 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » The power of images
sycophantman
Most of the furor over the photographs of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has centered on the pornographic pictures. The disgust and horror registered by President Bush and by most Americans is mainly produced by the graphic scenes of simulated sex; stacks of naked, hooded bodies; a naked man smeared from head to toe with excrement, forced to pose for a grinning American guard.
But the role of dominant icon has been reserved for a much quieter and more modest image---the figure of a hooded Iraqi prisoner standing on a box with electrical wires attached to his outstretched hands.
Why has this image become the icon of the moment and possibly a historical marker? It's what we used to call a "Christ figure," evoking a long history of images that unite figures of torture and sacredness or divinity.
This is not the crucified or resurrected Christ, but a figure from the Passion plays, the staging of the humiliation and torture of Jesus.
Just recall the innumerable images in paintings and film, from Fra Angelico to Mel Gibson, of the mocked, blindfolded Jesus beaten and spat upon by the Jews; or the tortured king atop his pedestal, crowned with thorns by soldiers instructed to "soften him up" by the Roman governor; or finally (and most precisely) the outspread gesture of the man of sorrows, the nail holes in the wounded hands replaced in this instance by wires.
The gesture---arms spread at 4 and 8 o'clock---can signify a number of things: vulnerability, acceptance, supplication, welcome, even forgiveness. Most striking, however, is the sense of poise and equilibrium it suggests, if only for the moment of the photograph.
Put yourself in this man's place, and it's hard to imagine staying on top of that box very long. Stifled by a hood that blinds and smothers, threatened with electrocution if you fall from the pedestal, the natural reaction would be anxiety and panic. Whatever else the outstretched gesture means, then, it is the natural result of a man's attempt to maintain his balance in a difficult situation.
So it is not disgust, but something like admiration and sympathy that is evoked by this image.
The stillness, the equilibrium of the man on the box have to remind us of devotional images of Christ keeping his cool under stress, forgiving his tormentors, remaining serene and dignified despite his humiliation.
We do not know yet who the Iraqi individual was that endured this torture. ("Abuse" is a euphemism that, like "collateral damage," is becoming increasingly hard to pronounce with a straight face.) Perhaps he was a criminal, a terrorist, an insurgent, a foreign fighter or just a random individual who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, an "innocent victim" whose innocence fits perfectly with the iconic tableau into which he has been inserted.
Perhaps this sort of torture was practiced on numerous individuals (as was crucifixion) and this just happens to be the photograph of a common practice at Abu Ghraib that made its way onto the Internet. Whatever the truth about the person under the hood, his image has become the globally circulated icon of the war in Iraq.
It has been transmitted to every corner of the world; it has been reproduced in innumberable protest posters and artworks from Baghdad to Berkeley.
Origionally designed as part of the war on terrorism, photographs were taken, not just to document the torture but to enhance the shaming of victims by exposing their torment to the camera. This photo has become a weapon in the hands of those who oppose war.
It is now among the principal recruiting tools for Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups. The Abu Ghraib photographs, this one above all, have dealt a blow to the United States' mission in Iraq more deadly than any of those imaginary weapons of mass destruction attributed to Saddam Hussein.
But the photograph is more than a weapon to be mustered for one side or another in the ideological battles of the moment. It is also a device, a devotional image worthy of prolonged attention for what it tells us about this war, and its relation to morality, religion and sacrifice.
It is an uncanny revelation of the religious fantasies that haunt the war on terrorism, which is (despite the disavowals) a Holy War against Evil, a Crusade to liberate the Holy (or is it Oily) Land of the Middle East for Western Christian Free Market Democracy. It was only a matter of time before these fantasies produced an incarnate image of a real victim for us.
How did we become the Roman occupiers of the Middle East? How did we become the crucifiers of Christ? It will take contemplation of this image, and many other things besides, to figure all this out.
-W.J.T. Mitchell
The power of images
June 27, 2004 at 01:34PM View BBCode
Iraq prison abuse scandal
Most of the furor over the photographs of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has centered on the pornographic pictures. The disgust and horror registered by President Bush and by most Americans is mainly produced by the graphic scenes of simulated sex; stacks of naked, hooded bodies; a naked man smeared from head to toe with excrement, forced to pose for a grinning American guard.
