Disney blocks next Michael Moore film

[Barcik]

I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

[Esseb]

I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

I'm not sure how to reply to this, so:

*cough* in Syria *cough*

[SSH]

I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough

[MrColossal]

Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false.

I get the whole coughing is trying to say that Bush lies also/more but I think it has to be said

Bush lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false... Also his lies destroyed relations with foriegn countries, destroyed lives, destroyed our national surplus, destroyed more lives, just generally destroyed...

And Bush really stuck to the issue of terrorism right? Remember Osama? Remeber Afghanistan at all? Remeber anything?! Remember how we were going into Iraq to destroy terrorism and then it turns out when there were no terrorists there related to September 11th we were there to over throw Saddam? Remember how Bush said Clinton's military isn't ready and he gutted it? Oh wait that's another lie and not flopping on the issues because someone else had to correct the President on that. If he stuck to the issue so much then why are we apparently no safer now than we were before September 11?

and again i ask: Can you prove that the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds shrugged their shoulders and said "Hey, better than what Saddam would have done, so we're ok!" I would like to see your source on this, please.

Also I'd like to see where in this thread someone said "America sucks and it deserves what it gets." or something to that effect. Badmouthing the president is not bad mouthin the US.

[SSH]

[Nacho]

And again i ask: Can you prove that the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds shrugged their shoulders and said "Hey, better than what Saddam would have done, so we're ok!" I would like to see your source on this, please.

I've read dozens of interviews of Shiites and Kurds saying preciselly that...

Does it work for you? Maybe all that interviews I've read are propaganda... But then the rule of three can work in both directions, maybe the tortureas are just photoshopped images, good lord, maybe even Iraq does not exist! (Who knows, I've never been there to see it with my own eyes).

I've herd myself the Iraqi militar that has been working with the spanish troops to trainee the new police "Please Mr. Minister, do not abandon us" (Our Minister was in a visit there in Irak to annouce we're leaving Iraq...) I think that implies "we're better now than with Saddam...)

A recent poll said that 70% of the iraqi population thinks that they're better now than before...

Want sources? Federal agency USAID of the notional ministery of the US government (Translated from Spanish, may incurr in slight mistakes)

183 million $ spended in water and health facilities, which will benefit aprox. 14 million people.

Bridges re-bulided: Khazir, Tikrit y Al Mat.

Umm Qasr harbour: 40 carrier ships per month. 5.000 flights from July in the International Baghdad airport, 20 flights per day (non military).

140,000 new telephone lines, just in Baghdad...

Health and Education:

2.356 new schools. Distibuted 1,5 million secondary school packs, 808.000 of primary and 81.375 for primary teachers. 9 million new and revisited schoolbooks.

860 new teachers training 31.772 secondary teachers.

20 millions $ in studying aids and agreements of collaboration between US and Iraqi's unis.Ã, 

600 health centres. 750 people trained, helping some other 2.000 assistants of health and maternity.

3 M iraqi kids vacuned.

77,000 new government employments. 80 new banks.

516.800 tons in food (valued in 400 M $)



Maybe the Iraqis were happier when that money was spent in new palaces for Uday, Qsay and Saddam... *Cough*

[Esseb]

I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough

Oh right, I hadn't paid too much attention to it but read up on it now.

[Barcik]

It's becoming too tense here.

[Nacho]

Do you want real, serious sources?

Want a Different
Abu Ghraib Story?
Try This One
Saddam had their hands cut off. America gave them new ones.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, May 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

By now, some Americans may feel the need for respite from the images of Abu Ghraib and the five hooded barbarians standing behind Nick Berg. This week's column will try to provide some measure of respite.

It is the story of Americans, in and out of the U.S. government, who moved mountains to help seven horribly maimed Iraqi men. It is not always pleasant reading, but there are rewards to staying with it, especially now.

Quite obviously it has been decided, as the handling of the Abu Ghraib story makes plain, that when America stumbles, we are going to have our faces rubbed in it. And rubbed in it and rubbed in it. As far as I can make out, the purpose of this two weeks of media humiliation is that we--the president, all of us--are being asked to morally prostrate ourselves before the rest of the world. Some may choose to do so, but this story should make a few Americans want to simply stand up straight again.

As perfect justice, the story in fact begins in Abu Ghraib prison, in 1995. With Iraq's economy in a tailspin, Saddam arrested nine Iraqi businessmen to scapegoat them as dollar traders. They got a 30-minute "trial," and were sentenced, after a year's imprisonment, to have their right hands surgically cut off at Abu Ghraib prison.

The amputations were performed, over two days, by a Baghdad anesthesiologist, a surgeon and medical staff. We know this because Saddam had a videotape made of each procedure. He had the hands brought to him in formalin and then returned to Abu Ghraib. Oh, one more thing: The surgeon carved an X of shame into the forehead of each man. And the authorities charged the men $50.





