Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Leave the Iraq now!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leave the Iraq now!

    It is time to go.
    The abuses and torture incidents have taken place on such a great scale that the "culture" behind this army is absolutely discredited. Sorry for the many innocent soldiers who are out there, but the only decent way out and saving a minimum of respect for the ideals of the entire "Western Society" is to leave immediately (four weeks maximum).
    The bombing of a wedding party, 40 dead, yesterday and today the newest exposed pictures of US servicemen and women posing thumbs up next to Iraqi corpses are so utterly disgusting that I can no longer look straight in a Muslim's eye and seriously defend the USA. For Goodness Sake, what creatures have you been rearing? I mean after WW2 I'd have thought the sheer horror and shame about what humans can do should have been enough to stamp out for ever any such behaviour in a modern, western army of a democratic country, furthermore in the army of the leading democracy!
    Are these sick people doing this on purpose to prove Bin Laden and all other critics of our western moral dead right?!!! Sorry, America - I want you out of Iraq immediately!
    Google ergo sum


  • #2
    Re: Leave the Iraq now!

    Originally posted by LEtranger
    It is time to go.
    The abuses and torture incidents have taken place on such a great scale that the "culture" behind this army is absolutely discredited. Sorry for the many innocent soldiers who are out there, but the only decent way out and saving a minimum of respect for the ideals of the entire "Western Society" is to leave immediately (four weeks maximum).
    The bombing of a wedding party, 40 dead, yesterday and today the newest exposed pictures of US servicemen and women posing thumbs up next to Iraqi corpses are so utterly disgusting that I can no longer look straight in a Muslim's eye and seriously defend the USA. For Goodness Sake, what creatures have you been rearing? I mean after WW2 I'd have thought the sheer horror and shame about what humans can do should have been enough to stamp out for ever any such behaviour in a modern, western army of a democratic country, furthermore in the army of the leading democracy!
    Are these sick people doing this on purpose to prove Bin Laden and all other critics of our western moral dead right?!!! Sorry, America - I want you out of Iraq immediately!
    Yes, the photos of grinning soldiers giving the thumbs up over a dead Iraqi prisoner are horrible. It is disgusting and speaks to the mindset of those MP's. I really don't know all of the details about the attack on the group in the desert. One side says it was a wedding, another says it was a waystation for foriegn fighters that has been watched for some time. One side says they were having a party, the other says they had guns and munitions there and fired first on the soldiers. The only things I do know is the footage I have seen from news agencies have been of arab men in large groups at the site covering the dead (whom seemed to be of like size/age). Also the site was in the open desert near the border of Syria which doesn't seem like a place for a wedding (but I wasn't there so I don't know anything for sure). Large gathering of fighting age men in open desert near Syrian border does make me question the whole thing. But I am not from there, I do not know what they do, there could be a wedding party in that place, I just don't know. So I reserve judgement on that one. If it turns out to be a party and not a gathering of fighters then that is inexcusable.

    These two things (the footage and the location) I have seen on both western(USA/EU) and arab news outlets. I go to Al-jazeera's site too. I am always interested in what they have to say.

    Either way, I absolutely agree, we need to get out. Saddam is gone (that's what the US gov't claimed they needed to do) and they need to leave. It was crazy to go in the first place.
    When they had advanced together to meet on common
    ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
    and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
    each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
    mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
    killing, and the ground ran with blood.

    Homer, The Illiad

    Comment


    • #3
      I tend to agree that at this point, there needs to be a plan that has a clear end date. The idea that the time in country could be a variable was valid until the primary objective was reached. If Hussein was not the primary objective, then someone needs to say so (although that runs counter to the initial lead-up to the conflict, regardless of what side of the "lie" debate you fall). Even with the fact that there is no credible government established, we should have a plan to either establish the government or get the UN to participate in the activities on the ground. I think it is throwing a match into a pool of gasoline to just leave with no plan or no remaining presence to prevent the insurgents from resetting the clock sans Hussein.

      I don't doubt that the pictures are getting worse, and they will likely continue to get worse as we dig deeper into this issue, although I certainly hope not. Let's keep our heads, though about the big picture.