But the role of dominant icon has been reserved for a much quieter and more modest image---the figure of a hooded Iraqi prisoner standing on a box with electrical wires attached to his outstretched hands.
Why has this image become the icon of the moment and possibly a historical marker? It's what we used to call a "Christ figure," evoking a long history of images that unite figures of torture and sacredness or divinity.
This is not the crucified or resurrected Christ, but a figure from the Passion plays, the staging of the humiliation and torture of Jesus.
Just recall the innumerable images in paintings and film, from Fra Angelico to Mel Gibson, of the mocked, blindfolded Jesus beaten and spat upon by the Jews; or the tortured king atop his pedestal, crowned with thorns by soldiers instructed to "soften him up" by the Roman governor; or finally (and most precisely) the outspread gesture of the man of sorrows, the nail holes in the wounded hands replaced in this instance by wires.
The gesture---arms spread at 4 and 8 o'clock---can signify a number of things: vulnerability, acceptance, supplication, welcome, even forgiveness. Most striking, however, is the sense of poise and equilibrium it suggests, if only for the moment of the photograph.
Put yourself in this man's place, and it's hard to imagine staying on top of that box very long. Stifled by a hood that blinds and smothers, threatened with electrocution if you fall from the pedestal, the natural reaction would be anxiety and panic. Whatever else the outstretched gesture means, then, it is the natural result of a man's attempt to maintain his balance in a difficult situation.
So it is not disgust, but something like admiration and sympathy that is evoked by this image.
The stillness, the equilibrium of the man on the box have to remind us of devotional images of Christ keeping his cool under stress, forgiving his tormentors, remaining serene and dignified despite his humiliation.
We do not know yet who the Iraqi individual was that endured this torture. ("Abuse" is a euphemism that, like "collateral damage," is becoming increasingly hard to pronounce with a straight face.) Perhaps he was a criminal, a terrorist, an insurgent, a foreign fighter or just a random individual who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, an "innocent victim" whose innocence fits perfectly with the iconic tableau into which he has been inserted.
Perhaps this sort of torture was practiced on numerous individuals (as was crucifixion) and this just happens to be the photograph of a common practice at Abu Ghraib that made its way onto the Internet. Whatever the truth about the person under the hood, his image has become the globally circulated icon of the war in Iraq.
It has been transmitted to every corner of the world; it has been reproduced in innumberable protest posters and artworks from Baghdad to Berkeley.
Origionally designed as part of the war on terrorism, photographs were taken, not just to document the torture but to enhance the shaming of victims by exposing their torment to the camera. This photo has become a weapon in the hands of those who oppose war.
It is now among the principal recruiting tools for Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups. The Abu Ghraib photographs, this one above all, have dealt a blow to the United States' mission in Iraq more deadly than any of those imaginary weapons of mass destruction attributed to Saddam Hussein.
But the photograph is more than a weapon to be mustered for one side or another in the ideological battles of the moment. It is also a device, a devotional image worthy of prolonged attention for what it tells us about this war, and its relation to morality, religion and sacrifice.
It is an uncanny revelation of the religious fantasies that haunt the war on terrorism, which is (despite the disavowals) a Holy War against Evil, a Crusade to liberate the Holy (or is it Oily) Land of the Middle East for Western Christian Free Market Democracy. It was only a matter of time before these fantasies produced an incarnate image of a real victim for us.
How did we become the Roman occupiers of the Middle East? How did we become the crucifiers of Christ? It will take contemplation of this image, and many other things besides, to figure all this out.
-W.J.T. Mitchell
Ignite
June 27, 2004 at 04:17PM View BBCode
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Syco?????????????????????????
Ignite
June 27, 2004 at 04:37PM View BBCode
Yeah Who Else ?`???????????????????????????????????????????????
ME
June 27, 2004 at 11:47PM View BBCode
It is a stupid anti-war article that tries to portray the prison scandal as the only thing America is doing in the Middle East.
sycophantman
Also glad to see that Bush will probably get another term if some of you guys are any indication. Way to be informed...
June 28, 2004 at 01:35AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Glad to see that you all got the point of the article...:rolleyes:
Also glad to see that Bush will probably get another term if some of you guys are any indication. Way to be informed...
sycophantman
I like to practice my typing by writing out whatever editorials I enjoy that day, figured I'd share one with you guys if I was going to type one out anyway...
