land of the free??

[GermanSteve]

I relate on the new gulf war:
I have heard that all the big american media like newspapers and tv concerning the war are more or less censored, or, let´s better say controlled by the government.
There was an interview with a german reporter in the US. She told that reports about protest demonstrations in the states, or the fact that certain celebrities got their invitation for the oscar award party called back (because they might tell their opinion and more about the war) do not appear in the news. She got these news from german media on the internet.
So I wonder where is the land of the free if you can only be the result of the controls of your government.

I bet the war would not have happened if you all could receive free information.

My opinion. What is yours?

[fzzy]

Interesting comments ... entirely possible that it's true, but there's no shortage of stories about antiwar protests here on the news in southern California .....and most of the talk about the Oscars and celebrities is that they are concerned that all the glitz and glamor of the evening might not be appropriate as troups are fighting ... many from southern California military bases/camps, etc.

I think that the government may try to restrict info, but I doubt the press as it is .... in the US or elsewhere in the world will allow for too much of it ... we live on the information highway afterall! :)

[horseman12]

i believe you are absolutely correct fzzy, the us media, like most other feed on scandal, and although i do believe their are things happening at the moment that we are not being told about for the most part it is to protect the troops, you do not have a surprise birthday party and call the guest of honor to let he/she know your coming.

[Deno]

From what I have seen and heard the news (in my area) is doing a really good job of only showing the protesters who are radicals and making it look like all the protesters are out there are some america hating anarcists hell bent on breaking windows and disrupting traffic. This is not true at all. A large number of the "roits" were started by fear after the police began unloading rubber bullets and swinging batons.

I, and a lot of others, do support our troops and hope they have a safe return, and totally respect them putting themselfs on the line. Very heroic of them. Hats off to them.

What I, and a lot of others, do not support is the choices made by US officials to go against UN peace keeping efforts. This was very wrong. American people should not allow their government to ruin years of worldwide building of an overall effective peace keeping group. This is what many of the protesters are trying to get across, but the news media is making them look like crazed people bent on destroying things by only selecting certain areas to focus.

You have to ask, why is it that the educated are revolting and those who educated themselfs trough TV are not?

[Tess]

Well stated, Deno. I happen to hold a different view than you do, but I am thankful that I live in a country where we can openly agree to disagree.

Regardless of the politics that lead us to this point, my thoughts are prayers are with all people who are now in harm's way.

[jseal]

GermanSteve,

I know of no country on this planet where the government can not and does not steer, direct, and yes, misdirect the fourth estate. None. Fortunately, in liberal democracies like those of the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, it is much more difficult for the government to do so than in, say, China, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq.

No one is absolutely free. You are decidedly not free to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Nor are you free to swing you fist if my face happens to be in the way. Indeed, civilized behavior dictates that you arrest you swing well before the point of impact. No news organization can be totally free without threatening the state.

Civilized people FREELY relinquish the right to initiate violence to the state. The implicit contract between the citizen and the state permits the state to exert force over its own citizens, and in extremis, over those of other states. In return, the citizens, usually through elected representatives, control the range of behaviors which the state can attempt to control.

I suspect that you are quite correct to suggest “the war would not have happened if you all could receive free information”. Can anyone think – even for a moment - that had the Iraqi people had the free information that Saddam Hussein rule them as the murderous tyrant that he has for these 24 years, that they would have failed to remove him from office while they had a chance?

[T-S]

Not seeing the news in France or Germany I wonder if they are being told their governments are against the war because of the humanitarian issues and not because they stand to lose out on the billions of $ they currently do in illegal trade with Iraq.

[jseal]

T-S,

Yes, It is one of the more entertaining features of this conflict that it is acceptable to suggest that the coalition forces are engaged in "theft". Hypocritical, but entertaining.

Is it is true that "it is all about oil"?

France, Germany, and Russia, with which Iraq has, respectively, contracts (pending due to the UN embargo) for oil development, suppliers of contraband (two German nationals were convicted, in Germany, of selling proscribed military material), and $8 billion in outstanding debt, are obviously influenced by their economic involvement to avoid war.

Interesting how these nations are willing to endanger the lives of civilians who live around and in Iraq, and at the same time claim the moral high ground.

[LixyChick]

Why is it assumed by some that this war is "all about oil"?

The United States has plenty of oil right here.....and we've other countries that we get oil from as well. We don't need their stinkin oil!

Stop with the "oil" shit! It's about a tyrant! A nut job! A man who walks in the shadow of the likes of Adolf Hitler! For all we know he has a shrine to Hitler in his bedroom. OK...that was a personal opinion.....but you get my drift.

We don't go to war for oil! That is such an absurd assumption. Next thing ya know it'll be said we are at war because of Bush's daddy! Oh, wait.....that has been said. Pfffffft! We are at war against the Iraqi leadership.......not to get their oil.....but to free the Iraqi people from a madman and his followers. I think, when all is said and done, we will have helped to find peace in a country run for entirely too long by a self serving maniac!
And we will free Iraq and the world of a "second
coming". <----Hitler reference!

*Steps off the soapbox* Whew! Sorry for the rant......

BTW Steve........I don't know about anyone else but nearly every other channel I turn to here has protestors from here and worldwide all over it. As a matter of fact........I am exhausted and amazed at just how much coverage we are privvy to. There are some things I just don't need to know! I feel like......if we know all the ins and outs......then so too does the "enemy" just by tuning into our full coverage! The media really has jumped in deep this time. I'm trying to keep a perspective and not get caught up on sides. I just had to mention my view on the need for oil.

