Is this what they call Iraqi "Freedom"?

So you say that you were oppressed and suppressed and depressed under Saddam's rule? You say you couldn't talk about certain things without risking imprisonment, or torture, or worse?

Welcome to McDemocracy, Iraqis! You are free to do what you want, except protest against the US-led occupation, because then we will have to throw you in jail. But probably little to no torture! Rejoice!

www.reuters.co.uk...

"Tanks roll into Tikrit
Tue 16 December, 2003 17:51

Saddam's capture offers no quick fix

By Robin Pomeroy

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - Tanks have rolled out on to the streets of Tikrit, as a message that the U.S. army will not tolerate shows of support for Saddam Hussein in the captured president's home town.

U.S. troops forcibly broke up at least four attempted pro-Saddam demonstrations and three soldiers were wounded when a bomb went off as their Humvee patrolled the streets.

In response, around 30 American tanks and Bradley armoured vehicles rolled up Tikrit's busy main street as two helicopter gunships buzzed overhead....

...

...An hour later, a handful of military vehicles returned, one carrying the U.S.-backed regional governor Hussein al-Jaburi, while a recording of his voice boomed a warning to would-be Saddam loyalists.

"Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning."

Demonstrators risk a year in jail and, if they work for the state as civil servants or teachers, they will loose their jobs, the message said. All demonstrations are illegal in the U.S.-occupied province.

"They are not allowed to go around kissing pictures of Saddam in this city," Russell said. "It will not happen."

Afterwards, Jaburi and Russell interviewed a middle-aged man in traditional Arab clothing who they suspect of inciting demonstrations.

"Look me in the eye. Let me make something very clear," the American officer told the man over tea at the governor's office.

"If our ears and eyes see and hear you are connected with demonstrations, and anti-coalition activities you will be going to jail for a very long time."

Russell described the roll-out of tanks not as a show of force, but as a security operation and said a tough approach was needed. "We cannot hand out lollipops, it does not work," he said."

Eventually Iraqi's will have the right to protest like this all they want. I think this is more of an issue of sending support to insurgencies. The coalition doesnt want to have any show of support for groups that have been bombing our soldiers. It makes sense to me. Im not saying its right or anything, but it makes sense.

Consider your blog read.

THese guys MUST be reined in forcibly if need be. THey are BLOWING things (like US Soldiers) up, not just protesting.

P...
m...

[Edited on 12-19-2003 by Springer]

Originally posted by Jakomo
"Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning.".

How can the word "fair" be used to describe a warning that says you'll be shot at for any demonstration, including peaceful?! This is absolutely ridiculous. "The world is hell."

Banging' i believe the quote you are referring to is more tongue in cheek. They will not fire upon the crowd so to speak, but they may fire shots in the air to disperse the crowd. If it gets out of hand they will definetely use any means at their hands to control it. We have other crowd control stuff besides bullets that can be used to control these types of things.

Springer - haha, thanks.

Originally posted by Dreamz
They will not fire upon the crowd so to speak, but they may fire shots in the air to disperse the crowd.

I wouldn't be so sure, but let's hope so. There is no valid reason to "fire upon" peaceful protesters.

Originally posted by Dreamz
If it gets out of hand they will definetely use any means at their hands to control it. We have other crowd control stuff besides bullets that can be used to control these types of things.

Well, of course.

Originally posted by Springer
THey are BLOWING things (like US Soldiers) up, not just protesting.

But of course it is Springer..

As US shoved a cock up to Iraqis a55 as you invaded their nation and now occupy it.

Resistance against occupiers is just, it is every Iraqis duty..

Fulcrum, I figured you out. Your Baghdad Bob arent ya?

How whenever US news wants to show Iraqi demonstrations of 'support' for the US effort or celebration of the capture of Saddam... they show those groups taking to the streets waving RED FLAGS!

That's the Iraqi COMMUNIST PARTY long supressed by Saddam's dictatorship. Who wants to bet we let THEM vote?

Originally posted by Dreamz
Fulcrum, I figured you out. Your Baghdad Bob arent ya?

"I speak better English than this villain Bush"

How can we expect Iraqi citizens to appreciate our presence, or change their minds about hating the US occupation of their country, if we won't allow them to enjoy their freedoms of speech and expression?