June 28, 2004 at 01:36AM View BBCode
Anywho...I like to practice my typing by writing out whatever editorials I enjoy that day, figured I'd share one with you guys if I was going to type one out anyway...
sycophantman
June 28, 2004 at 01:37AM View BBCode
I guess I should confine myself to nonsensical posts for now on, wouldn't want to express anything worthwhile...:rolleyes:
sycophantman
June 28, 2004 at 01:46AM View BBCode
Yup, typed it all from a newspaper, I read three papers everyday and I like to commit to memory my favorite pieces by typing them out...
Oak_qx2
[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Oak_qx2]
June 28, 2004 at 01:51AM View BBCode
Read zero papers a day, and can't type properly. Oh well![Edited on 6-28-2004 by Oak_qx2]
sycophantman
June 28, 2004 at 02:01AM View BBCode
I'm not much a typist myself, hence the practice...
Duff77
His basic belief is that the vast majority of people completely misunderstand the War on Terror and what it means to people living in the Middle East. These people don't hate us for our values or our freedom, or even really for our religion--they hate us because of our involvement in their part of the world. They want us to abandon Israel and get out of Saudi Arabia and anywhere else American interests have taken root. They don't want to take over our country and enslave us. They want us to leave them alone.
He also says that rather than roving bands of a few militia, anti-American sentiment in the Middle East is a much deeper, socially rooted problem. Terrorist groups might be the most extreme form of public sentiment, but in general, everyone is against us. The opinion of this analyst was that if we REALLY want to win the war on terror, we have to stop pretending we can poke holes here and there and fill up the gaps with diplomacy. That, he felt, would ultimately fail.
He basically summed it up like this: The terrorists aren't going to leave us alone as long as we're financially and politically involved in the Middle East, and especially with Israel. So either we stop being involved (which he did not recommend), or we start an all-out war with Islam and settle this thing once and for all.
This is a philosophy that comes out of Regan, the Bushes, Paul Wolfowitz, Newt Gingrich, and many other neo-cons who view America as having moral superiority. On Meet the Press yesterday, Gingrich defined the war on terror as the "forces of civilization" versus the "forces of barbarism." Regan spoke of the United States as a city upon a hill, and neo-cons have clung to that ever since. They believe that the United States--and in general, "westernized states" are morally superior to other nations. As such, we have the god-given right to do absolutely anything we want anywhere in the world. If we want to have business dealings with Saudi Arabia, or any other country, we DO, and if anyone tries to stop, us we throw them back.
It's not so much the War on Terror that scares me as it is this belief in moral superiority that comes from the right. Put it together with the CIA Analyst�s interpretation of the War on Terror and you've got the crusades all over again. And hard-line religious conservatives I know often talk about the WOT in biblical terms--as being the final battle between good and evil. And if you listen to this CIA guy, that's exactly what it has to be--The West vs. Islam, once and for all, for all the marbles.
He may be making too much out of it, but I think his sentiment is worthy of consideration. I think we at least have to admit that the WOT is a hell of a lot deeper and more complex than it is often presented. We're not JUST talking about roving bands of terrorists popping out of the ground, like in "Whack a Mole." It's much deeper and more complex than that. How much deeper will shape our future. Iraq is supposed to be a shining beacon of freedom for the Middle East, but c'mon--it won't be. They don't trust us, or our intentions, and the place is a mess. Iraq will only serve to deepen the problem. And I don't think 9/11 is our day of reckoning--not yet. We've been juggling things in the Middle East for a long time, and we still are. Ultimately, we either have to defeat these "morally inferior" people or leave them alone. Dancing on the edge of war and diplomacy will only dig the hole deeper.
And the reason liberals pick on the prison scandal is simple: They're trying to remind us that we're NOT morally superior--that we're just as capable of becoming monsters as they are. They're trying to feed us a chunk of humble pie and remind us that we DON'T have a god-given right to do whatever we want. But that's a hard, hard pill to swallow--especially when they keep punching you in the face. I can't claim to say what the correct answer is, but I don't think we have it right now. And if it's all-out war with Islam, then we better weight that carefully before we do it. And since, of course, we won't (it's politically impossible), then we need to consider doing what they want us to. If we're only going to come back with half-assed measures, we're going to make things worse. We�ve gotta go for it or back off.
