I just (3:30 pm) got a note from Jesus Gil. He can't post to his own weblog at the moment, but he has some impressions from what he's seeing on Al Jazeera out of Spain. Pretty gruesome stuff:
For the most part, most of the coverage is the same, with talk about big bombing south of Baghdad (which on allied stations seems to be centering on the softening of Republican Guard for an eventual attack)I expect Arab media to play these aspects up considerably. Most in that part of the world are very suspicious of the U.S., sometimes for good reason and sometimes not. Despite every effort made by the coalition to show that we are avoiding civilian casualties, they're going to happen, and they're going to wind up on the air--unlike the people in Saddam's torture chambers, or run through his plastic shredders.From Al Jazeera there are some quite horrific videos going out live right now. The bombing is intense, I'd say right up there compared to the first night of bombing, but hard to tell from the editing.
There were some absolutely disgusting scenes from the hospitals. Given that it's night time now, the editing makes it look as if the people that are arriving in the hospital are related to the above bombing. My suspicion is to look for quite a bit of backlash to allied movement amongst Arab world (if they weren´t already against) as this latest batch of videos hits the air. It's some of the most disturbing that I´ve seen. Especially gripping and disturbing was a long series of shots on a little boy, around 4 or 5 years old, who the camera catches coming in an ambulance, with his arm shot. The camera follows them into an operating room, and his bloodied shirt is cut off, and his intestines fall out. The camera continues filming (although it is edited) as the doctors quickly placed cotton swabs around the intestines, pouring alcohol on the wound and begin to operate. Obviously, any parent is going to feel affected. It truly was horrific, and the images are going out to the world.
Al Jazeera as you´ve also no doubt heard has shown repeated photos of two captured British troops, both are black, and the scenes are very quick. They look a bit dazed but in "decent" shape, but again hard to tell from the camera angles and editing. Also, it´s impossible to catch any names.
There are things that are worse than war. Not many, though.
Well, we don't really know if this poor child was injured by allied forces or Iraqi forces, do we?
Last night I saw a clip where Al Jazeera stuck a mic in a young girls face and asked her whose missile it was that injured her. She said America. But we all know that a 5 or 6 year old doesn't know this information. She didn't see that missile coming at her and register that in her mind. Somebody told her what the answer was, either correctly or incorrectly.
But we'll never know and minds less critical will never think to ask.
CBK
Don't ask, don't tell...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
Re:CBK The U.S./UK has confirmed civilian casualties. It does not take much critical thought to imagine what a bomb does to humans. Minds less critical don't think about the effects so they need help visualizing. So perhaps when they look at their own 5 year old daughter or son they may relate to the ravages of war, unsanitized by the media. Your post is aurgumentative, of course less critical minds would fail to see the error in your logic and would never think to question it.
If I had to choose between placing my loved ones at risk from an insane tyrant torturing them at random or the risk of them being killed in battle - at ANY age - I'd choose the latter.
Better to die on your feet as a free man, fighting, than on your knees as a slave. And that holds for anyone of any age. I feel bad that this child was caught in the middle, but that is simply too bad. Awful things happen.
Hell, she might've been deliberately shot by the Fedayeen - as we know they do. Trying to apply blame is kinda pointless - It happened, it sucks, move on. I see kids with cancer, crippled in car accidents, blown up by suicide bombers, etc. every day - it happens, it sucks, I move on. So do they, if they can. We try to minimize the risks - In this case, we remove a clear and ongoing risk. Some people are going to die, but the risk will be reduced soon.
Orion
Where is Al Jazeera's coverage on the motar attacks from the Ba'ath Loyalists on to the rioting Shiite population in Basra?
Dean
Seward Alaska
I normally don't cozy up squishie lefties, but just who do you think the kid's gonna blame?
"Mommy, what's happening"
"We're being bombed by the Americans"
So, when she gets hurt, well... QED
Mr. Stijns, seeing as how you're associated with the Econ department of Berkely, I'll concede that are pathetically idealistic, with no concept of how ideas have consequences. [grin]
But... Just where have you, and the above websites been for the past 20 years? Where are the memorials for the 5,000 Iraquis that Hussein gassed to death in one city? What about the people that Uday has put into a shredding machine (feet first, so he can hear them scream)? Why do you cry over 63 "killed by the Americans" but not for the tens of thousands (over the years, NOT counting war dead) of Iraquis killed by Hussein? Do the 63 "count", and the other thousand don't "count"?
Why do lefties engage in such blatant hypocricy? Why? Do you think that everyone is as reasoning-challenged as you are? Do you really think the goal of keeping the "US out of war" is worth the lives of the thousands of Iraquis that Hussein has tortured and murdered?
I think you people watch too many action movies where the good guys take out all the bad guys, and there's never a mistake, and nobody innocent gets hurt. That only happens in the movies. In the real world, people get hurt, and sometimes the best you can do is minimize that hurt.
