Free Speech?

Pompey Magnus

here and here

Well at least the Iraqis have freedom, apart from the 11pm curfew, censorship, fear of being shot when protesting, warrantless searching of homes and warrantless arrests of "suspects" by soldiers who are held without trial or due process, imposed undemocratic puppet government and widespread looting!
They are an ungrateful bunch, those iraqis!

Wompa1

who said they were free?...I believe the correct term is 'temporary occupation'

chill

Originally posted by Depeche_Mode
here and here

Well at least the Iraqis have freedom, apart from the 11pm curfew, censorship, fear of being shot when protesting, warrantless searching of homes and warrantless arrests of "suspects" by soldiers who are held without trial or due process, imposed undemocratic puppet government and widespread looting!
They are an ungrateful bunch, those iraqis!

Sounds bloody great to me. Why should some Arabic station be allowed to incite murder and violence ? They'd be banned in Ireland too if they did that !
And what numbskull can expect total freedom of the press a few months after a war and in the middle of a protracted campaign against the old regime and imported terrorists ?

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Sounds bloody great to me. Why should some Arabic station be allowed to incite murder and violence ? They'd be banned in Ireland too if they did that !

/me quitely points at this thread and says "Lets wait and see how banned they are then, shall we?"

And what numbskull can expect total freedom of the press a few months after a war and in the middle of a protracted campaign against the old regime and imported terrorists ?

Actually, of all of the things listed there, freedom of the press is the only one I would expect.

The army is not a regular police force, nor are they acting in a regular policing environment. Unwarranted searches and arrests, in and of themselves, are nothing unusual nor unexpected, nor geinuinely avoidable. The question is whether or not such authority is being abused, or mismanaged - how widespread it is, how the Iraq's are being treated in these situations, etc. To date, there seems to be evidence of at least some degree of unacceptable behaviour, and this puts the US in a difficult position.

It can open its military to the public, and allow people to see and hear how the issues are dealt with. Alernately, it can insist on keeping with tradition and closing ranks, which always leads to the inevitable suspicions amongst some that there is something to hide. There are costs and benefits to both sides, but I honestly think that simply denying the occurrence of such events is as silly as blowing them out of proportion.

When you start to remove selected media alongside these actions, however, you only engender more distrust. Regardless of who the media were, if you ejected them it was because they were telling a story you didn't want told....and that will inevitably mean to many people that you definitely have something to hide.

In the world of information that we live in, attempting to make sure that only your side of a story gets told inevitably will cause - in my opinion - more damage than it avoids. Those who want to believe the great evil will do so whether its reported "as fact" or as "hidden-behind-a-closed-media fact". You can't win with those people, so who are you sending a message to? To those who are uncertain....and showing them that you don't want anyone there who doesn't spin your party line is not the way to win anyone's heart or mind.

jc

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, of all of the things listed there, freedom of the press is the only one I would expect.

You're entitled. I don't agree. Not in a war zone.

The army is not a regular police force, nor are they acting in a regular policing environment.

I agree. pretty obvious but I agree. [only so that I can use it later on when it might be useful to bash you wish, that I did agree with one thing...]

Unwarranted searches and arrests, in and of themselves, are nothing unusual nor unexpected, nor geinuinely avoidable.

Completely unavoidable, though unlikely to be commonplace. There are simply too few soldiers availabel to waste their time and risk their lives.

The question is whether or not such authority is being abused, or mismanaged - how widespread it is, how the Iraq's are being treated in these situations, etc. To date, there seems to be evidence of at least some degree of unacceptable behaviour, and this puts the US in a difficult position.

There will always be "evidence of some misbehaviour". It's a war zone and US soldiers are hardly well known for their tact. There will be misbehaviour in a municipal police force in this country. It doesn't hold any real menaing for the US in comparison to many other issues related to their occupation.

It can open its military to the public, and allow people to see and hear how the issues are dealt with.

It's a bloody war zone for God's sake...

Alernately, it can insist on keeping with tradition and closing ranks, which always leads to the inevitable suspicions amongst some that there is something to hide. There are costs and benefits to both sides, but I honestly think that simply denying the occurrence of such events is as silly as blowing them out of proportion.

Those that are determined to create suspician never need evidence. They just make it up. No military activity will ever be free of misdeeds. To try to imply that they can is disingenuous and to try to castigate the US for the fact that some misdeeds take place is also disingenuous. It's a war. Kids in uniform are dying. Kids in schools are dying. Killed by evil people that care nothing for the people of Iraq or for human life. They're only goal is to keep the people of the middle east under the thumb of dictatorial extreme Islam.

When you start to remove selected media alongside these actions, however, you only engender more distrust. Regardless of who the media were, if you ejected them it was because they were telling a story you didn't want told....and that will inevitably mean to many people that you definitely have something to hide.

Not true. There can be no expectation fo total freedom of the press. There is no such total freedom anywhere in Western Europe. A war is still being fought. Incitement must be limited because it costs lives.