June 28, 2004 at 06:09AM View BBCode
I heard a couple very interesting things over the weekend. The first was the NPR interview with the anonymous "CIA Analyst" who's written a book all about stuff we're probably not supposed to know (which is always fun). They clipped the TV interview so bad on Meet the Press you didn't get the full perspective--the NPR interview was more fair...and frightening.His basic belief is that the vast majority of people completely misunderstand the War on Terror and what it means to people living in the Middle East. These people don't hate us for our values or our freedom, or even really for our religion--they hate us because of our involvement in their part of the world. They want us to abandon Israel and get out of Saudi Arabia and anywhere else American interests have taken root. They don't want to take over our country and enslave us. They want us to leave them alone.
He also says that rather than roving bands of a few militia, anti-American sentiment in the Middle East is a much deeper, socially rooted problem. Terrorist groups might be the most extreme form of public sentiment, but in general, everyone is against us. The opinion of this analyst was that if we REALLY want to win the war on terror, we have to stop pretending we can poke holes here and there and fill up the gaps with diplomacy. That, he felt, would ultimately fail.
He basically summed it up like this: The terrorists aren't going to leave us alone as long as we're financially and politically involved in the Middle East, and especially with Israel. So either we stop being involved (which he did not recommend), or we start an all-out war with Islam and settle this thing once and for all.
This is a philosophy that comes out of Regan, the Bushes, Paul Wolfowitz, Newt Gingrich, and many other neo-cons who view America as having moral superiority. On Meet the Press yesterday, Gingrich defined the war on terror as the "forces of civilization" versus the "forces of barbarism." Regan spoke of the United States as a city upon a hill, and neo-cons have clung to that ever since. They believe that the United States--and in general, "westernized states" are morally superior to other nations. As such, we have the god-given right to do absolutely anything we want anywhere in the world. If we want to have business dealings with Saudi Arabia, or any other country, we DO, and if anyone tries to stop, us we throw them back.
It's not so much the War on Terror that scares me as it is this belief in moral superiority that comes from the right. Put it together with the CIA Analyst�s interpretation of the War on Terror and you've got the crusades all over again. And hard-line religious conservatives I know often talk about the WOT in biblical terms--as being the final battle between good and evil. And if you listen to this CIA guy, that's exactly what it has to be--The West vs. Islam, once and for all, for all the marbles.
He may be making too much out of it, but I think his sentiment is worthy of consideration. I think we at least have to admit that the WOT is a hell of a lot deeper and more complex than it is often presented. We're not JUST talking about roving bands of terrorists popping out of the ground, like in "Whack a Mole." It's much deeper and more complex than that. How much deeper will shape our future. Iraq is supposed to be a shining beacon of freedom for the Middle East, but c'mon--it won't be. They don't trust us, or our intentions, and the place is a mess. Iraq will only serve to deepen the problem. And I don't think 9/11 is our day of reckoning--not yet. We've been juggling things in the Middle East for a long time, and we still are. Ultimately, we either have to defeat these "morally inferior" people or leave them alone. Dancing on the edge of war and diplomacy will only dig the hole deeper.
And the reason liberals pick on the prison scandal is simple: They're trying to remind us that we're NOT morally superior--that we're just as capable of becoming monsters as they are. They're trying to feed us a chunk of humble pie and remind us that we DON'T have a god-given right to do whatever we want. But that's a hard, hard pill to swallow--especially when they keep punching you in the face. I can't claim to say what the correct answer is, but I don't think we have it right now. And if it's all-out war with Islam, then we better weight that carefully before we do it. And since, of course, we won't (it's politically impossible), then we need to consider doing what they want us to. If we're only going to come back with half-assed measures, we're going to make things worse. We�ve gotta go for it or back off.
nextyearcubs
and women, and Iraqi civilians as well. A single picture can arouse so much hate and set our efforts in Iraq, whether you approve or disapprove, back more than we can possibly imagine. The pictures verify the stories and lies they tell about us to stir up hatred for us. When they call us monsters, these pictures prove their point. We can tell them we want to build a democratic, free Iraq, but when pictures like that come out, do you think they'll believe us?
