The war in Iraq and disconnected politicans

In our modern Era, journalism has taken a plunge. Long gone are the high ethical issues with which writers and editors have printed the news. Sensationalism and blatant lies or half truths run amuck. Opinions are stated as facts as self proclaimed scientists and judges say what they think. They oppress the beliefs of others, and attack them in the most abhorrent way. It is almost impossible to keep a level head in such an environment, and I think that the public wants a change.

For this reason, in any of the following opinionated lectures I make, I will keep myself as an unbiased 3rd party. I state this because everyone else has pre-conceived notions of what is true or false. They reject truths for their own personal lies. I find it is my civic duty to report the truth as many people want it, straight and unabridged. As a writer I will hold myself to high ethical standards and not refer to such under-handed tactics. To truly prove your point, an individual must give a clear, concise, and factual account of events. The attacks on character that many of my colleagues have used are just a show of bad personality traits and other destructive behavior. I hope that I can, in a small way, help to give journalism a new name.

It is with this belief that I will attempt to give you unabridged and truthful interpretations of real events in the world. Too many mediums such as newspapers and radio have become mouth pieces for either liberal or conservative groups, as such it is nearly impossible to hear the whole truth. Take the events in Iraq. The events that are happening are not in conflict. We are being attacked by insurgents, and our brave young men give their lives there. The disconnected way which politicians view their valiant efforts is appalling. They are so far from the front lines in their little offices, that they cannot see what is truly happening.

This disconnected view of events is played with vague notions and metaphors. The famous quote of ‘last throes’ of the insurgency is contradicted by the leading military commander in Iraq who states that the insurgency remains as strong as ever. How can our top leaders have such a difference in beliefs? The answer is simple; the truth they view is cut and prodded into whatever they see. It is just one more sign of how separate the war has become from the United States.

I personally didn’t support our troops going to Iraq. I, however, salute honorably their sacrifices and tribulations there. They face death everyday behind enemy lines, yet they stay. For their bravery, I give them my support and thanks. But the mismanagement of the war has wasted many American lives, not to mention Iraqi. I don’t like to see one person as more valuable than another, and I grieve not just for the Americans that die in Iraq but also for the Insurgents who have been manipulated and lied to make the ultimate sacrifice, their lives.

Our original purpose in Iraq was to prevent any threat to the United States from weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Yet as time as shown no such threat existed. Despite a massive search by agents and soldiers, no weapons have been found. No chemical agents, no nuclear weapons, not even too many scud missiles. I liked to point out that any threat they may have posed, if it existed, was miniscule. Many people buy into the disarmament that the United States has officially banned. Yet we maintain a surplus of dozens of nuclear submarines which are positioned that any place in the world can be attacked at any given time. A massive armament of 10,000 plus nuclear warheads (mostly tactical but some massive ones). Not to mention a few nuclear depth charges that we share with the United States. Forgetting our overwhelming Norad II defense system and highly efficient anti missile program, I find any danger of attack from them in the early years of the war to be non-existent.

The fact that the American government went to war for a threat that doesn’t exist is just another sad proof of how disconnected politicians have become. I truly believe that Bush and his top aides were in fact protecting America in their own eyes, they truly did. Yet they protected us from an invisible threat, something in their own minds. Thousands of Iraqis died in our war and occupation of Iraq, a number which continues to grow.

Don’t confuse my opinions and facts as rants of a liberal democrat. I am not affiliated with any left or right wing party and am not an extremist in any way. I just find that the loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan is unnecessary and wasted. Terrorist attacks are still happening, take the London incident. The world doesn’t seem to be much safer; there are just more and more attacks in Iraq each month. I just feel that if we are going to commit out troops and police the world, we should do it not for revenge or vengeance, but to make the world safer. In my opinion, this has not happened. Please leave your thoughts and comments. I am not a traitor, or a patriot for that matter. I am an ordinary guy. I will respond to any INTELLIGENT comments you leave. I love having an intelligent discussion with other people. Debates and disagreements are good, so long as either side listens to the others. I will try and ignore any personal attacks, which I have so far avoided, and respond to your disagreements with my ideals.

