less support than he had based on his lies), I would still at this point be very critical of his actions in Iraq because he has so collosally botched our "post-war" efforts.

When 9-11 happened, I can remember many many conversations where I and my friends, many of them liberal, were actually happy the Bush, not Gore, was President. I could not be further from that conviction than I am now.

I understand why Liberals don't like Bush. What I can't understand is why Conservatives (of which I am one - something that will be more clear I am sure if all goes well on Nov. 4) do.

This guy is the worst president in our great Nation's history. He is a religious nut, so I can see why the people that are Republican solely because they hate gays and abortion would like him. He is hugely pro-Big Oil, so I can see why the handful of people benefitting from that like him. Everyone else I do not get. He is, from a purely Conservative possition, both a Foriegn Policy and Domestic Economy disaster.

No amount of hammering in the Sadam sucks - something I think pretty much everyone agrees with - is going to change the fact the Bush is a fuck up.

To be honest, I don't even care what Kerry's positions are - I'll be voting for him solely because he is not Bush. Anyone (that is not a religious nut themselves or in Big Oil) should be doing the same.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:30 pm

So,

Those pictures you saw, they didn't hit you?

I saw one where a widow was riding a bus home, with the remains of her husband in a plastic bag in the seat beside her.

I'm glad I saw that.

Forgive my failure of words but, it seemed an important thing to see that. And it angers me that I had to scrounge around to even find them.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » June 17, 2004, 6:30 pm

Adex no one here thought Saddam was a nice guy or sympathetic figure before the war or after the war.

The US did not invade Iraq because Saddam was abusing his people. They invaded because (according to Bush, Inc) he had WMDs and posed a threat. Then we get the "he's working with Al Quaeda" routine, both reasons which have been proven false.

The US does not invade countries that abuse their people, not unless we have some economic interest. We can't afford to.

So please, do us a favor and not overestimate the ability of your red herring to convince us that the war was "a good idea."

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » June 17, 2004, 6:34 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:So,

Those pictures you saw, they didn't hit you?

I saw one where a widow was riding a bus home, with the remains of her husband in a plastic bag in the seat beside her.

I'm glad I saw that. It seemed important to see.

WHY?

Why is it important to SEE pictures like that? Hearing about it should be enough for most people unless you are a morbid individual. People who go looking for shit like that are the same folks who stare at a wreck trying to see blood or body parts. You should ask yourself what you get out of seeing such things.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:34 pm

Sigh,

I guess I chose a poor time to post.

You guys seem to have too many other issues floating around to really understand what I saw.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:37 pm

I can't answer your question Lal other than to say that pictures have a power that words lack, and they seem horribly relevant to our time, just as those prison pictures were in showing us that even well intentioned humanity can do horrible things.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 6:40 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:BTW,

Though this is tangental to this thread, Bush responded to your question during a press meeting.

Q: Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

No, he didn't. All he did was restate that he had connections, but offers nothing of substance showing the connections. I'll put it to you in terms you'll understand. I say there is no God, but offer you no proof of the matter. Do you believe me because I said it? Or how about this. Bush says there is no God. How about now?

I'm not saying there were no ties. I'm saying show us the evidence that he's stating his "facts" from.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:45 pm

Another thread Dregor.

Or, is one already started?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 17, 2004, 6:45 pm

Honestly Adex, no they did not. In the same way, the pictures of our abuses in Iraq (and now possibly Afganastan as well if I understood what I heard on NPR as I was getting out of my car today) have little to no impact on me any longer. I don't need to see pictures to know Sadam was a really bad guy. Maybe I am a freak, I'm not sure. But unless I don't believe the verasity of a statement, seeing pictures of it does not change my opinion of things. Sure, seeing brutality causes a viceral reaction - one I cannot control without prolonged exposure to the images - but it in no way changes how I feel about the situation.

Sadam was a really bad guy. I am glad for the Iraqi people that they no longer have to live with him. I hope whomever, or whatever, replaces him will be better for Iraq and will make the region and the world safer and more free. Seeing picture of autrocities committed by Sadam does not make those feelings more certain.

Seeing pictures of autrocities committed by Sadam also does not make me excuse what Bush did to gather support for his war nor excuse the way he has handel it, and foriegn policy, generally. They are completely different issues.

If you honestly felt that there were some people on this board that just did not have enough information about what Sadam was doing to his people, then I guess those pictures could do someone some good. I am just not sure under what rock you would find such a person.

I suspect, as Voronwe maybe alludes to, that for you:

Sadam bad = War good (and anything we do in furtherance thereof good)

I know I don't feel that way, and the fact that Sadam was a really bad person and the fact tht it is a good thing that Sadam has been removed from power, does not mean I am going to feel that what we have done to effect that change was the right thing to do.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:49 pm

To me, what I saw seems disconnected from the noise of politics.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:54 pm

BTW, I do understand your political statements guys.

I'm not saying your off target.

I'm was simply set to a pause when I saw those pictures. Next I experienced a irritation that these images seem so glazed over by people.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 17, 2004, 6:55 pm

BTW, your now asserted reasons for posting those pictures might have recieved greater acceptance if you had not ended your post with:

The reasons for invasion aside. We stopped a countless slaughter.

That statement is a reduced justification for entering the war regardless of our stated reasons.

As I have said before, if Bush had used images similar to what you stated and said "The US cannot allow attrocities like this to continue" he would be on much stronger grounds now.