I think the who "morally superior" idea is just plain racist garbage. We're all human in the end and are products of our environment, if people breed hate and distrust of the West from birth, what can you expect, other than hate?
The answer in the eyes of Bush and Co. is that a sucessful, flourishingly democratic Iraq, with freedom and prosperity for all (or most) will help turn the tide of that hate, and other countries will see that and overthrow their anti-West governments. I won't expound on why I think its a good idea, but it is, and if anyone really wants I'll post my thoughts as to why I feel this way. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the course of action we're under, its risky and bold, but it very well could work.
The terrorists will do anything to prevent a sucessful Iraq from ever coming to pass. They're not afraid to kill their own people, die themselves, and destroy the country, but they absolutely want a democratic Iraq to fail, creating a power vacuum that the strongest group can fill. They too can see what a sucessful, democratic Iraq will do to their interests and are utterly committed to preventing this from happening. Its gonna be a long battle, to have expected anything else would have been foolish indeed.
June 28, 2004 at 06:54AM View BBCode
I liked the piece, Syco. If you looked at it as rhetoric against the war, you totally missed the point. It was yet another example of the old saying that a picture was worth a thousand words. Things like this do cost lives, not just those of the tortured in the prisons, but those of American servicemenand women, and Iraqi civilians as well. A single picture can arouse so much hate and set our efforts in Iraq, whether you approve or disapprove, back more than we can possibly imagine. The pictures verify the stories and lies they tell about us to stir up hatred for us. When they call us monsters, these pictures prove their point. We can tell them we want to build a democratic, free Iraq, but when pictures like that come out, do you think they'll believe us?
I think the who "morally superior" idea is just plain racist garbage. We're all human in the end and are products of our environment, if people breed hate and distrust of the West from birth, what can you expect, other than hate?
The answer in the eyes of Bush and Co. is that a sucessful, flourishingly democratic Iraq, with freedom and prosperity for all (or most) will help turn the tide of that hate, and other countries will see that and overthrow their anti-West governments. I won't expound on why I think its a good idea, but it is, and if anyone really wants I'll post my thoughts as to why I feel this way. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the course of action we're under, its risky and bold, but it very well could work.
The terrorists will do anything to prevent a sucessful Iraq from ever coming to pass. They're not afraid to kill their own people, die themselves, and destroy the country, but they absolutely want a democratic Iraq to fail, creating a power vacuum that the strongest group can fill. They too can see what a sucessful, democratic Iraq will do to their interests and are utterly committed to preventing this from happening. Its gonna be a long battle, to have expected anything else would have been foolish indeed.
Duff77
I don't think that's been established AT ALL. In fact, I think that may well be the national delusion of our times--that western states can invade muslim nations and make them better than they were before. Iraq is the ultimate test case, but I don't feel good about the results at this point. Obviously it's premature to render a final verdict, but right now it looks bad.
The great question is whether or not American's can overcome their own image in the Middle East. What you call a "a successful, flourishingly democratic Iraq, with freedom and prosperity for all" may be, to them, a tyrannical American puppet government, no matter what we do. And the terrorists will be successful in making it be so, since our only possible response is brutal repression, which they can turn against us.
My point being that in the end, it may be impossible for Americans to convince Muslims that we have their interests at heart. Even if you believe the whole deal in Iraq was ONLY for the good of Iraqi's (which I don't), that CIA Analyst seems to think the ideological rift is so severe that establishing a government and bringing Iraq prosperity won't do enough to significantly change opinion of the United States in the Middle East. And if that's true, then the terrorists will keep coming.
Which is why he's advocating a much larger, broader war against Islamic countries opposed to the United States. Our current approach is bold, beautiful, inspiring, and utterly unworkable in the real world.
Of course, only time will tell. But based on the evidence so far, I consider our current course in Iraq to be overly idealistic. Not to mention I think Bush & Co. are a bunch of liars and that our true intention is to make Halliburton rich by transfering billions of dollars in taxpayer money to their corporation through no-bid contracts. I can't prove that, but that's what my gut tells me.