No matter what you believe about the war or the opposing forces that we are still fighting, you have to accept the Iraqi people's right to protest. If you believe that we are trying to make their lives better and aid in their liberation, then how can you support their oppression? If their protests become violent then measures can be taken to stop the violence. But if they are peacefully protesting something that they believe is wrong, they have every right to speak their minds. If we really want to show Iraq that they are wrong about our intentions, we need to stop acting like replacement dictators. We need to be the bigger man, so to speak, and show them that we really do represent freedom and peace. How are they supposed to know that we do, unless we give them evidence?

Try putting yourself in their place for a change. They have been oppressed for almost half a century. They have seen more war, death, and destruction in their homeland than most of us can even conceive of (much of it due to US bombings). Imagine the world trade center attack happening every few days, all over the country. Most of their experience with Americans has been one of aggression and hatred. Iraqis are raised to hate our country, and our government. They hear the same propaganda from their government, day in and day out, as we do from ours. Then we tell them that we are going to come in, remove Saddam, and "liberate" them. How do you expect them to react? Sure they are glad to be rid of a sadistic dictator, but that doesn't mean they are going to be thankful we're there in his place.

Now tell me, if a bigger, stronger country, that we hated, decided to remove our President and take control of our country in order to free us from oppression, do you think we would appreciate their presence here? Do you think we would accept them with open arms? Even with an oppressive government, I doubt many Americans would be happy about a foreign power coming in and taking control.
The only way that the other country could possibly gain favor, would be to show us how different they are from our former government, and how much better life would be for everyone now. If they came in and started to try and beat us into accepting them, they wouldn't get very far. We would be fighting with everything we had just to get them out, and leave us alone.

We need to stop being hypocrites about what we say democracy is, and how we demonstrate it's importance. Maybe if they see us honoring and supporting their freedom of speech & expression, they will have one less reason to protest.

Here's a good article that backs up jezebel

I normally don't paste the entire article (as per the rules, hehe), but this one is too good to edit.

www.commondreams.org...

"Published on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
World Knows our Foreign Policy Better Than We Do
by Jay Bookman

Sometimes, when you catch a glimpse of yourself through the eyes of friends, the perspective is sobering.

Earlier this week, I sat down to talk with more than 20 young men and women from nations ranging from China and Nigeria to Colombia and Egypt. They work in U.S. embassies in their native countries and are traveling the United States to learn something about their new employer. For about an hour, they pelted me with questions about the American media, the American public and, most of all, American attitudes toward the rest of the world.

I can't say how much they learned from my answers; I do know that I learned an awful lot from their questions. While they seemed to have a strong attraction to this country, or at least to the idealism and hope that America offers, it was undercut by a deep frustration approaching anger.

One question in particular struck home. I wasn't taking notes, but I'll try to paraphrase it:

"We watch the American government be friends with this dictator over here and support him, because he will give you the oil or minerals or something that you want," one person stood up to say. "But then with this other dictator over there, who is not so friendly and cooperative, you will start talking about democracy just so you can get rid of him. This is so hypocritical, to use democracy this way, like a weapon. Do Americans think that the world does not understand what it is you are doing?"

Boy, now how would you answer that one? As he knew and I knew, he's right. In the past, we have used talk of democracy not as a core American principle, but to justify and disguise attacks on leaders who dare to defy us. Even the Bush administration, with its push for what the president calls a "global democratic revolution," acknowledges the history but promises that those days have ended. The short version of its new pro-democracy policy is, "This time we really mean it."

But we don't. Our discussion took place Monday. That very day, 80-year-old Heidar Aliyev, the longtime ruler of Azerbaijan, was being buried in the capital city of Baku. A former KGB general who had run Azerbaijan when it was part of the Soviet Union, Aliyev had continued his harsh rule as dictator after the country became independent in 1993. His funeral was attended by his successor as president of Azerbaijan -- his 41-year-old son, Ilham Aliyev.

The younger Aliyev had been "elected" president in October with 80 percent of the vote in an election that international observers dismissed as a sham. Afterward, street protests were brutally suppressed, opposition figures tossed in prison and opposition press muzzled. And yet, shortly after the fake election, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld arrived in Baku to congratulate Aliyev on his victory, express support and, according to Azerbaijani officials, to negotiate the stationing of thousands of U.S. troops on bases in Azerbaijan.

Why? Because Azerbaijan possesses enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, hosts a strategically critical oil pipeline and shares a border with Iran. It's a troubling echo of events that occurred 20 years ago this week, when Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad to greet a man named Saddam Hussein.