Last year, after we liberated Iraq, a veteran TV news producer named Don North--who has worked for major U.S. broadcasters--was in Baghdad with the U.S. to restore TV service. Iraqi contacts there brought him a tape of the men's amputations. Mr. North says dismemberment was common in Saddam's Iraq and that if one walks down a crowded Baghdad street one may see a half-dozen people missing an ear, eye, limb or tongue. He decided to seek out the men whose stubbed arms represented the civilized world's lowest act--the perversion of medicine.
He found seven. Mr. North determined to make a documentary of their story and get medical help for them. How he found that help, if one may still use this phrase, is an all-American story.

An oil engineer from Houston, named Roger Brown, overheard Mr. North's tale in a Baghdad café. He suggested Don North get in touch with a famed Houston TV newsman named Marvin Zindler. Mr. Zindler put him in touch with Dr. Joe Agris, a Houston reconstructive surgeon, who has worked in postwar Vietnam and Nicaragua repairing children.

Mr. North sent Dr. Agris a copy of the videotape of the surgical atrocities, and Dr. Agris said: Send me the men; I will fix them.

But flying seven Iraqi men out of Baghdad is easier said than done. In this case, prodded by Don North and government friends, the famous U.S. bureaucracy gave itself a day off. Paul Bremer wrote a memo authorizing their departure. Paul Wolfowitz told the Air Force it could fly them to Frankfurt. Homeland Security waived visa requirements.

Continental Airlines donated passage to Houston. There, Dr. Agris enlisted a fellow surgeon, Fred Kestler, to assist. The Methodist Hospital donated facilities, and the men arrived in Houston in early April.

Dr. Agris saw that the Abu Ghraib "surgeries" were a botch. They'd cut through the joining of the wrist's carpal bones, "like carving a Turkey leg." Saddam's doctors did nothing to repair the nerve endings, which left the men with constant real and "phantom" pain. Drs. Agris and Kestler had two preliminary tasks: Repair the nerves, and, alas, take another inch off the men's lower arms, to leave a smooth surface for attaching their new prosthetic "hands." They worked for two days operating on the seven men, who then took a week to recover before receiving their new hands.

Those devices were donated by the German-American prosthetic company Otto Bock, at a cost of $50,000 each. They are state-of-the-art electronic hands, with fingers, which respond to trained muscular movements. The rehabilitation and training is being donated by two other Houston companies, TIRR and Dynamic Orthotics. The Iraqi men are in Houston now, spending five hours a day learning to use their new right hands. And oh yes, the brands on their heads were removed.

Don North completed his documentary on what happened to these men in Iraq. I watched "Remembering Saddam" this week. Several of the men insisted on seeing Saddam's home video of the atrocity, and so it's in the film--a bizarre, almost dainty image of forceps, scalpel, surgical gloves and green operating-room garments. Nothing like it since Dr. Mengele. Watching his hand come off, Baasim Al Fadhly says: "Look at this doctor, who considers his career noble and swears to God to be a noble person. Let everyone see this film."





This crime deserves condemnation from international medical societies, such as the U.N.'s World Health Organization, or the Red Cross. And Don North's film indeed should be seen--but may not be. After two months of trying, no U.S. broadcast or cable network will take it. This is incredible. TV can run Abu Ghraib photos 24/7 but can't find 55 minutes for Saddam's crimes against humanity?
On May 23, the American Foreign Policy Council will bring the restored men to Washington. They will visit maimed GIs at Walter Reed Army Hospital. It wouldn't be surprising if they said something positive about the U.S. soldiers who have not been on television the past two weeks.

Then Don North and Joe Agris will fly with the men back to Iraq, to survey the rest of Saddam's dismembered population. "The practice of prosthetics is very archaic," Mr. North says,"for a country where this is such an affliction." Dr. Agris hopes to survey the hospitals and bring in some modern equipment and supplies. "If they let me, I'll do some of the kids," he says. "Let's show the good side of what we can do."

Sure. Why not?

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

[Ghormak]

Right-o.

[DGMacphee]

and most people (democrats included) agree.

Wow! And I thought the democrat slogan this year was "Anyone but Bush!" but I guess you've just proven me wrong with that small bit of text inside those brackets. You've convinced me! Kerry is a loser! He hates children and puppies! We must protect our children and puppies!

And like everyone else: I mean, honestly, how can you accuse Kerry of lying and not Bush? I mean, you went very easily on Bush in your post. And all this coughing doesn't help.