Hmm, an interesting read...

Well, firstly I'm tempted to agree with you about the media these days. Independant news sources aren't perhaps as unbias as we might like. Just look at the differences between CNN, BBC News and Al Jazeera, who each offer distinctivly different viewpoints even when they are reporting on the same topic. It all comes down to business (money) and politics in the end, and each news station carefully edits and cuts out information that might make them look bad. But even if they do choose to go the whole nine yards, the truth can remain a very dangerous item.
There is also the matter of the reliability of sources. During the Iraq war, journalists could only report on what they had been 'allowed' to see. Remember that 'daring rescue' of that servicewoman Jessica Lynch, that turned out to be completely blown out of proportion in the end? It's to journalists credit that the real 'truth' about what happened was revieled, and proof that the system does still work from time to time.

Journailism and war have had a very unsteady relationship since the Vietnam war, when the war was brought to television screens around the world. It was revolutionary for the media, but a huge blow for the military and government. The anti-war protests that followed the broadcastings were so huge they are still famous even today. Face it, the protesters effectivly caused the war to end in the way it did, as the government feared the domestic implications that continued military action would cause.

As for the war itself and the politicians, I believe that the politicians and commanders have a better idea of what is going on than any of us do.They get their information from their own intelligence services, that have to be as unbias as possible in the their reports.
Though I suspect that elements of the US government really didn't care if Iraq was a threat or not (but wanted to invade anyway), I can't forgive my own government for going along with them. While I think that our Prime Minister honestly thought that Iraq had WMDs, I don't believe that he thought they were a real threat. During a session at the House of Commons, Tony Blair said that Saddam could launch weapons against us in 45 minutes. It was later revealed that the source for that claim was a thesis from a university student, and not from MI6.
From what i've learned since the war, and with current events, I've decided that it's likely the UK commited troops to Iraq simply so we could maintain a strong relationship with the US. It's this alliance that give the UK such massive bargaining power in European Politics, which is essetial with the reforming of the EU.
Furthermore are the claims that the Iraqi war is a war against terrorism. I find this notion laughable, as i'm sure you do. Saddam was a dictator, and dictators don't like to have people or organistions challenge their power. If Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden were to enter Iraq and start recruiting Iraqis, then they could undermine Saddams influence. There is no way he would have allowed that. So really, Saddam was the one force that made Iraq terrorist free... even though I am partly glad that he's gone now.

And lets not forget that it's not just US soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq. British, Italian, Austrailan, Japanese, Ploish, Swedish, Spanish and other troops/civilians of different nationalities have lost, or are losing their lives probably as we speak. I'm sure many of them feel as betrayed as we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

I don’t like to see one person as more valuable than another, and I grieve not just for the Americans that die in Iraq but also for the Insurgents who have been manipulated and lied to make the ultimate sacrifice, their lives.

---

Who said that they have been manipulated or lied to? Do they even need to have been? Keep in mind that we sent our armies into Iraq without provocation, and we have killed, destroyed and incarserated thousands. We've destroyed a million ways of life, and it's understandable how pissed off they probably all are. If the UK or the US were to be invaded in the same way, I could probably name a few people who would fight back.

Searching for the truth is all good... but with so many truths out there, it's a hard thing to pinpoint and uncover. The best you can maybe do is just to be there and describe what you see so people can form their own opinions. Well, that's what I think.

Quote:

---

. Just look at the differences between CNN, BBC News and Al Jazeera, who each offer distinctivly different viewpoints even when they are reporting on the same topic.

---

Which makes them entirely useless, god, I can't stand CNN. I will admit that most stations are biased, though considering Canada's lack of stake in the war ours are probably a bit better on THAT subject.
Ninrev: I admire your 3rd party standoffishness, but good luck holding it up.

Essentially, I agree with what's been said here. The Iraq war has done nothing but waste lives and been horribly mismanaged. I recommend voting Bush out of office.