I might add it's in the interest of the Iraqui government to inflate any claims of casualties in order to make the US look bad. But they still have claimed only 63 dead so far. Count how many sorties have been flown over Baghdad, and do the math. This is the lowest casualty rate ever encountered in warfare. Also, please recall that what goes up, must come down. Then recall all that anti-aircraft fire shooting up from the city. At least some of the casualties are from Iraqui AAA fire.
The Left's position of "don't go to war because we might kill an innocent" is viciously idealistic and cruel. They expect perfection that cannot exist in the real world, and refuse to acknowledge the evil that results from inaction.
CBK was right, coemgen, when critical, rational minds look at their own 5 year old son or daughter they can see what might have happened in the US to their own if this action to stem the tide of terrorism was not taken.
It doesn't really matter which side caused the damage, its still tragic, collateral damage is a fact of war, even in THIS NECESSARY ACTION. CBK was not necessary argumentative, but I'm not above being such. You need to wake up and smell the coffee and not live in your illusory land. You failed to make any kind of a case against CBK's statement. Not that you would have one that a rational mind would understand.
We are facing tradegy and propaganda on both sides, and to suggest the acceptance of the statement of a 5 year old at face value, without question is irresponsible.
Personally, I ask, and I tell, whenever possible, when it comes to casualties and suffering.
The Iraqi Body Count site is simply marvelous. I'll probably post a main-article link about it soon.
There is no rioting population in Basra. It is a lifeless claim by the Brits. Jazeera did go as far to show the situation on the roads in Basra. As serene as ever.
We should be discussing the political and economical implications of this war. It is obvious that the Americans are looking for a financial advantage in this needless war.
They are looking for oil and prospecting for the Kuwaiti money(remember the Kuwaiti war advertising company!!!).
The plans are ambitious. Aside from the MILLIONS of advantages of this was, The US government is looking to satisfy the nationalist capitalist appetite. And the part of helping the Iraqi's be autonomous and free of the clutches of tyranny is half BULL and half truth. Of course they'll be off Saddam's tyranny but now they'll be the slaves of the American capitalists. This I can PROVE by HIGHLIGHTING America's future intentions: 'to REINSTATE the OIL for FOOD' program. Rather than putting the nation back on solid ground they propose to continue the crap that's crippled it. How the fuck do they plan to rebuild the Iraqi pride?
This war is only for the American people and the capitalists. Since it is an amazing opportunistic superfuel left for the American economy.
Remember the BOTTOM LINE IS MONEY AND NOBODY GIVES A FUCK!
Don't give me horseshit about the American lives that are at risk in this war. REMEMBER THAT MONEY IS THE BOTTOM FUCKIN LINE! NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE PEOPLE DYIN! IT'S analogous to all the shit in palestine nigeria and somalia! lives are a fuckin cockroach in front of money.
Hey, Ashar. Calm down. If you are right, Bush has no chance of getting reelected. Wait a few months and see what happens. If he's lyin', he's dyin'.
If only the money mattered, we would have lifted the sanctions and gone back to business as usual. What people who think like you can't seem to understand is that Bush is not like you. There are things more important than money to people like him, and the majority of Americans.
After the smoke clears, you'll see.
I wish!!!! And we'll see. Hopefully before we die in the next world war!!!
And i dont understand the stuff about the sanctions. How does that explain anything?
One correction: It's been reported that the two black men captured near Basra and displayed on al-Jazeera are not British troops but civilian truck drivers working for them. I believe they're Kenyans.
As for Ashar, it's obvious to anyone who thinks about it that we are not expecting any financial advantage out of this very expensive war. If all we wanted was to brutally conquer an oil-rich area and keep the oil for ourselves, Alberta or Venezuela or Norway (or Kuwait, for that matter) would have been easier and far far cheaper. Ashar's argument is crap.
Ahsar, I defy you to provide any real proof that this war is about anything other than American and world security. There is NO evidence of this from anyone, other than the diarrhea of the mouth spouting of yourself and other Michael Moore wannabes. Food for Oil is nothing more nor less than a humanitarian mechanism to foil Saddam "who's your bagDADDY" Hussein's Gun for Oil military build up program that only deprived his own people of food and gave him the means to kill his own people.
I do hope US does get some money back to compensate us for the cost of this action, but I doubt that full compensation will be possible. I also hope that we do not allow the French or Germans a major role in determining the future of Iraq.
When a participatory government is established in Iraq and their oil fields and future are given back to their control, and you don't have anything to be such a blowhard about, you can always start in Michael Moore's new movie
"MOORE-ONIC VERSES: The view out the big man's butt"
You should try the Martin Sheen version of protest with duct tape over the mouth (great pic of him on the Drudgereport yesterday)
Sincerely, as always
Rodney Dill
With all due respect, even the bodycount site can't possibly be accurate.
I'm not a statistician. But I don't need to be in order to know that these are estimates and therefore not truly accuarate.
Here is a critique on the methodoloy of the bodycount site.
Your fellow bloggers as OxBlog have been debating this very issue.