      I am in no way suggesting that what the soldiers did is even remotely defensible. It is not. I am not suggesting that anyone "had it coming". They did not. There were clear, bright lines crossed. But I've got no more problem looking a Muslim in the eye than he/she does me. We were expected to understand and accept that the heinous crimes commited by fundamentalists (and I am not limiting this to 9/11; these issues go back to 1800 in one form or another) were not indicative of the general Muslim population; would it not be fair to ask those of the Muslim faith, once the facts are out, to extend the same courtesy to us. Most of the soldiers I know won't even talk about this out of embarassment and shame for their organizations and fear that they might be considered complicit. The only caveat here is that we must take care of this ourselves. To ignore it or fail to punish those responsible would be to fail on our part of the bargain.

      Comment


      • #4
        The whole thing has been a game of bait and switch since day one.

        1. 911 happens, americans lose all the will to be REAL freedom-loving americans
        2. Afghanistan is invaded to break up AQ, nail OBL, and make way for a big fucking oil pipe - So far, AQ is back and no OBL
        3. Iraq is invaded because it harbors AQ (911 tie-in), has WMDs, and has huge fucking oil reserves that all the oil players want in on
        4. SH is taken out, no WMDs, lots of oil
        5. We are there to find WMD and rebuild Iraq - still no WMDs, little rebuilding, lots of oil
        6. We are there to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, and take control of their oil
        7. The Iraqis are the "enemy" and therefore "insurgents", and we will not let them keep the oil
        8. The cement thickens around our ankles, must have the oil

        At no time has anyone in the major media tried to see all of this scandalous activity through the eyes of the people on the ground. They are not insurgents, we are the invaders.

        How could it be any more obvious?

        I wouldn't let armed Iraqis plow through my home in California without a fight. Would I be an "insurgent" defending my home or homeland against an invading force?

        I am 100% with LEtranger - get the fuck out now. Of course, I felt like that on day one too, Afghanistan included.

        Comment


        • #5
          Things are FUBAR.
          I think the difference about me
          is that I don't live in as much fear
          as many others do.

          Isn't the primary objective
          for the War on Terror to prevent
          another 9-11 from happening?
          Or maybe this is what people hope
          the reason for it is?
          Is it the reason or not?
          left wingers say "It's for the oil. It's for
          economical reasons."
          right winger: "Hussein was evil; we
          need to establish democracy."

          There are polls that ask: "How do you
          feel Bush is handling the war?"
          There is no black or white clear-cut correct
          answer for this. Some people will answer
          "he is doing a good job." My view is that these
          people are stupid, not paying attention or
          on drugs, but what does my opinion matter?
          What these people think does matter if they are voters.
          I think good questions would be "Do you think the
          war on terror makes us safer?" " Do you think the War
          on Terror will prevent another attack like on 9-11?"
          My answer to these is "No." We have more enemies now
          and hatred for USA has increased.
          Does this make me scared? No.
          I think people are naturally filled with a lot of fear. Bush
          plays upon this. During his public address he said, "We
          are no longer protected by oceans..."
          Is this true? Why would he say this? Perhaps it's this kind
          of idea that people who support the war think (or buy into).
          If that is true, then I ask, "Well why are you
          starting wars then? How will war, especially against
          some who hate us to the core (it's no fight over land or money)
          make us safer?"
          The Bush Administration believes "The War on Terror"
          is in the interest of National Security, but Bush didn't make
          that argument in that conference. He was under a bit of heat
          from the press. Instead, he basically said that he's not
          the bad guy; Saddam is; Saddam's a madman.
          Well what about going after the real enemy?
          Al Quaida and OBL have been lost in the quagmire it seems.
          Ironically, it looks like the the terrorist cause has been strengthened
          by the War on Terror. Those that fear, have more
          to fear now. Maybe that can explain Bush support increasing.
          (Actually, I've heard that his support recently reached an all-time low.)
          The more we fear, the more Bush politics makes sense.
          Me? I'm no more scared than in 2001, but my distaste for Bush just
          has more and more fuel, more evidence of incompetence.
          The War on Terror isn't working, in fact
          it looks as though the opposite of what
          the leaders intended is happening.