Yes, there are many truths, but how much longer can that be used as an excuse to uphold Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady Karasu I'l Myoshin

Yes, there are many truths, but how much longer can that be used as an excuse to uphold Iraq?

---

That's a good question, it's just a shame that we are well past the excuse stage.

The real question of Iraq at the moment is 'What would it have been worth if it isn't seen through to the end?'

Also, just because it's a current event, it's easy for us to lose sight as to just how historic this war is. Future generations of history and politics students will probably be studying this war in deatil for years to come. For that reason at least, it's important that we record as much as possibe about what is really happening in Iraq and the world. History will be the real judge of all this, i'm sure of it.

i feel that the lie i hate about this war is the one tony blair used to take us into war. supposedly there were weapons of mass destruction, but no there wasn't. i think the best thing we can do is leave iraq, last time we tried to leave a good government in there we left saddams party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

In our modern Era, journalism has taken a plunge. Long gone are the high ethical issues with which writers and editors have printed the news. Sensationalism and blatant lies or half truths run amuck. Opinions are stated as facts as self proclaimed scientists and judges say what they think. They oppress the beliefs of others, and attack them in the most abhorrent way. It is almost impossible to keep a level head in such an environment, and I think that the public wants a change.

---

I would agree that the public wants a change (witness the rise of Fox News) but disagree with the idea that it's new. Slime and dirt has been dished as fact from the get go all the way back to an anti-Jefferson paper accusing Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with a slave everyone knew was his half-sister by his fathers brother. I have yet to see that one refuted by anyone in the media no matter what the historians say. The thing that is different is that it used to be that the media dogs would back off if it could a) cost lives or b) damage national security. Now all they care about is being "right" (right being defined as whoever yells the loudest).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

For this reason, in any of the following opinionated lectures I make, I will keep myself as an unbiased 3rd party....

---

Good luck. You may find that more difficult then you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

I personally didn’t support our troops going to Iraq....

---

Opps... so much for unbiased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

But the mismanagement of the war has wasted many American lives, not to mention Iraqi. I don’t like to see one person as more valuable than another, and I grieve not just for the Americans that die in Iraq but also for the Insurgents who have been manipulated and lied to make the ultimate sacrifice, their lives.

---

And there it is again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

Our original purpose in Iraq was to prevent any threat to the United States from weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Yet as time as shown no such threat existed. Despite a massive search by agents and soldiers, no weapons have been found. No chemical agents, no nuclear weapons, not even too many scud missiles. I liked to point out that any threat they may have posed, if it existed, was miniscule. Many people buy into the disarmament that the United States has officially banned. Yet we maintain a surplus of dozens of nuclear submarines which are positioned that any place in the world can be attacked at any given time. A massive armament of 10,000 plus nuclear warheads (mostly tactical but some massive ones). Not to mention a few nuclear depth charges that we share with the United States. Forgetting our overwhelming Norad II defense system and highly efficient anti missile program, I find any danger of attack from them in the early years of the war to be non-existent.

---

Yes hindsight is 20/20 and the defenses you have listed are of little affect against "dirty bombs" snuck into a large city, incidently the number one threat to the US these days and the reason that reports of WMD's were taken so seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

The fact that the American government went to war for a threat that doesn’t exist is just another sad proof of how disconnected politicians have become.

---

Actually it is only proof of how difficult it can be to know the truth when everyone is lying to everyone else. Something I believe you pointed out already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

Don’t confuse my opinions and facts as rants of a liberal democrat. I am not affiliated with any left or right wing party and am not an extremist in any way.

---

Not at all. I find your opinions to be well thought out if incomplete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

I just find that the loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan is unnecessary and wasted. Terrorist attacks are still happening, take the London incident. The world doesn’t seem to be much safer; there are just more and more attacks in Iraq each month.

---

Yes there are. Why does that make you believe it's not working though? Do you have any idea how many terrorist attempts are prevented on US soil annually? Explain why forcing them to come out publicly in a place where we can fight them face to face is a failure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem

I love having an intelligent discussion with other people. Debates and disagreements are good, so long as either side listens to the others. I will try and ignore any personal attacks, which I have so far avoided, and respond to your disagreements with my ideals.