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_oxblog_archive.html#91283807
an excerpt:
---------------
Anyone see a problem here? Let me give you a hint: the fact that a number is reported in a reputable news source does not mean that the number is accepted by said reputable source. And in Herold's methodology, if the news source says that it cannot confirm, then the number it says that it cannot confirm is automatically treated as correct!
Patrick Ruffini points out what this means: the Iraqi Information Minister says that X civilians were killed by coalition forces. Reputable news sources duly report that "Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf claimed that allied attacks resulted in X civilian deaths today, but we were unable to confirm this report." Herold then takes that report and adds X to both the maximum and the minimum civilian casualty figures.
-----------
I'll let those of you who are more mathematically minded decide for yourselves whether you think bodycount is worthy or not.
For me, I believe there is plenty of misinformation to go around. As in Afghanistan, the news of casualties from all sources were less than accurate and often conflicting. I believe the truth didn't materialize until well after the the dust settled somewhat. And I do recall that Marc Herold's estimates were WAY off.
What led to my initial post is the obvious acceptance of Al Jazeera as a reliable source of news.
Let's take the market bombing yesterday. It may be the US's fault, it may not be. I'm sure someone will get to the truth eventually. At this point it is all speculation.
I found it rather surprising that the Arab world found it very easy to pin it on the US, who has gone out of it's way to avoid civilian casualties and quite reluctant to pin it on Saddam's forces who have a history of exarcerbating civilian casualties.
Was it in Shakespear's Julius Caesar who said, "People willingly believe what they want to believe"?
CBK
You know anything on al jazeera is the truth, and everything on American media is lies spouted by the evil warlord dictator Bush and President Cheney. Don't be such a fool, you drooling hardright sycophant!!!!
;-)
HEY! I thought I was a FROTHING sycophant! ;)
Let me be the first to step forward to defend your honor: CBK can froth with the best of them, by God!
Bush a dictator?
Oh, I wish...
Like some super genius pundit said recently- 40 more years! 40 more years!!!
;-)
From the "about" page of iraqbodycount.org:
(Bolds mine.) Remember Marc Herold? Professor "More Dead Afghan Civilians Than Americans Killed on 9/11"? The guy who included members of the Taliban forces in his infamous bodycount? "Pioneered a media-based methodology for estimating civilian deaths" -- shyeah, right.
Anyway, that's the sort of folk behind that website.
A correction: The 'OIL for FOOD program' is the same gold prospecting which used to take place centuries ago by the european colonialists. The only difference is that food is provided this time whereas trinkets were provided years, Anyone against?
Food has intrinsic value
Oil has intrinsic value
Trinket have no intrinsic value.
If the Oil for food program makes the trade at fair market value of the items then there is not a valid comparison to the trinket reference. More likely than not the proceeds of the oil will be held in some sort of escrow for the iraqi gov't, and food will be distributed gratis as humanitarian relief. The US should be so lucky that some of the proceeds from the oil should fund the humanitarian relief instead of coming from the pockets of tax payers.
Iraq's chief gripe could be that with the Oil for Food program they don't have the free choice to spend their oil proceeds to invade their neighbors, develop weapons of mass destruction, fund terrorism, and bomb their own babies; as they have done in the past. When the US/UN helps Iraq establish a new government they will be able to choose how they spend their oil proceeds as they will, and hopefully history will not repeat itself.
As far as other intrinsic values.
ISP connection to the internet - $40/month
Access to Dean's World - Still Free
War in Iraq - $75 Billion and counting
Pointing out to Ashar that he is still far, far off the mark - priceless
Rodney Dill
Trying to make sure people continue to be fed in the immediate aftermath of the liberation is obviously the same thing as trading land for trinkets. What fool cannot see that?
%-)
Dean
Iraq is well-known as one of the primary ancient cradles of civilization, back in the pre-historic times when it was called "Babylon/Babilonia". This is a changing point in History, when humans made a transfer from living as hunter-gatherers, to actually setting up villages and raising crops and domesticatinh animals! 10,000 years ago, people from that area wore sheets and rode camels for transportation... Now, people from over there wear sheets and ride camels for transportation! Seems they have not gove very far in 10,000 years. But in the past 100 years, Americans have invented radio, TV, air planes, microwave ovens, light bulbs, computers, blue jeans, longer-lasting deoderants, and we've learned to harness the power of the atom (thanks in-part to a German Jew with bad hair)! I wonder who had made more contributions to this world? Americans send more money & food to poor & sick people all over the world, than all the rest of the people on Earth combined! Iraq... Had done nothing worth while, other than kill a few hundred-thousand of it's own savages. I say is's high time we killed them off. While we're at it, we should 'clense' the entire middle-east, as well as Africa! :)
Mr. Ross, that part of the world gave us steel, higher mathematics, and the scientific method, without which we wouldn't have had any of those great American innovations you're bragging about.
So you're not only a hateful racist, but you're deeply ignorant of history. Why don't you take your stupidity elsewhere?
"John Ross" is an anagram for "Ron's josh."
Maybe this dolt thinks he is parodying Reagan's ghost and other supporters of the war effort.