June 28, 2004 at 08:15AM View BBCode
Originally posted by nextyearcubs
The answer in the eyes of Bush and Co. is that a sucessful, flourishingly democratic Iraq, with freedom and prosperity for all (or most) will help turn the tide of that hate, and other countries will see that and overthrow their anti-West governments. I won't expound on why I think its a good idea, but it is, and if anyone really wants I'll post my thoughts as to why I feel this way. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the course of action we're under, its risky and bold, but it very well could work.
I don't think that's been established AT ALL. In fact, I think that may well be the national delusion of our times--that western states can invade muslim nations and make them better than they were before. Iraq is the ultimate test case, but I don't feel good about the results at this point. Obviously it's premature to render a final verdict, but right now it looks bad.
The great question is whether or not American's can overcome their own image in the Middle East. What you call a "a successful, flourishingly democratic Iraq, with freedom and prosperity for all" may be, to them, a tyrannical American puppet government, no matter what we do. And the terrorists will be successful in making it be so, since our only possible response is brutal repression, which they can turn against us.
My point being that in the end, it may be impossible for Americans to convince Muslims that we have their interests at heart. Even if you believe the whole deal in Iraq was ONLY for the good of Iraqi's (which I don't), that CIA Analyst seems to think the ideological rift is so severe that establishing a government and bringing Iraq prosperity won't do enough to significantly change opinion of the United States in the Middle East. And if that's true, then the terrorists will keep coming.
Which is why he's advocating a much larger, broader war against Islamic countries opposed to the United States. Our current approach is bold, beautiful, inspiring, and utterly unworkable in the real world.
Of course, only time will tell. But based on the evidence so far, I consider our current course in Iraq to be overly idealistic. Not to mention I think Bush & Co. are a bunch of liars and that our true intention is to make Halliburton rich by transfering billions of dollars in taxpayer money to their corporation through no-bid contracts. I can't prove that, but that's what my gut tells me.
sycophantman
Not at all, I was responding to some of the comments to the piece. I was taken aback by some of the blank stares to what I though was a very thought-provoking essay. But it really doesn't traffic in anti-Bush sentiment until the end.
"...in the end, it may be impossible for Americans to convince Muslims that we have their interests at heart. - Duff77
This is where I feel we have failed. I completely agree that it seems unlikely we will ever be able to instill a Democracy, the only hope we had was to lead by example and we failed miserably there. In the end, we can't change peoples minds and hearts through force, and the sooner that we realize this the better of we'll be as a nation.
We should look to Taiwan as an example of how Democracy can flourish where one would have no reason to expect it. I imagine that in 50 to 75 years Taiwan will be an established government and China will be a free country, and as a result, more powerful than America. With India close behind, we can hardly afford to constantly lessen ourselves in the eyes of the world. We have some great competition in the world for title of worlds' police and it isn't coming from the Middle East...
June 28, 2004 at 01:53PM View BBCode
"I liked the piece, Syco. If you looked at it as rhetoric against the war, you totally missed the point." - nextyearcubsNot at all, I was responding to some of the comments to the piece. I was taken aback by some of the blank stares to what I though was a very thought-provoking essay. But it really doesn't traffic in anti-Bush sentiment until the end.
"...in the end, it may be impossible for Americans to convince Muslims that we have their interests at heart. - Duff77
This is where I feel we have failed. I completely agree that it seems unlikely we will ever be able to instill a Democracy, the only hope we had was to lead by example and we failed miserably there. In the end, we can't change peoples minds and hearts through force, and the sooner that we realize this the better of we'll be as a nation.
We should look to Taiwan as an example of how Democracy can flourish where one would have no reason to expect it. I imagine that in 50 to 75 years Taiwan will be an established government and China will be a free country, and as a result, more powerful than America. With India close behind, we can hardly afford to constantly lessen ourselves in the eyes of the world. We have some great competition in the world for title of worlds' police and it isn't coming from the Middle East...