---

I admire your wish to be open but you have failed in being unbaised. You have taken several stances against the war and while your beliefs are well written you said it correctly when you called them your "ideals".

If I may point out a few things that often get over looked (probably because the media doesn't mention them).

First, we are not the aggressor here. The war started years ago when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They had already established themselves as capable of mass murder umoung their own citizens as well as their enemies and used tactics against all civil rules of engagement followed these days including mass gassing of civilians. The war was fought with the US and Britian at the forefront. IT NEVER ENDED. An armistic was signed. A border was set up and both sides agreed not to fire on the other. To do so during an armistic is considered a declaration of war against those fired upon. Within two years Iraqi military fired upon US and British forces from across the border essentially declairing war upon them.

Second, you said your self that they were mistaken about Iraq having WMD's. A mistake is a far cry from your claim of polotitions being disconnected or the accusation others have made of lieing. The information of Iraq seeking nuclear weapons has been recently confirmed so that just leaves the other things they were supposed to allready have. How could we be so mistaken you may rightfully ask? Well the answer is very sinple, people lied. Not our poloticians, not the Prime Minister or the President, people in Saddam's own governement lied. They kept prodigious records of everything. After confiscating the records and going through them it was disscovered that those over the WMD programs were telling Saddam and others that they had developed those weapons, setting up dummy labs, and then pocketing the money themselves. They evidently didn't believe the US would ever let him use them so what did they have to lose.

So under a "mistaken" impression the US and the UK went to war, with the support of over 30 other countries, with a country that had already declared war on them and had been attacking their soldiers for years. Personally I believe that shows restraint that they waited so long under such provocation and with the missinformation that was commonly believed in both inside and outside of Iraq.

Thirdly, people die in wars. Unfortunatly in Iraq people die even when there is not a war. The saddest part of this is not that civilians are still dieing in Iraq but the fact that far fewer are dieing now then they were before. The daily death count is significantlly less then it was before they were given the right to govern themselves. Do they want to govern themselves? Why don't you ask the 70% who voted in spite of death threats from the deposed government agents? Personally I consider that a pretty good fact as to where they stand along with the fact that the majority of information the current government recieves concerning "insurgents" comes directly from the populace themselves.

And last, I would just like to point out that there is an awful lot that happens that the public and media don't know about terrorist activity and response. Things that if made public could end up in the death of soldiers and special operatives. If we are throwing such a fit about the leak of the name of one FBI agent why then are we demanding information that could impact all of them and more. Perhaps we should remember that before we point fingers at polititions and accuse them of not living up to our expectations. If you don't trust them, vote them out. If you do trust them, let them do their job.

The saddest part of all this is that it used to be that the media could be trusted with the information. That they would keep it to themselves until a time when it would no longer impact lives. Now days the only ones given that right by them is "anonymous" sources that give them dirt they can dish on someone else.

So there's some facts you can respond to. :thumb: I wasn't planning on writting anything but I had a few minutes and thought you might be willing to listen.

Quote:

---

The real question of Iraq at the moment is 'What would it have been worth if it isn't seen through to the end?'

---

And... what precise end do we have in mind?

Quote:

---

History will be the real judge of all this, i'm sure of it.

---

*shakes head* Unfortunately, history means nothing or we wouldn't be having wars anymore.

Quote:

---

I personally didn’t support our troops going to Iraq....
Opps... so much for unbiased.

---

Let me point out that Ninrev gave all his information as an objective viewer. That doesn't mean he himself is not unbiased. Yey for double negatives.

Quote:

---

Second, you said your self that they were mistaken about Iraq having WMD's. A mistake is a far cry from your claim of polotitions being disconnected or the accusation others have made of lieing.

---

Also, may I remind the populace that the USA went in against Iraq without solid proof of there being WMDs. That's not being "mistaken".