Rumsfeld's 1983 visit came mere weeks after Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran, a crime against humanity that Rumsfeld was polite enough not to mention to Saddam. In 1984, after Saddam used nerve gas against the Iranians, the United States punished Iraq by restoring full diplomatic relations. In 1988, when Saddam used poison gas against his own people, U.S. officials at first tried to shift public blame to Iran, then squashed a Senate resolution condemning Saddam. A little while later, we gave Saddam $1 billion in agricultural credits.

That history is unfamiliar to most Americans, but the rest of the world knows it all too well. They know that when we finally moved against Saddam, it was not to advance democracy or human rights, but because it suited our national interests, just as today it suits us to back a dictator such as Aliyev. They know, because they watch what we do with the same intensity that you would watch a 600-pound tiger locked in the same room with you. They watch every move, and they remember.

That explains, I think, why Americans are so often surprised when other countries express resentment, distrust and even anger at U.S. policies. We look at ourselves in the mirror and see a decent citizen of the world, strong but fair and devoted to the cause of democracy. But increasingly, even our friends look at us in dismay at our capacity for self-delusion."

so we've all decided to be pensive on this so called "iraqi freedom" ned i remind every1 who's joined in on this topic...that in fact, the bush administration didn't have to go into iraq in the first place???
on a scale from 1 to 10, how much terrorism was there in iraq?? 5
in nigeria or the congo?? 9!!!!
damnit, wake up and realize that in fact? no1 gives a toss for them eyeraqis!!

Hey here's a thought. Instead of spending 70 billion + on the war effort the states should have spent it on food and non-weapon supplies feeding all of the middle East. They even could have spread a little of that to their own who are poor and homeless. Hell, even anti-Americans would have a tough time with that one.

It keeps getting better and better.

Now they (the Bush Administration) want the Iraqi newsfeeds to be looked at by the Pentagon first because they feel there's right now too much of a focus on civilian casualties and not enough on the good stuff.

DO THESE PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE SAME CAPACITY FOR THOUGHT THAT WE DO?

www.boston.com...

"Iraq news feed draws criticism
Local broadcasters slam Pentagon plan
By Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff, 12/19/2003

News executives of most Boston television stations are decidedly unenthusiastic about a Bush administration plan to transmit news footage from Iraq for local TV outlets in an attempt to supplement media coverage from that war-torn country.

The satellite link, dubbed "C-SPAN Baghdad," is designed to put a more positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks by making it possible for press conferences, interviews with troops and dignitaries, and even footage from the field to be transmitted from Iraq for use by regional and local media outlets, according to news accounts.

"I'm kind of appalled by it. I think it's very troubling," said Charles Kravetz, vice president of news at the regional cable news outlet NECN. "I think the government has no business being in the news business."

"We have no interest in this," said WBZ-TV (Channel 4) news director Peter Brown. "The Fourth Estate is independent and should remain so. As news providers, we should go there and see for ourselves."

In Globe interviews, government officials downplayed the suggestion that this is an attempt to manage the news. Dorrance Smith, a former ABC newsman now working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said the satellite link, which has functioned for the past several weeks, is "an expansion of our ability to communicate. . . . Basically, this provides us with the ability to feed back briefing materials and the substance of what is happening in Baghdad to the Pentagon . . . on a real-time basis. It's for one or for all as opposed to the very few media who are here in Baghdad."

....

The enhanced communications system comes amid White House concern that coverage of Iraq had focused disproportionately on the casualty count while giving short shrift to efforts to rebuild the country. Kravetz acknowledged the reconstruction of Iraq has not generated the same media interest that the ongoing violence has, but considers that to be a legitimate news judgment.

"I think the administration looks at this and feels there's some sort of agenda on the part of the media here," he added. "I don't."

WHDH-TV (Channel 7) news director Ed Kosowski characterized the new Iraq feed as "part of a very concerted effort on the part of the Bush administration to get its message out unfiltered." In recent months, the White House has increasingly used local television as a vehicle for countering negative images and stories coming out of Iraq.

.....

But news directors at those stations rejected the idea of picking up Pentagon material right from Iraq. WCVB-TV news director Coleen Marren said the station is well served by the reporting resources of CNN and ABC and expressed concern at what she called "a government-sponsored television station."