          Sadly, I think we should stay there because we
          we started the shit and are obligated to see
          it through, but the methods being used
          need to be changed. To me it means throwing
          out Bush in November. Regardless of this
          happening or not, the method of operation has
          to be changed. The problem with Bush staying
          is that there will not be any change. He has
          already proved to us through all that has transpired that
          he is as about as flexible as a rock.
          Some people argue that there never has been
          a solid plan, and judging by what has transpired, I
          would have to agree with that. There's talk about how
          "knee-jerk reactions" are not the thing to do. Well
          what's a greater example of that than Bush taking
          us to war?
          My conclusion is that Bush needs to go.
          Bill, you need not reply. But if you feel compelled
          to, please do so.

          Yeah I know, if Kerry, then nothing will change.
          Well if that's true, then I guess I should say,
          "Ok. Bush is the man. Let him stay in office." ???
          No thanks.
          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

          Comment


          • #6
            i hope michael moore's latest documentary, farenheit 9/11 gets distributed here. disney isn't playing ball with it but it sounds very intriguing. in a nod to bradbury, they are touting this as the temperature at which freedom burns.
            bowling for columbine was fantastic, eye-opening.
            the easiest answer to bush is to vote his sorry ass out this fall. i read woodward's plan of attack last week. quite an epiphany.
            the scariest part of all is that the story is told by the principle players involved, bush, cheney, powel, rummy, condi, and they are unapologetic about their decision to go after saddam BEFORE 9/11.
            and as for powell, he has always been the conscience of this group. i mean, these people go back some 30 yours in gov't service. Rummy was ford's SedDef and Cheney was his chief of staff. Powell was around in Reagans' cabinet, bush sr's cabinet and now SecState. they may not like him much, but they keep him around because he's seen as moderate and adds an air of legitimacy to their agenda.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't want sound like an old moralist, but isn't the cultural aspect behind these many cases of abuse and torture something that needs to be seen to? These weren't "single isolated cases". How could young men and women grow up to end up doing such things? What culture generates them?
              And why doesn't the army probe into the character and integrity of its men and women before letting them loose on mankind (I will not endeavour to investigate if monsters are bred methodically in the army that are only capable of hatred, thus "better soldiers")?
              I mean every decent GI over there alive or already killed in Bush's war is discredited too. For the sake of the memory of the fallen alone the American public should stand up and say: STOP, NO MORE!
              Is there no longer a culture in which it is clear what is right and what is wrong? Where are those f*** Christian ideals (of which compassion and mercy are part of) gone to that Messrs Bush and Co so ardently defend?

              The German people, or large parts of it, were accused of having done little to nothing against the heinous crimes of the Nazis. While the crimes themselves are still not comparable, this time the credibility of the entire Western ideals are at stake, because a) there is the sad German example as a precedence after which there was a consensus* that we would let such barbaric things happen again b) the world - and the American public are informed now, and nobody can say he/she didn't know.
              I beg you to act.

              * This consensus was not only supposed, but went down worldwide in most of the post-1945 constitutions, international conventions etc and are at the core of most decisions by the UN since then.
              Google ergo sum

              Comment


              • #8
                “left wingers say "It's for the oil. It's for economical reasons."
                right winger: "Hussein was evil; we need to establish democracy." “

                The problem, and why the intense debates here and elsewhere, is that it isn’t anywhere near that simple. What about me, the “right wingerâ€? that thinks it had nothing whatsoever to do with economic reasons, agrees that Hussein was evil, but doesn’t agree with the idea that we had to establish democracy? What about all the left wingers that voted to pursue the war with the same information that the President had vis-أ -vis the WMDs? Sure, politically there was no risk, since they all knew if WMD’s weren’t found they could always blame Bush and be relatively free of recrimination.

                “My view is that these people are stupid, not paying attention or on drugs…�

                Well, I respect your opinion, but there are people that are not stupid, not on drugs, and paying full attention that are not as negative about his handling as you are. It’s all about opinion at this point. Although as I noted, I think there could have been better discussion of the possible outcomes. Isn’t the job of a planner to anticipate various outcomes and build in contingencies?

                L’Etranger, you bring up some good points. But this is a sensitive issue; I think we should be asking these questions, but the answers are more indicative of our own personal beliefs than they are about what is universally “right�. To say that this is a cultural by-product is difficult; what kind of culture would lead to young kids strapping explosives to their bellies and walking into a train station? What kind of culture would lead to the business of exporting beautiful women from host countries to the west for sale either to "clients" or filmmakers? What kind of culture would lead to the idea that it is an acceptable political statement to fly a plane loaded with 100's of innocent people into a building containing 1000's of innocent people? What kind of culture would lead to the idea that it is okay to kill your children if they are female?

