US POW video vs. Saddam Video?

[griz]

First, I could give a shit that the US put the video of out Saddam H. for the world to see after he was taken as a prisoner of war. I think it will save lives of our guys over the long haul by showing proof that he is out of action.

 

Now, with that said, I think it is a pretty funny double standard that we had a frickin' cow as a nation when the enemy showed pretty much the same thing of our POW's. Yet when it is the enemy on TV then it is perfectly fine and nobody says a thing about it?

 

Honestly, am I missing something? Is there a difference ? I could care less about violating that fucks rights but I just find the idea... interesting?

[klenke]

You're missing something.

 

I saw no footage showing us mistreating Saddam. On the other hand, the footage of our American POWs clearly showed something physical had happened to them. This would be especially true for that aviator of ours shot down in the first Gulf War. I can't remember his name, but he was the one who was made to go on TV and denounce the GHB Administration but the words were clearly not his own. Then you will remember the footage the terrorists took of reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan--the one where they killed him on film (supposedly).

 

I can't recall ever seeing footage of us mistreating people in an abusive physical sort of way save for some old Vietnam films. There may be more contemporary examples, but I can't think of any at this moment.

 

The way the footage of Saddam's capture was carried reminds me of the footage the Chinese filmed of the surveillance plane crew that had to emergency land in China after the Chinese Mig clipped the plane. Our crew was not shown to be harmed at all.

 

Politics are like horoscopes. You can read the information given and make it fit whatever you want it to fit. If you're a staunch Bush hater, you'll only see the bad things concerned with Saddam's capture. You'll only see the things that bolster you're own point of view and disregard the rest. The same is true for the Bush lovers.

 

It's just data (facts, if you will). It is the interpretation of the data (what you want the data to do for you) that is important in most people's lives. It is a rare individual indeed that can remain objective and not give in to the subjective persuasions foisted upon them (particularly on this website). Tempered thought leads to wisdom.

[griz]

Yeah, I guess I am talking more about the video of the 507th Maintenance crew than other times, for sure. They were not reading forced confessions or renouncing the west, ya know? It was none the less demeaning and we all got pretty worked up over it. Even our "objective" journalists were saying "How dare they!". The saddam video is demeaning in its own subtle way, as well... ex.- they do a lice check and show him completely grubby and unclean. If that was our president then we would be going fucking apeshit, I'm sure. I don't know, I really could care less if they dressed him in a monkey suit for the video but it's just interesting how people react to similar things so differently.

[Mtguide]

Although I don't know if it was aired as part of a video,there were newspaper photos of Saddam showing what he looked like AFTER they cleaned him up,shaved his beard,combed his hair,etc.,and those were right beside the "before" pictures of him with beard and matted hair.So I thought that was at least some attempt to show him as a human being,as well as to help verify his identity more forcefully for the benefit of the Iraqi public and to show the insurgents that yeah,we really do have your guy,fuckers.

 

Anyway,my take on it was that it was considered so important as a morale booster for our troops and their families, the anti-Saddam Iraqi public,and US public,as well as a vindication and validation of the whole campaign to the international community,that it was worth taking the risk of outcries about violations of the Geneva convention,and to just get the news out there as quickly as possible.

 

Obviously it hasn't put an end to the insurgency,but I think there's no doubt it had to discourage and dissuade at least some insurgents;hopefully it will save some lives of both soldiers and innocent civilians.And I think most important is the elimination of a huge,long term fear factor for ordinary Iraqi people.I remember during the war,columnist/war correspondent Thomas Friedman was asked what he thought it would take to convince Iraqis that Saddam was actually deposed and could no longer harm them.He said that either you'd have to capture him alive and show him in chains,with DNA and dental verification of his identity;or if he was killed,if the Iraqi people could actually see and touch his corpse and dip their hands in his blood,again with DNA/dental verification,then they MIGHT,he emphasized,might actually begin to believe that it was indeed true.But he said, in any event,after almost 3 decades of constant and brutal fear,it will probably take a long,long time,perhaps even a generation, of safety,peace and stability for the ordinary Iraqi people to feel truly free to go about their daily lives,to voice opinions or participate politically without fear of retaliation.Really,really sad.

Edited December 16, 2003 by Mtguide

[J_Fisher]

He's not just a POW, he's also a war criminal. I would guess a different set of rules would apply from those that protect ordinary uniformed soldiers.

[catbirdseat]

War Criminal? Semantics! They can just as easily label our POW's as war criminals. On nations freedom fighters are another nation's war criminals.

[Ratboy]

The mistake is thinking the insurgents are pro-Saddam. Some of them may have been, but it seems there are many more that are simply anti-American, if not just anti-occupation. I don't see an end to the insurgency in the near future at all.