*curtsey* I appologize for going off the original topic! *hugs*

[Vigil]

You know when something big is happening because the media don't have any new stories. If there is any doubt that the media may endanger the operation because of free access to information, we should all accept their censorship.

Public demonstrations in the UK have dwindled dramatically since the fighting started. There are those who simply oppose any form of war, there are those who are wary of American power in the world.

I am most confused by the Islamic paradox - noone seems in any doubt that Saddam is the antithesis of a good Muslim (he has murdered one million Muslims) yet they do not want him overthrown by force. Can anyone tell me why democracy doesn't take root in so many Islamic countries?

[divot109]

I have the utmost respect for the troops who are in harms way. I just have minimal respect for the government who has placed them there. This war is, to a great extent, about oil and control. With regime change, who do you think we be in control of Iraq and thus their oil supplies? The U.S. has probably engaged in more "hostile takeovers" than any other country over the past 200 years, and we continue to do so.

Hussein is a tyrrant, but you do not give a tyrrant as wealthy, powerful and influencial as Saddam the option of vacating his premises voluntarily without repercussion as Bush offered him.

What's worse is the simple fact that Bush's popularity and potential for being elected predident (remember, he was not chosen "by the people for the people" the first time around) rests almost exclusively on the outcome of this war. I promise you that even those staunch Bush supporters would quickly turn their backs if this war were not to end in our favor, or if more lives than expected are lost. Talk about hypocricy!!!

[jseal]

divot109,

“This war is, to a great extent, about oil and control. With regime change, who do you think we be in control of Iraq and thus their oil supplies?”

If the argument were that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.

If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.

Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.

While you share with many a mistrust of the current administration (based, I believe, upon a misinterpretation of the Federal election laws), surely you do not question the integrity of the Secretary of State? He was a member of the team who liberated Haiti in 1994, while Clinton occupied the Oval Office. If you believed him then, then surely you’ll believe him now.

“Hussein is a tyrrant, but you do not give a tyrrant as wealthy, powerful and influencial as Saddam the option of vacating his premises voluntarily without repercussion as Bush offered him.”

Actually, that is what happened in Haiti in 1994 (see above). Before that, when “Baby Doc” Duvalier was ousted as Haiti’s President, he retired to Paris, France, where he still lives. Idi Amin, another tyrant – but this time in an insignificant African country, Uganda, lives still in exile in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. President Bokassa (I THINK that’s the name) who was, correctly, accused of looting and pillaging Zaire, lived in exile in Morocco until his death the year before last. The last of my list, although not – by a long stretch – the last which can be on the list, would be one of ours, the Shah of Iran, who died in exile in Egypt. On balance, I think you will find that history shows us that exile is the preferred technique when dealing with displaced despots.

While it might be true that Bush’s intentions are to use this conflict to misdirect the focus of the American electorate, is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? As Tony Blair’s Labor party achieved a rather crushing victory over their Conservative opponents, you’ll need to come up with a completely different explanation as to why he has supported the United States on this issue.

[GermanSteve]

TY all for your opinions.

One strange thing of this war for me is the fact that nobody REALLY knows the reason for it... Look at this lot of discussions about it... If people really knew what is is about, there wouldn´t be so many discussions if this war is "good" or "bad" (no war is good, I know...)

[jseal]

GermanSteve,

The raison d’être for a war changes over time. The current perspective on the First World War is different from that of the combatants. The most common reason given for the Vietnam War today is probably not the same as you would have heard 30+ years ago. The proximate cause for a war is seldom gained with historical perspective.

[dicksbro]

I've often wondered if those who are opposed to the effort to dislodge the Iraqi government and destroy the weapons proscribed by the UN realize that the net effect of their opposition is to support the killing of the Iraqi people and to endorse the use of chemical and biological weapons. I say that because that's exactly what Iraq has done over the years. Sadaam has killed more Iraqi's and more muslims than anyone else over the past two decades! Hundreds of thousands. He gassed the Kurds in the north and the Iranian's during their eight year war. He's tortured his people by having prisoners stand naked in shower rooms while acid drips from above. Eventually, they die. I can't believe a government would hold the families of their people hostage and under the threat of death as a means of motivating the men to fight for the regime in power. Iraq is doing just that.

I'm at a loss to know how anyone can support the notion he should be given more and more time. SH is a cancer and delaying his surgical removal only lets it spread.

Oh, on the censorship issue. I don't think so. Censorship is PREVENTING news organizations from reporting the news. I've seen US media reporting on pros and cons of the war. Certainly our government ... and the British, and the French, and the German and the Russian, and all the others ... express their point of view ... but in the US (at least), we also hear the other side. No censorship.

And, as far as the oil argument ... I rather suspect that the major countries opposed to the war have more oil contracts with Iraq and are far more dependent on Iraqi oil than the US and have far more invested in Iraqi oil production as well.

Are these points of view being reported in Europe or in the middle east. Are Tony Blair's speechs and and reports to Parliment being covered. I hope so. It would be a shame if they're not.

I do understand people not wanting war. No one should. I just hope the war is over with soon with minimal loss of life on both sides. I hope we all come to see the day when Iraqi children are free to grow up without fear of their own government and a day when the oil and resources of the country are used for THEIR benefit and not to build palaces for a brutal dictator.

[horseman12]

we all agree that we live in a land that we are free to disagree but it is getting somewhat rediculous when people state their opinions as fact.

[jseal]

horseman12,

Most people believe that what they believe is correct.

Learning is often uncomfortable, and it is just that discomfort which often leads people to turn away from the facts. Still, we must try to see clearly and understand as best we can in order to make the fewest mistakes, no?