                I don't disagree one bit with your moral disgust for what happended in that prison (assuming it has now stopped). But I find it more than a bit of a stretch to equate the moral impact of the humiliation of a handful of Iraqi's with the systematic and orderly annihiliation of over 6 million Jews because of the religion they were, presumably, born with.

                Bush and his administration are remarkably lacking - on many levels - in the area of compassion and mercy. By all means, use that lack to castigate them. But to use this to castigate the entire American culture (troubled as it may be) is, I think, going too far, and selectively forgetting the countless other instances in world history where entire cultures (including democratic ones) have been complicit, with significantly higher and longer lasting prices paid.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bill
                  What about all the left wingers that voted to pursue the war with the same information that the President had vis-أ -vis the WMDs? Sure, politically there was no risk, since they all knew if WMD’s weren’t found they could always blame Bush and be relatively free of recrimination.
                  Did you read the news about Ahmed Chalibi?
                  Salon.com News | Ahmed Chalabi's failed coup
                  or http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...abi/index.html reads: "U.S. disenchantment with Chalabi has been growing since it dawned on the White House and the Pentagon that everything he had told them about Iraq -- from Saddam Hussein's fiendish weapons arsenal to the crowds who would toss flowers at the invaders to Chalabi's own popularity in Iraq -- had been completely false."

                  To me it shows why we cannot rush to war. No it's not entirely Bush's fault. Perhaps the entire government is to blame for that. From what I've heard in the news, the mentality of Bush was something like: "What have we got on Iraq? Is Iraq involved? See if there is any evidence." Then if you get such information from Chalibi, "Aha! Hussein is up to no good! We have the evidence! Let's get him!"
                  Still, Bush has to go through congress (they were all fooled), but Bush is the commander in chief. He is at the top of the chain, head honcho. I don't feel he's taken responsibility like he should. It is an election year, so he has strong reasons not to. I will refrain from writing anything infammatory ;)
                  \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                  Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jerico
                    "U.S. disenchantment with Chalabi has been growing since it dawned on the White House and the Pentagon that everything he had told them about Iraq -- from Saddam Hussein's fiendish weapons arsenal to the crowds who would toss flowers at the invaders to Chalabi's own popularity in Iraq -- had been completely false."
                    Enter the red herring. No intelligent person would surmise that the whole filthy campaign was motivated by this guy's information.
                    The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      True. All the new news at this point is "late in the game."

                      I would hope that most people know what "neo-con" means and the
                      philosophies behind it (PNAC), who Richard Clarke is, know of
                      Woodward and some of the contents of "Plan of Attack," 9-11 hearings, etc.

                      They say people are polarized nowadays, and why not? There's a war going on and people are dying, that's just the tip of the ice-berg. The fact that there have been wars in the past, scandals in the past, don't make today's events less grim.

                      I'd say the left-wing arguments by far outweigh right-wing right now.

                      Check out the stuff Joe Scarborough has on his MSNBC show nowadays.
                      I almost laugh at it.
                      Ann Coulter is a regular guest on that show first of all.
                      Recently the big headline for his show was "The Good news Coming out of Iraq!" I've seen him do it before, so had no interest in tuning in.
                      What does he have? A few people on camera saying, "I feel more free. No more Saddam." Showing a few kids playing in the desert? Kids learning something in school? bah! like kids in Iraq have never learned anything or played games while Saddam was in charge.
                      It's a political show. Cover the issues. Who is going to have control of Iraq on June 30? Is it possible to turn things over by that time? How long are our troops going to be there? Can we afford (money-wise and morally) to be there for a long time?
                      Maybe Scarborough has no good arguments behind his agenda at this point.
                      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just a kwik few words for Bill before I declare it is weekend for me.

                        Originally posted by Bill
                        “left wingers say "It's for the oil. It's for economical reasons."
                        right winger: "Hussein was evil; we need to establish democracy." “
                        The moral disgust has little to do with "left" or "right". We're humans. This division doesn't help.