But let me summerise in an imaginary conversation:

Pro-Bush Guy: "Don't vote for Kerry! He's a lying scumbag!"
Me: "What about Bush?"
PBG: "Well, Bush's lies were justified!"
Me: "Like the weapons of mass destruction?"
PBG: "Yeah, we used that lie so we could invade Iraq and liberate the people!"
Me: "Why didn't you do the same with other dictatorships that harm more people than Iraq?"
PBG: "Cause Iraq was harbouring terrorists! They're the ones who want the US out of Iraq!"
Me: "Don't the people of Iraq want the US military out?"
PBG: "Yes, those are just the evil Iraqis! They're terrorists!"
Me: "Doesn't that mean the majority of the population is evil?"
PBG: "Yes! The majority are deadly terrorists!"
Me: "..."
PBG: "..."
Me: "You're an idiot."

[juncmodule]

DGMacphee: You are wonderful.

Farlander: That is why I love America Farlander. When the citizens of this country do something good, they really do something good. America is full of a lot of good people that truly care about world. The approval rating of our current occupation in Iraq has only recently reached a low level. I think a majority of Americans agree that removing Saddam from power is a good thing. A majority of American soldiers in Iraq are over there doing as much good as they can.

There are bad eggs though. We cannot turn our backs on that and say that it is okay, it is NOT. It is not acceptable, regardless as to how much good we do (I know, that's not your point). We have done our good in Iraq and it is now time to wrap things up and leave, in fact, it has been time for several months. Our occupation of Iraq is causing problems and deaths. It is time for the UN to step in. Our job is finished.

However, the few, the rich and corrupt, have more "business" to tend to over there. American soldiers know that it is time to come home. When you develop a situation where soldiers do not FULLY support what they are doing you develop very dangerous men(and women). These are the circumstances that bring about the My Lai's and Abu Ghraib's in war. The fact that the US Goverment is aware of this situation and is not immediately pulling out its troops is appalling.

The first gulf war ended very quickly after Iraqi media released images of a bombed Iraqi convoy. The US government has admitted that this dramatically sped up withdrawal from Iraq. Now we have another atroicity and this time our reaction is very different. Our government is quick to shift blame to individual soldiers. Why?

Oh, and for those of you that keep on saying "this is war" REREAD this until you get it:

"The first gulf war ended very quickly after Iraqi media released images of a bombed Iraqi convoy. The US government has admitted that this dramatically sped up withdrawal from Iraq."

later,
-junc

[Nacho]

Thanks for putting things in context Junc. Since you did it, it seemed the US went there just to settle in Abu Ghraib and torture people.

[Barcik]

Oh, and for those of you that keep on saying "this is war" REREAD this until you get it:

"The first gulf war ended very quickly after Iraqi media released images of a bombed Iraqi convoy. The US government has admitted that this dramatically sped up withdrawal from Iraq."

Is this perhaps the reason that nothing changed after the first Gulf War?

[Nacho]

About the media, and the use that the military intelligence does of it, I want to quote something I've seen somewhere in the internet, a report by GEES (Group of strategic studies). THIS IS A QUOTE, and I DO NOT SHARE ALL/SOME of the statements expressed:

"The revelation of the photos of abusses is not casual (Let's remember it's been a stuff revealed by the army itself, not the press) It's a show orchested by some people in the pentagon, the "hard wing".

You'll see that nobody judged by this stuff will suffer serious punishements... they may loss their career, they may go to a military reclusion for some time... but they will receive a silent and gentle economic compensation in the future.

The aim of showing the pics is launching a message...

"Look what can we do!" "Did you thing that we were going to be embarrased to punish you hardly by our occidental rules?" "Do you think you can burn the corpses of our collaborators, cut their arms, their legs and behead them, and we're not going to do something simillar just by that Geneva stuff?" "Look what an american, weak, 1,55 cms tall woman can do to you, a big, strong, muslim person..." "Do you realise now that our patience has a limit, and in some point we won't care of the "left", the "media" or the "peacifists"?

"Do you realise now that our patience has a limit and we're going to start randomly launch missiles to weddings, mosques and civilians bulidings?"

"DO you see now how strong is our determination?"

As said, I don't share the methods... But look the recent situation having this document in perspective, and you'll understand some of the stuff that is going on (Like the missile in a wedding).

Also, it's disgusting, but seems that this new "awe" tactic is reaching some goals... after the disgusting "on the air" beheading of an american person, not major more brutal acts have happened... the activities of the terrorists is going down, and Muqtada al Sadr's militias are abandoning the fight (Curiously, after that US bombed for first time, a holy mosque, an event that should have lighted on the fire of the Shiites, has calmed them down  :o)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040527/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

So... what do you think? The feeling I had after reading that there is a wing in the Pentagon who was more power than the president (Let's remember that the tortures do not benefit him) is... disturbing.