In the world of information that we live in, attempting to make sure that only your side of a story gets told inevitably will cause - in my opinion - more damage than it avoids. Those who want to believe the great evil will do so whether its reported "as fact" or as "hidden-behind-a-closed-media fact". You can't win with those people, so who are you sending a message to? To those who are uncertain....and showing them that you don't want anyone there who doesn't spin your party line is not the way to win anyone's heart or mind.

A fine argument for the media in an open and secure democracy; a naive and disingenuous argument for a warzone where soldiers are dying every day and where men women and children are still being murdered by remnants of the old regime.

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
You're entitled. I don't agree. Not in a war zone.

It's a war zone and US soldiers are hardly well known for their tact.

It's a bloody war zone for God's sake...

It's a war.

A war is still being fought.

A fine argument for the media in an open and secure democracy; a naive and disingenuous argument for a warzone

Actually an end to major conflict was declared on 1th May 2003, nearly 7 months ago.

The "war" is over, the US army are now acting as an internal police force (and I will say they will be doing that for a while) and are dealing with internal terrorism, something we as Irish know a lot about.

I understand that the US would be upset about TV stations broadcasting saddam's messages, but they are also clamping down on much less. They want to review everything the national tv station broadcasts. That is totally unacceptable. Do you really believe that the US would allow reports that were critical of the US occupation? Or even reports that mentioned the US occupation?

Calling it a "war zone" (which it isn't) and then saying it is alright for the US to do what ever they like, just because they are doing it in a "war zone" is a very dangerous and is a slap in the face to the democracy and freedom the US claim Iraq now has

Sparks

While chilli reads like yet another brain-dead freeper, he does have one fact correct - it is a war zone.

Which is why Samarra and the other atrocities we're seeing are actually war crimes under the Geneva Convention.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sparks
While chilli reads like yet another brain-dead freeper, he does have one fact correct - it is a war zone.

Mr Bush says 'wars over baby, yeehaa ride them cowboy'

That is totally unacceptable. Do you really believe that the US would allow reports that were critical of the US occupation?

Well the whole point of freedom of speech is sometimes people will say things you do not like, and it is not internal terrorism. Remember the US are the ones who shouldn't be there.

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
Actually an end to major conflict was declared on 1th May 2003, nearly 7 months ago.

Wrong.

The "war" is over, the US army are now acting as an internal police force (and I will say they will be doing that for a while) and are dealing with internal terrorism, something we as Irish know a lot about.

A stupid mistake made by a dumbass politician. There you go. SO what.

Calling it a "war zone" (which it isn't) and then saying it is alright for the US to do what ever they like, just because they are doing it in a "war zone" is a very dangerous and is a slap in the face to the democracy and freedom the US claim Iraq now has

No such claim has been made, unless you can offer a magic 'link' to one ???

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
Remember the US are the ones who shouldn't be there.

Wrong. It's Saddams regime that shouldn't be there.

Sparks

Originally posted by chill
Wrong.

You know, we did actually see him state exactly that, on national television...

A stupid mistake made by a dumbass politician. There you go. SO what.

Between seven and ten thousand dead innocent people. That's SO what.
A further 3,500 dead innocent people in Afghanistan.
That's up to 13,500 dead innocent people - and that's only the figures the US army issued.

Now, explain to me how 2700 dead innocent people in the WTC attack justifies killing one innocent person, let alone 13,500?

No such claim has been made, unless you can offer a magic 'link' to one ???

Just a myriad of statements by Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, the rest of the US cabinet, most of Congress, the military staff in charge in Iraq, the US State Dept., the Pentagon, and the "provisional government" in Iraq.

Sparks

Originally posted by chill
Wrong. It's Saddams regime that shouldn't be there.

Shouldn't have put him there then, should you?

From Reuters:

PHILADELPHIA, April 17 (Reuters) - If the United States succeeds in shepherding the creation of a postwar Iraqi government, it won't be the first time that Washington has played a primary role in changing the country's rulers.

At least not according to Roger Morris, who says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power. "This takes you down a longer, darker road in terms of American culpability," said Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the National Security Council staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

<snip>

At the time, Saddam was a Baath operative studying law in Cairo, one of the venues the CIA chose to plan the coup, Morris says. In fact, he claims the former Iraqi ruler castigated by U.S. President George W. Bush as one of history's most "brutal dictators," was actually on the CIA payroll in those days.

"There's no question," Morris told Reuters. "It was there in Cairo that (Saddam) and others were first contacted by the agency."

Five years later, in 1968, Morris says the CIA encouraged a palace revolt among Baath Party elements led by long-time Saddam mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who would turn over the reins of power to his ambitious protege in 1979.

"It's a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States, and the (CIA's) involvement there was really primary," Morris said.

And from the UPI:

U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

n the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
Wrong.

Er I think the US government knows when they declare "end of major conflict" ... it is not really something you mistake ... or do have a direct line to the Pentegon that we don't know about?

