Anything Concerning the Iraq conflict..

Last Updated Tue, 25 Mar 2003 6:01:16
LONDON - A second British soldier has died in combat near Basra in southern Iraq, British officials said Tuesday.

Britain's Ministry of Defence said a soldier from the chiefly Scottish First Battalion Black Watch was killed overnight near the town of Az Zubayr, close to Basra.
The minister said the soldier's family had been informed, but gave no further details.

Earlier Tuesday, officials identified the first British soldier killed in combat in Iraq as Sgt. Steven Mark Roberts, 33, of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment.

These are VERY disturbing pictures . Some of the photos are from footage already seen on TV , others purporting to show Iraqi civilian and military deaths were taken by an Arab news network , therefore we can't be certain of the circumstances of the deaths shown .

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/

electricbuford, thank you for reminding us, on both sides of the debate, the seriousness, of what is going on.

Lights, Camera, War!

As officials and correspondents assure Americans that only evil doers will be killed during "Operation Iraqi Freedom," if the pre-war sales pitch is any indication, the coverage during Gulf War II promises to be jam-packed with even more blatant propaganda. "Smart bombs" have given way to "the Mother of All Bombs" and in lieu of 15 year-olds fibbing about babies in incubators, we have the President of the United States lying about nearly everything. Anchors bray about our military power and strength (one NBC commentator even suggested that Baghdad residents must be "awed" by U.S. intelligence capabilities) while others inform Stepford citizens of their fearless leaders' emotions. The description of the White House's "upbeat mood" during preliminary shock and awe stages was only slightly more appalling than observations on the coup that put Saddam's party in power, which, like good propaganda, conveniently ignored the US' role in any of it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 35,00.html

Moreover, as Ari Fleischer mentions our 3000 dead to justify horrors unleashed (overlooking, once again, that Iraq had nothing to do with those deaths), correspondents report from a far off land where GOP and military control meld with Hollywood razzle dazzle. Even as Colin Powell was sharing fabricated evidence and pretending, for a time, to let inspections work, the U.S. military was constructing a $1.5 million media center in Qatar, designed, in part, by Hollywood set designer George Allison, the art director who adds the Orwellian ambiance to George Bush's "Corporate Responsibility" speeches.

Headed by former Bush campaign aide Jim Wilkinson, (the spokesman for the Miami-based protestors trying to stop the Florida recount during the 2000 election), the entire Qatar-based public affairs operation is responsible for overseeing 42 military public affairs officers charged with managing hundreds of international correspondents covering the war. And given veteran BBC reporter Kate Adie's report that the Pentagon has threatened to shoot down independent journalists' satellite uplink positions, it's safe to say that most of the news Americans see from Baghdad will be U.S.A. approved. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253 ... flash.html

I think while everyone is protesting the war, they should consider the facts.

Saddam has killed more than 100000 if not many many many more of his own people if what I have read is accurate......The number of civillians killed by the coalition forces will NEVER be as many as killed by Beloved Brother Saddam.......The war's motives are questionable yes....The US is a bully, but I believe they do have some good intentions besides the hunger for power and oil.

Gimme a break people....The Iraqis don't know what freedom is, but once they get it, I think they'll say it's worth it...sometimes people have to pay a price for freedom.
Don't forget, the only reason any of us are here is because someone else payed for our freedom with their lives. The least we should do is support the troops that are there fighting, even though we may not support the politics that sent them there.

But speaking out against the politics has little or nothing to do with speaking out against the troops. If you watched the 250,000 strong protest in New York last weekend you might have noticed that most of the protestors interviewed expressed support for the troops. If you read the signs in the crowd you could see that sentiment was pretty wide-spread.

I can think of nothing more disrespectful to a country's military than sending them out to fight, maybe die, for no good reason. There is no good reason for this war. Not now, not in this form.

Those facts we need to keep in mind...It's been understood for a long time that sanctions were harming the Iraqi people, not Saddam. Even with that the US has refused to even consider replacing the sanctions with something that does work.

The US has backed many dictators since the end of WWII. Saddam was one of them. Members of the Bush cabinet were instrumental in putting Saddam in power and giving him access to chemical and biological weapons.

There is no link between Saddam and 9-11 or Al Qaeda.

The weapons inspectors were slowly making process.

Saddam was not a threat to those outside his borders before the war began.

This war is wrong. It is so wrong that Bush and his oily little buddies don't like to use the word "war." They prefer to use words like "conflict."

Being against the war does not translate into lack of support for the military . I've yet to hear anyone say , " Ya know , Ol' Saddam ain't so bad " . Many of the people protesting ( myself included ) DO NOT want our soldiers to die , and will resist efforts to commit them to an unjust cause . I also don't want to see innocent Iraqis die , and believe there are much better ways to help them than the way we are going about it . In America , our military and it's leaders are supposed to be under the control of civilian leadership . It is the job of that civilian leadership to explain to THE PEOPLE the absolute necessity of commiting our forces to battle - and therefore putting their lives at risk . Our military's sole function is supposed to be to defend it's own citizens - not freeing the world from evil , unless the civilian population demands that we intervene along with the TRUE support ( moral and physical ) of MANY nations

It is not appropriate for our government to support IN ANY WAY repressive regimes ANYWHERE in the world , regardless of our " interests " . Time after time , these little frankensteins have come back to haunt us when they get uppity after we've supported them for so many years . We then have to go in with OUR troops to remove them , and sometimes our people get killed . That to me is disgraceful to our fighting people - who in most cases are the VERY best of our society . They deserve to be sent to fight in just causes in which America is DIRECTLY threatened , or attacked - nothing less . But their families are told by their son's Corrupt masters that they died for their country - damn right , they died for their country's sins . Iraq isn't the the last stop , we have alot more cleanup to do around the world . And if the recent disagreements between Bush and Blair over U.N. involvement in post war Iraq , and business contracts are any indication , the world is going to be a very different place . The U.S. would have to kill every single civilian in Baghdad to approach the numbers of innocents slain around the world due to direct and indirect American support for repressive regimes .What was our justification for supporting some of these cruel , repressive regimes ? - well they were anti - socialist and/or pro business , or just plain " In our interests " . Say what you will about Michel Moore , but he's right about the fact that the world knows what we've done around the world , even if most of us don't , and they aren't going to forget .

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/ ... 38_01.html

We really need to do something about the mainstream "press" in North America. I first read about this in either The Nation or The Guardian. Neither of those would be considered mainstream and one is based in Britain. I have heard mention of it, though no indepth coverage, on CBC Radio 1 and possibly seen a short blurb on Newsworld.

I have seen nothing on any of the American TV newscasts. I have seen nothing about it on the CTV or Global newscasts and, as I noted, CBCs coverage was light, to say the least.

This is a pretty major story. I'd put it on a par with Watergate or Iran/Contra in the US. I keep waiting for it to break, to hit the mainstream, but it never does.

I wonder if this report is true , if we will hear about it on CNN or any other mainstream news .

http://argument.independent.co.uk/comme ... ory=391165

It's the side of the war that's going largely uncovered. That isn't an accident.

yea.. All depends on where you look.. http://www.worldnews.com/

If this stuff were made mainstream, Bush and his regime would have NO support. This is proof that mainstream media is censored. Or at least in the politicians pockets.

I've been hearing on the radio and the news here in Vancouver discussions on the "collateral damage" one gentle man actually explained that it was not colateral damage but murder. I don't know how much longer he'll have a job.