[J_Fisher]

I don't think it's just semantics. There's a big difference between a uniformed combatant who's just following orders and ordering the slaughter of kurdish civilians while you hide behind a "human shield" of women and children.

[Dru]

according to the Nuremburg trials "just following orders" is not a legitimate defense

[scrambler]

I think it's somewhat absurd to place all collective blame on one person, as if killing that person will absolve all co-conspirators of culpability. It's like saying that Hitler was an evil magician who cast a spell on the German people and held them trance-like in his sway. No, there were popular elements in the culture which helped propel the man upward and maintained his status. He would also have had the help of powerful people, perhaps important members of industry who would have seen a boon in rising nationalism and militarism.

 

I would contrast Saddam of the Iraqi with the late Shah of Iran. Both were believed to have been feared immensely by their people yet we saw the popular uprising against the Shah dispose him of his position and effectively driving him from his land.

 

People power from within. Sometimes you see that breakout in the world, e.g., was it Indonesia or the Phillipines where the mass peaceful demonstrations swept the leader from power? There are other examples such as Poland and Russia(?). Seems in most cases that there has to be some organizing power such as labor unions or churches, etc. that concentrate the mass force of the people. How many people can an army kill before it revolts against its handlers?

 

An liberating army from without always has an ulterior motive, most likely installing a favorable government or as a countermeasure to a growing threat.

 

My 2 cents...

[Bronco]

War Criminal? Semantics! They can just as easily label our POW's as war criminals. On nations freedom fighters are another nation's war criminals.

 

So you're saying Saddam is not a war criminal?

[RobBob]

People power from within. Sometimes you see that breakout in the world, e.g., was it Indonesia or the Phillipines where the mass peaceful demonstrations swept the leader from power?

 

Good example of why it doesn't work/last...two very dangerous parts of the world.

[scrambler]

War Criminal? Semantics! They can just as easily label our POW's as war criminals. On nations freedom fighters are another nation's war criminals.

 

That's interesting considering that there are governments of other countries that believe that the war was illegal according to international law. This includes the declaration by Richard Pearle that he understands this breach of international accord. In that light, then the term, war criminal, can be used more widely.

 

This is a world where might is right. The weaker nations have to kowtow to the strong. Why should any nation follow the rules if he has a bigger stick? That begs a larger question, will the meek get their revenge on the tyrant nations? If the rule of law does not provide remedies for relief then will these nations seek to use terrorism, unconventional means and weapons, to exact their revenge? Is our unilateralism helping the fight against terrorism or actually turning it into a perpetual and perhaps growing problem?

 

BTW, I support the war effort in regard to the grunts on the ground but I like to point out some of the absurdities of the leaders of the current administration. People live and die by their decisions while our leaders do not have to pay a price.

[JoshK]

You're missing something.

Politics are like horoscopes. You can read the information given and make it fit whatever you want it to fit. If you're a staunch Bush hater, you'll only see the bad things concerned with Saddam's capture. You'll only see the things that bolster you're own point of view and disregard the rest. The same is true for the Bush lovers.

 

I'm a total bush hater. He is a terrible president and those of you who argue this are blind. Despite this, I think Saddam's capture is great and everything our boys did kicked ass. Bush didn't have a damn thing to do with it.

[Peter_Puget]

In the same northern Iraqi town yesterday, about 700 people rallied, chanting: "Saddam is in our hearts, Saddam is in our blood." US soldiers and Iraqi policemen shouted back: "Saddam is in our jail."

 

Link

 

PP

[Dru]

Bush did have to do with it - the troops were told if they didn't find Saddam pronto they'd be eating FAKE TURKEY EVERY DAY THIS WEEK!

[Ratboy]

[Cpt.Caveman]

It sure wasnt JoshK who ordered the troops in there. What a putz.

[lI1|1!]

yes, we have some good powder skiing video here in the u.s. what does that have to do with saddam???

[JoshK]

What does ordering the troops in there have to do with them getting on of their missions accomplished, caveman? They are busting their asses to do their job, but it doesn't mean going in there in the first place accomplished a damn thing.

 

This would be like saying a the decision to go into vietnam was justified just because we managed to kill a few high level viet-cong guys.

[allthumbs]

You don't think eliminating Saddam is an accomplishment?

 

[rr666]

eliminating saddam, that is funny. Capturing him is an accomplishment, but he is not yet eliminated.

The trial, that will be a hoot. It will be just like the one with milosovic or however you spell his name. He will be completely irreverant, looking forward to a good laugh.

[allthumbs]

whatever

[marylou]

A full-blown trial would likely incriminate a number of US officials.

 

Don't count on it.

[johnny_destiny]

You are either one of the better trollers on this site or you rode on the little school bus. DFB