He didn't. I guess he figured not enough people in the US would care, so he concocted thw WMDs.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 6:57 pm

I admit it is a gut reaction of mine to dive in to debate when challeged, but that wasn't the my intent for this thread.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 17, 2004, 6:58 pm

I always thought Saddam was a pretty nice guy. He's always smiling in those statues and portraits of him all over Iraq.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 7:02 pm

I hate language.

Or rather I hate my lack of command of language.

Boom, pow, I got hit by something, yet I can't convey very well what hit me.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 7:07 pm

What I mean to is, imagine the love of your life. Imagine you loose her to some thugs, for some unjust reason. You don't know where she went, and you don't know if she's even alive. You fear for your family's life by inquire too much, yet you driven to find out.

You feel powerless that the thugs could take someone so precious from you so quickly.

Times change, you get rumor that you loved one is dead. You go to this sandy pit riddled with bones, and you sweat the day out searching for a trace of someone you loved.

And at the end of the ordeal all you have of that most precious someone is a some dusty remains bound in a plastic bag.

Imagine that lonely bus ride home.

How broken that person must be.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 17, 2004, 7:12 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:BTW, I do understand your political statements guys.

I'm not saying your off target.

I'm was simply set to a pause when I saw those pictures. Next I experienced a irritation that these images seem so glazed over by people.

At the same time the opposite is true when it comes to graphic images. I saw a man hunched over in a chair covered in dirt dying with his intestines blown out blabber about his family (he wasn't making much sense, no disrespect intended) to a CBC reporter. That is something you will never see on TV in the US.

I don't recall ever seeing Iraq civilian dead or injured figures from the war on US television. They do give detailed civilian dead and injured figures resulting from the insurgency tho.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 17, 2004, 7:13 pm

What about all the pictures of the Iraqi's we killed, launching missiles at Iraq. I'm sure that broke up several families as well.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 17, 2004, 7:14 pm

kyoukan wrote:I always thought Saddam was a pretty nice guy. He's always smiling in those statues and portraits of him all over Iraq.

That's almost as bad as one of my typical responses!

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 17, 2004, 7:40 pm

What we have here is the classic straw man tactic, albiet executed poorly.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 17, 2004, 9:50 pm

Whether you agree that the lives lost and the destruction were worth it or not, I don't think any sane person could argue that the world isn't at least POTENTIALLY a safer place with that prick behind bars.

I just wish there weren't a dozen other countries within spitting distance of Iraq who are run by regimes and megalomaniacs who are almost as dangerous, if not more so.

I hope the transfer of power goes well, even though my gut is telling me that it's just going to lead to more corruption and fundie hatered down the road. The Iraqis deserve a little good fortune.

*hits Saddam in the ass with the door*

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 17, 2004, 10:20 pm

Do you understand that in this case, it isn't about politics?

We have become numb to chaotic events.

Empathy has been shoved to the back of our minds.

The impact of tragic events has been consumed by the 2-dimensional 30-second headline. Or worse, it's been shoved into a text column on page six of our newspapers, degradingly inserted behind the pizza coupons.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 11:04 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Do you understand that in this case, it isn't about politics?

We have become numb to chaotic events.

Empathy has been shoved to the back of our minds.

The impact of tragic events has been consumed by the 2-dimensional 30-second headline. Or worse, it's been shoved into a text column on page six of our newspapers, degradingly inserted behind the pizza coupons.

Man, I think Baby Jesus is pouring a 40 for you right now, Adex. I give up, you've strayed from the flock of reason.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 18, 2004, 1:11 am

I'm was simply set to a pause when I saw those pictures. Next I experienced a irritation that these images seem so glazed over by people.

I can emphathize with you to a degree Adex. I felt the same way as I recently read Lt. General Romeo Dalliare's book about the Rwandan genocides (Shake Hands With The Devil - published by Random House Canada if anyone is interested). You feel shock and anger that the world allowed such things to occur. That it is over events 10 years in the past seems irrelevant.

The question in the case of Iraq turns into "how many were lost and how many lives do you spend to stop the killing?" Is the bill to high? 10000+ Iraqi civilians, how many hundred Coalition troops and how many Iraqi troops in the "war" (something I have not seen anyone comment about... whether they were conscripts or True Believers) and how many yet to come with the insurgents and the unrest fostered by this action? How do you weigh it? Is a death more horrible because it was a political execution as opposed to errant munitions?

As horrid an individual as Saddam was, as his sons were, was removing worth the human cost? I guess Misters Bush, Chenney, and Rumsfeld think so but what about you?

And this is ignoring the political and emotional costs to your country, Britain and others involved.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 18, 2004, 2:10 am

I think democracy in Iraq will be infectious.

It has the potiential to save millions in that region from the oppression of ruling families and dictators.

I suspect that Bush treated the intelligence he had with too little scepticism. That failure however produced a result that is a good and right thing.

Sure there's oil interests, and a myriad of other issues circulating around this, but at its heart is the fact that we've given Iraq a shot at freedom.

A priceless gift recieved by too few in our world's history.

But these things are not why I posted this particular thread. These things you can find elsewere in other threads. I posted this thread for reasons I've already stated above.

I guess there's nothing more I can add to it.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 18, 2004, 11:05 am

The pisser is we had a whole other country we'd just invaded where we could have made a "representative democracy." Instead of kowtowing to big oil, we could have let our pharmaceutical companies loose on the poppy fields in Afghanistan. Free Demerol would surely have won a lot of Afghanis to our side.

VeeshanVault

Pictures we all should see

Pictures we all should see

Re: Pictures we all should see

Re: Pictures we all should see