Originally posted by chill
A stupid mistake made by a dumbass politician. There you go. SO what.

What? I don't even know what you are refering to with that statement? The fact that the US are acting as a police force is a stupid mistake by a dumbass politician?

Originally posted by chill
No such claim has been made, unless you can offer a magic 'link' to one ???

What drugs are you on??

You call Iraq are "warzone" twice and then proceed to say that what is not acceptable in peacetime (ie censorship) is acceptable when "it's a bloody war zone"

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
Wrong. It's Saddams regime that shouldn't be there.

I agree with that too, funny how the current US regime where happy enough to keep him there when it suited them.


"Ooh come here and give me a kiss you big teddy bear you!"
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Or how about the US regime green lighting the kuwait invasion?

chill

Originally posted by Sparks
You know, we did actually see him state exactly that, on national television...

I watched him and he didn't. He simply claimed that the major military battle had come to an end.

Between seven and ten thousand dead innocent people. That's SO what.
A further 3,500 dead innocent people in Afghanistan.
That's up to 13,500 dead innocent people - and that's only the figures the US army issued.

Yes the Iraqi regime has indeed murdered a lot of innocent people. It shows how little they care about their own people. Thankfully the US has stuck to the task and continued to liberate more and more of those countries.

Now, explain to me how 2700 dead innocent people in the WTC attack justifies killing one innocent person, let alone 13,500?

Lies. The US hasn't killed more than a few hundreds accidental casualties during the whole war. A price well worth paying.

Just a myriad of statements by Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, the rest of the US cabinet, most of Congress, the military staff in charge in Iraq, the US State Dept., the Pentagon, and the "provisional government" in Iraq.

That's what I thought. Smoke and mirrors.

chill

Originally posted by Sparks
Shouldn't have put him there then, should you ?

I didn't. I'm quite a guy but not that infuential.

From Reuters:

And from the UPI:

So what ? The US helped put him in power ... so what ?

They made a big mistake and now they did the right thing and went in and blew his regime out of it. Hurrah I say. Better late than never - well done America, UK and Australia.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
I agree with that too, funny how the current US regime where happy enough to keep him there when it suited them.

Damn right. Every other country including ireland supported him in power when it suited us.

Or how about the US regime green lighting the kuwait invasion?

Total fiction and lies.

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
Er I think the US government knows when they declare "end of major conflict" ... it is not really something you mistake ... or do have a direct line to the Pentegon that we don't know about?

I know what he said and you're characterisation is a fiction.

What? I don't even know what you are refering to with that statement? The fact that the US are acting as a police force is a stupid mistake by a dumbass politician?

Seeing as you cannot or refuse to read correctly - Bush is a dumbass politician to have described the major military action as finished. He did it for the votes and the photo opp.

What drugs are you on??

Well whatever they are, they're working a whole lot better than yours !

You call Iraq are "warzone" twice and then proceed to say that what is not acceptable in peacetime (ie censorship) is acceptable when "it's a bloody war zone"

Yes. In a warzone censorship is essential.


.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by chill
Damn right. Every other country including ireland supported him in power when it suited us.

Indeed. Abuses in Iraq are a problem for the Iraqis, not for Ireland. What is important for Ireland is that Ireland can export beef and other produce around the world. It does not do to get all high and mighty about how other countries deal with their citizenry.

Would the Irish government be thanked by the electorate if they did not look out for their own?

I think one of the undoings of New Labour in Britain will be this 'ethical foreign policy' thing that they had when they first got into power. If people did not care one way or the other about Saddam's oppression of his own people during his reign, why should they now care about democracy and human rights for the Iraqis now that he is gone? Is it not just a big waste of money and British lives?

sovtek

A week or so ago I was watching CBS news. They were showing US soldiers giving out soccer balls, and how great it all was.
Then there were quotes of soldiers saying things like "You can hand an Iraqi something and it still wont' be good enough, they'll still hate you"
Then the commentator something like "Whatever we do for Iraq, you can expect people that don't want to help themselves will blame us."

Priceless!

sovtek

Originally posted by chill

So what ? The US helped put him in power ... so what ?

They made a big mistake and now they did the right thing and went in and blew his regime out of it. Hurrah I say. Better late than never - well done America, UK and Australia. [/B]

The US makes ALOT of these "mistakes".

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
Seeing as you cannot or refuse to read correctly - Bush is a dumbass politician to have described the major military action as finished. He did it for the votes and the photo opp.

But he invaded Iraq because he was sooo concerned about those poor, downtrodden Iraqi's.

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
Lies. The US hasn't killed more than a few hundreds accidental casualties during the whole war. A price well worth paying.


That's what I thought. Smoke and mirrors.

Can a mod please ban you for a while, at least till you stop blantanly trolling

Sparks

Originally posted by Wicknight
Can a mod please ban you for a while, at least till you stop blantanly trolling

Been done, so thankfully we can go back to a non-freerepublic.com-style forum...