                        Originally posted by Bill
                        ....
                        L’Etranger, you bring up some good points. But this is a sensitive issue; I think we should be asking these questions, but the answers are more indicative of our own personal beliefs than they are about what is universally “right�. To say that this is a cultural by-product is difficult; what kind of culture would lead to young kids strapping explosives to their bellies and walking into a train station? What kind of culture would lead to the business of exporting beautiful women from host countries to the west for sale either to "clients" or filmmakers? What kind of culture would lead to the idea that it is an acceptable political statement to fly a plane loaded with 100's of innocent people into a building containing 1000's of innocent people? What kind of culture would lead to the idea that it is okay to kill your children if they are female?
                        My disgust and appeal to pull out of this culdesac have to do with our standards, with our ethics, with our civilisation. These examples you mention of other cultures cannot be weighed against ours, because we're not bartering on a bazaar. Whatever THEY do is no excuse for a careless handling our standards - and even lessso the savage behaviour of those under the umbrella of our ideals. Hitler let 3,6 million Russian POW's starve, and he and his followers argued the Soviet Union hadn't signed the Geneva Conventions - was he more right to do this hence? Because they could be assumed not to treat German POW's correctly?

                        Originally posted by Bill
                        I don't disagree one bit with your moral disgust for what happended in that prison (assuming it has now stopped). But I find it more than a bit of a stretch to equate the moral impact of the humiliation of a handful of Iraqi's with the systematic and orderly annihiliation of over 6 million Jews because of the religion they were, presumably, born with.
                        Thanks.
                        I didn't equate this, mind you. I explicitly wrote the crimes were NOT comparable. YET this time the shocking precedence lay behind us, the Western world had long decided what is wrong, or possibly "very wrong". We have set up a rigid codex because of what happened at the extermination camps and during the fighting. This rigid codex is a main pilar of our entire societies. Whole generations of Westerners were practically "breast-fed" on the atrocities of the Nazi regime in movies, on TV, in comix and whatever. And if you missed the Krauts' atrocities there were still enough of the Japs - ever heard of the "Rape of Nanjing"? Next we had My Lai and Pinochet, we even had the cruel Taliban to point to. Everybody above an IQ of 90 ought to know where to draw a line. But no, rapid soldiers of the leading democracy in the world go over there, pose with the corpses of people they have tortured to death or with frightened Arabs while dogs threaten to bite off their genitals - and discredit us all, not only you Americans! Regardless of if we sent troops to join Bush's war or not, all of us are disgraced. But Dutch, German and Canadian troops (and not too few) are in Afghanistan and trying their best to contain anarchy and terrorism. They too have been let down by these prison guards! And still certain people ponder the ifs and buts, instead of acting in the only decent manner that remains. French and German warships are patrolling the Bab El Mandeb or Golf of Aden to intercept possible malign transports, they and all others are suddenly all in the same boat, so to speak.

                        Oh, and Berry ...
                        Originally posted by Berry Sizemore

                        Enter the red herring. No intelligent person would surmise that the whole filthy campaign was motivated by this guy's information.
                        Yes, isn't it incredible to base an entire invasion on the supposed "truth" of yet another dubious creep? C'mon, not even this administration can be so short-sighted! No, they didn't care, they wanted to invade anyway.

                        L'E
                        Google ergo sum

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I understand you, L'E.
                          I will not argue if US completely pulls out.
                          I don't know what the "right" and "best" choice
                          is at this point. Come November, removing
                          Bush is a good start.
                          USA should face the consequences of the
                          grave mistakes made-- no more of this
                          "I didn't know!" Bullshit-- whatever choices
                          it makes.
                          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Especially as the adminstration was spinning against Chalabi before the war.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              LEtranger wrote:

                              ever heard of the "Rape of Nanjing"?
                              Yes. It's anniversary was marked in the english press a couple of years ago (although several papers used the spelling 'nanking'). It's interesting that you should mention it as an example of an atrocity.

                              I have always considered the incident to be an remarkable example of humanity, That of John Rabe the, card-carrying German Nazi who is credited with rescuing more than 50,000 Chinese from the slaughter, at great personal risk, when he could easily have sat by and watched.

                              Perhaps it takes the worst of times, to bring out the best in us?
                              \"It got worse. He needed something to cure himself. What? he asked. M-A 19 he answered.\"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X