Quote:

---

Perhaps we should remember that before we point fingers at polititions and accuse them of not living up to our expectations. If you don't trust them, vote them out. If you do trust them, let them do their job.

---

Oh-ho, and THAT'S easier said than done.

(A few minutes? Arrianna, my response is taking hours even if it isn't directed at me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrianna

First, we are not the aggressor here. The war started years ago when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They had already established themselves as capable of mass murder umoung their own citizens as well as their enemies and used tactics against all civil rules of engagement followed these days including mass gassing of civilians. The war was fought with the US and Britian at the forefront. IT NEVER ENDED. An armistic was signed. A border was set up and both sides agreed not to fire on the other. To do so during an armistic is considered a declaration of war against those fired upon. Within two years Iraqi military fired upon US and British forces from across the border essentially declairing war upon them.

---

I have to admit that even so, it still feels like we are the aggressors. Sure, the Iraqis shot at US and British planes, but I don't think that warrants and all out invasion. Besides, didn't we already respond to those attacks by destroying their missile sites? What ever happened to 'a proportional response?'

There is also the manner in which the war started. The UN says the war in Iraq is illegal and under international law we are not allowed to use force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Also, there are a few sections of the UN charter that don't sit too well with me when I looked though whilst making this reply. They revolve around the resolutions of disputes and the procedure for armed action. Article 94 (the last one) I added mainly because of it's first section... though the second section kind of kicks me in the teeth a little since we really did think they had weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UN Charter

Article 33:
-> The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
-> The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34:
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40:
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43:
-> All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
-> Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
-> The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 94:
-> Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
-> If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

source: www.un.org

---

As we all know, the US and its allies bypassed the UN and went to war even as they were still debating the legality of it all.

Granted, the war was given a new dimension because of the war on terrorism and threats posed upon the US and it's allies since the September 11th attacks, but I’m still of the opinion that war was not the 'final option'. The UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq looking for WMDs or other prohibited weapons. France, Germany, Russia, China and the rest of the bulk of the security council made it known that they wanted these inspectors to continue their work, but the US and UK didn't. Hans Blix even submitted a report before the war saying that there was no real evidence of Iraq having WMDs since 1994.

source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm

Even if the war was an honest mistake, the information at hand in regards to the legality and the timing of the war, gives me and others more than enough cause to question the logic behind the reasons for it. If something about a situation seems wrong, the chances are that it's more than likely something is. The fact that the war was so beneficial to US businesses only adds fuel to my suspicions, since the probability of similar action in Zimbabwe (who suffer from an equally ruthless dictator) are minimal and it didn't appear on Bush's 'axis of evil'.

With such mixed reports coming in from multiple sources as to just how big a threat Iraq really was, even if every single one of them was lying, I think our government owes it to their soldiers and people to find either hard proof or to find a way to make military action legal. It turns out that they did neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Thirdly, people die in wars. Unfortunatly in Iraq people die even when there is not a war. The saddest part of this is not that civilians are still dieing in Iraq but the fact that far fewer are dieing now then they were before. The daily death count is significantlly less then it was before they were given the right to govern themselves. Do they want to govern themselves? Why don't you ask the 70% who voted in spite of death threats from the deposed government agents? Personally I consider that a pretty good fact as to where they stand along with the fact that the majority of information the current government recieves concerning "insurgents" comes directly from the populace themselves.

---

Well said. As I said before, I’m glad Saddam is gone. Hearing you put it that way though actually makes me feel a little better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady Karasu I'l Myoshin

And... what precise end do we have in mind?

---

Anything that doesn't involve us pulling out of Iraq and leaving a nation open to civil war. Civil war is pretty much the worst case scienario for Iraq, and it's one of only a few politically acceptable reason for our continued presance there.
People are dying to maintain order, and i'd hate to see their loss be for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady Karasu I'l Myoshin

*shakes head* Unfortunately, history means nothing or we wouldn't be having wars anymore.

---

You're taking that out of context but okay. Yes, Iraq isn't being called 'the new vietnam' for nothing. But as far as the real reasons for this war, and it's outcome... only time can tell.