Specially because that "wing" is supposed to be the most right-placed of the republicans (Extreme right, even), but they don't care to put a democrat person in the White House, that must significate that they have their seats well secured.

What do you think? Does that "black hand" exist? How big is their power?

[juncmodule]

Is this perhaps the reason that nothing changed after the first Gulf War?

It isn't the only reason, but yes. Our mission wasn't finished when we pulled out of the first gulf war. If we hadn't gone back it would have been a second Vietnam. People like to say that we completed our "objective" and protected Kuwait. That's just not true. Bush Sr. painted Saddam as a villian and went after him with full force, and failed. Kuwait was an excuse, an invitation.

Farlander: That is a frightening theory. Perhaps not too far off. I think the "right" and "left" gets a little blurry when you start talking about the military. Perhaps the military sees that it can get more out of Kerry than Bush. Kerry's Vietnam record is a little questionable, by his own admission. The military could have something to manipulate him with. A more likely theory is that Bush is an idiot. Sure he's probably easy to push around but he lacks respect for the military (only the military actually knows the truth about him going AWOL, and even Bush's version of the story is pretty much a "pussy's story" from the military point of view). Bush also has proven to be abrasive toward other countries, I sure that is just a small reflection of how he is in person. If he pisses off rulers of countries you can just imagine how many five star generals he's pissed off. Maybe he pissed off the wrong one.

All in all I think the theory is probably too far fetched. Then again, maybe not...

later,
-junc

EDIT: Another Military/Media story of interest: Did you know in the first gulf war, at the start of the war, what was being watched on TV was a staged operation? The US Military admitted that it mounted an attack (which it knew it could win) as a diversion for the media. While at the same time they launched another attack which was their real objective.

[Nacho]

Junc, thanks for trying to explain me how the Pentagon goes, and a little bit about the past of the future presidents... it's been interesting to read what you americans really think, because here, sometimes it's difficult to realise which is the real situation because the Atlantic filters information, you know? 

About the media and wars... this has been the most covered war by media in history, talking about "first line" coverage.

I remember ot the third day of "awe and fear" operation, I was at Lorena's home, watching CCN Spain live. The reporter was saying something (I was in the middle of a semi-nap) like: "Yesterday our cameras were there, at the top of that buildings, but we've been advised not to be there today because... BOOM BOOM BOOM [...] BOOM"

I counted 14 bombs/missiles in less than a minute. The pentagon told the reporters where to be, which take should they record,  and when to start recording (19:00) and they did, taking "nice" shoots of the building (fortunately, in that very case the building was empty)

Also, when the land operations began and the Coalition forces were advancing to the north (It was Nasiriya or Nayaf), I saw in live how a platoon of marines stop their advance because there was a group of covered iraquis in a house. They took coverage, and being recorded by the CNN cameras, the sargeant decided not to demmand support of the armour of planes, using a "javalin" instead (Some kind of rocket lauched from a bazooka). Minutes later the house was down and the advance went on. It was very "Band of Brothers..."

I also remember a night at Saddam's international airport with the 101st airborne waiting for the counter attack (We will slaughter them!!!!111one!!!, remember?), but it never happened.

The next morning two armoured columns of handies and tanks went to take a walk in the middle of Baghdad... It was quite funny, nobody shoot a bullet, but the Americans showed their determination, how weak the iraqis were and, best of all, the iraqi minister of Information had to interrupt an interview he was giving because the amercians were coming (In that very moment he was saying: Americans? Where? Here there are no americans...)

I am almost sure that this was quite "directed" for not to show americans ambrushed or in real problems, yes, the militars use the media as a diversion (they love diversion, remember mounting a parallel "Overlord" with Patton?).

But sometimes they haven't been so luck with the media. I remember that the disembark of marines in Somalia was broadcasted live by CNN. It was Comical/Tragical to see that young Ranger lietunant saying "Sir, this is a secret mission... Are you telling me this is being broadcasted via satellite to mr. Aidid???"

Some war histories brought to you by a person interested in military histories...

[Nacho]

A new editorial by the Wall Street Journal... If you don't want to read it, I'll make a synopsis: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, Saddam's right hand, joined with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Kuala Lumpur (Even with one of the pilots who crashed a plane against the Pentagon) to preppair the 11-S attacks.

Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.

We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.




It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.




One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.

That's curious, because I allways wondered why of 1,000 people involved there was not even an Iraqi arrested... Now it's clear, the iraqis were intellectually involved, but they did not provide "soldiers" for not being aimed.

[jetxl]

You people watch way to much X files.

http://www.theyrule.net/
this is a site that lets you make connection between board members of different (US) companies. Now this is scary...Find out how Microsoft is connected to McDonalds.

[Nacho]

And you watch too much Sesame Street.