Unclescam777
June 28, 2004 at 01:57PM View BBCode
I'd respond but it would be long and saying virtually the same thing as Duff. Not completely the same, but close. So I'll leave with these words: "What he said!"
viketon
You Know Duff even thou I disagree with you most of the time I think you are extremely intelligent and articulate but the halliburton line is just bull shit
are you sure the war wasn't to cover up the fact that we are reverse engineering UFO's for the bigfoot people....
come on! I will except the argument that Halliburton got favors for rebuliding. but to start a war for them is a crock.
to make it simple and short this is the way i see it
In the frist gulf war we were moving towards Baghdad at the bequest of the UN we stoped and signed a peace treaty with Iraq . Much of which was ignored by Saddam Hussein. We have been at war with Iraq for the past 13 years enforcing this treaty! This was the main reason for 9/11 Bin Laden was upset that a non Muslims army was based on Muslims land even thou this army was legal and had permission from the Saudi Government and the suport of the UN.
So after 9/11 we had these choices
1. status quo (the main reason for 9/11)
2. pull are troops and abandon the peace accord with Saddam Hussein
3.Trying to Finish the war(with the possibility of losing)
Your high as a kite if you think any leader Rep/Dem at that (or this) time would chose #2 ( i don't even think Nader could do it)
as for the prison abuse and WMD's
I'm getting sick and tired of people who were always against the war using these as arguments I can understand if you were for the war and then these issues came up fine you have every right to complain and change your mind but Please if you have been against the war from the beginning lets hear what your plan was and use that as your argument. It might even change my mind .
viketon b-ducks
June 28, 2004 at 03:25PM View BBCode
Not to mention I think Bush & Co. are a bunch of liars and that our true intention is to make Halliburton rich by transfering billions of dollars in taxpayer money to their corporation through no-bid contracts. I can't prove that, but that's what my gut tells me.
You Know Duff even thou I disagree with you most of the time I think you are extremely intelligent and articulate but the halliburton line is just bull shit
are you sure the war wasn't to cover up the fact that we are reverse engineering UFO's for the bigfoot people....
come on! I will except the argument that Halliburton got favors for rebuliding. but to start a war for them is a crock.
to make it simple and short this is the way i see it
In the frist gulf war we were moving towards Baghdad at the bequest of the UN we stoped and signed a peace treaty with Iraq . Much of which was ignored by Saddam Hussein. We have been at war with Iraq for the past 13 years enforcing this treaty! This was the main reason for 9/11 Bin Laden was upset that a non Muslims army was based on Muslims land even thou this army was legal and had permission from the Saudi Government and the suport of the UN.
So after 9/11 we had these choices
1. status quo (the main reason for 9/11)
2. pull are troops and abandon the peace accord with Saddam Hussein
3.Trying to Finish the war(with the possibility of losing)
Your high as a kite if you think any leader Rep/Dem at that (or this) time would chose #2 ( i don't even think Nader could do it)
as for the prison abuse and WMD's
I'm getting sick and tired of people who were always against the war using these as arguments I can understand if you were for the war and then these issues came up fine you have every right to complain and change your mind but Please if you have been against the war from the beginning lets hear what your plan was and use that as your argument. It might even change my mind .
viketon b-ducks
Unclescam777
June 28, 2004 at 03:36PM View BBCode
you have to understand Bush's true intentions were to go to war, whether 9/11 happened or not. When he took office he had already decided to go to war, he wanted to finish what his daddy did. It was a personal grudge that turned into a national one.
viketon
maybe not about the grudge or for his daddy thing but the finishing part for sure thats what he was doing
Please understand that we have been at war with Iraq all though the 90's what did you want to do Uncle keep sanctions , pull out, What is your solution what would Gore have done I think he would have tried to take Saddam out maybe he would have done a better job maybe not.
viketon b-ducks
June 28, 2004 at 03:53PM View BBCode
I agreemaybe not about the grudge or for his daddy thing but the finishing part for sure thats what he was doing
Please understand that we have been at war with Iraq all though the 90's what did you want to do Uncle keep sanctions , pull out, What is your solution what would Gore have done I think he would have tried to take Saddam out maybe he would have done a better job maybe not.
viketon b-ducks
Unclescam777
June 28, 2004 at 05:32PM View BBCode
Honestly I think Gore would have handled it worse than Bush. I hate Bush but had Gore been in office he probably would have been the one I hated. 2000 was a very bad election year, both main candidates didn't deserve to lead this country. But don't look at me, I went around promoting Harry Brown. I just just a tad too young at the time to vote.Pages: 1 2