Tuesday, February 07, 2006

No Bravery

A very moving anti-war presentation set to the music of James Blunt. Warning some of the images in this 4 min movie are distressing and show the reality of war. If you are not used to seeing such Images or you are sensitive to Images of what war is really like then I would advice you NOT to watch this clip.

For those that are still with us you can watch the clip here

19 Comments:

Blogger Memento aka a moment in life said...

touching...

I 've posted it in my blog as well...

thanx guys

February 07, 2006 8:19 am  
Blogger Mea said...

Thanks for posting this. It was touching. Incredibly sad, but realistic and deep.

February 07, 2006 8:31 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

Glad to have helped memento , pass it on to as many as you can. :-)


It was a pleasure M , I am delighted I can please you occasionally although obviously the subject is not pleasing to any of us .

:-)

February 07, 2006 8:36 am  
Blogger Ken said...

I don't know what to say. I was deeply moved and I will put the link on my blog also. Thanks for showing this to me .... the world needs to know. I will also be adding your blog to my blogroll.

February 07, 2006 9:30 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

It was very, very painful. It moved me to tears.

February 07, 2006 10:01 am  
Blogger J.R. Woodward said...

Powerful clip. I don't know when we will learn that we cannot over come violence with violence, we can only overcome evil with good.

JR Woodward

February 07, 2006 10:43 am  
Blogger Left of Center said...

Interesting how this excellent little movie is getting talked about on so many blogs. I posted on it the other day myself. Love your blog.

February 07, 2006 2:45 pm  
Anonymous gerard de suresnes said...

sad :/

February 08, 2006 12:08 am  
Blogger Ihoha said...

Profound.

February 09, 2006 7:09 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i prefer to remember the images of 9-11.
if that day never happened im sure there would be no need for images like that.god bless the USA!

February 10, 2006 6:59 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq ?

Btw I am quite sure that if their is a god he would be blessing the whole world and not just the USA.

February 10, 2006 11:29 pm  
Anonymous GOD said...

I'm not in the business of blessing nations. Sorry.

February 11, 2006 1:39 am  
Blogger None333333 said...

Sorry to sound so negative, but I find this a sad manipulation of human suffering for anti-war propaganda.

How many of those bleeding kids were wounded by TERRORIST ATTACKS? How many of those kids would have ended up in plastic shredders, gassed, maimed, raped or tortured by Sadaam's Baathist cronies?

It amazes me how people can sit on their behind and boo hoo about how horrible the Iraq war is. The fact is, these poor oppressed people may actually have a chance to live in freedom like we do. Is freedom just for the privileged West? Let's remember that our country had to fight a war to get free from the British. Our country fought a long and bloody war to eradicate slavery. War is an awful bloody ordeal but sometimes that's the price you pay for freedom.

It would be great if we could all go to Iraq and help the Iraqi's rebuild but it seems like Westerners who do that end up being kidnapped by terrorists who enjoy beheading them as a public spectacle. I pray to God that the Iraq can attain enough strength and stability to ward of these goons. If an American presence is necessary for that to happen, I'm willing to support that.

February 11, 2006 9:48 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

The real question, bunny, is how many were killed in "a war of aggression" which "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme [emphasis mine] international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"? [See the Nuremburg Judgement]

Now it amazes me how people who claim to be spiritual can sit on their behind and boo hoo about people who dare to show the effects of this war that is so dear to you. (Forgive the plagiarism.)

Now, as for your claims to a war of liberation? Please. It was your government that supported the Butcher of Baghdad through his worst crimes - going so far as to increase suport for him after Halabja.

And how about liberating the poor souls living under the brutal regime of Islam Karimov? You know, the guy who boils dissenters to death and sends his army out to shoot protesters? I'd be pretty easy to make that suffering stop: just get your government to stop equipping and training his military and stop giving him diplomatic support. Mmmm, yes, but he doesn't count, does he. Nor does Saparmurat Niyazov or Teodoro Obiang, to name but two more.

And let's look at the conflicts you list:

The U.S. War of Independence. Is there some irony here I am missing? This conflict involved group of people (colonisers in an already inhabited land, actually) overthrowing a corrupt external government. Sorry, in this analogy the U.S. is too close to being Britain.

And the U.S. Civil War, an internal conflict, not an attack by a foreign country. But don't fret, things are shaping to towards civil war in Iraq (as was warned about before the war, if that is what you are pining for.

Finally, you mention the goons - the very response to the U.S. presence in Iraq. You want them to stop? You "pray to God" for them to stop? Then you'd best pressure your government to withdraw from Iraq.

February 11, 2006 3:54 pm  
Blogger None333333 said...

I find your train of thought astonishing. You think the Iraq situation is worse than Sudan? The Holocaust? Rwanda? (I could go on and on). Good God! I'm referring to the level of torture, misery and suffering inflicted on innocent people (regardless of whether the conflict was internal or the result of an outside invasion).

You totally missed the point about the Civil War. The war was the price America paid to end slavery. Freedom has a price. Would you have been 'anti-war' back then? Would you have preferred that the slaves not be liberated, if war was necessary to accomplish that goal?

I have no doubt that the US supports and has supported some very unsavory goons, including Sadaam. We were horrible to the Native Americans. I know that no one is doing anything about Sudan because it has no political value. I know the invasion of Iraq was motivated at the very highest levels by it's strategic value.

Nevertheless, here's my point Which do you prefer:

a) The Iraqi people live under Sadaam and suffer the oppression and torture inflicted by the Baathist regime.

b) The Iraqi people go through a difficult and painful period of post-war reconstruction but emerge a free people.

I choose b. What about you? Isn't it an 'ad hominem' attack to find so much to hate about America that you would rather see the Iraqi people remain under Sadaam?

February 12, 2006 6:33 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

I find your train of thought astonishing. You think the Iraq situation is worse than Sudan? The Holocaust? Rwanda?

It appear though that the democratically elected leader of the United States is not directly responsible for all those horrors . Iraq is a different story the blood of the children in this video is clearly on his hands. (which is what this thread is about)

You totally missed the point about the Civil War. The war was the price America paid to end slavery. Freedom has a price. Would you have been 'anti-war' back then? Would you have preferred that the slaves not be liberated, if war was necessary to accomplish that goal?

Backwards logic . keeping slaves was the status quo and those wishing to bring about change were the extremists so by your own logic The insurgents in Iraq are trying to end the occupation of their country by foreign forces , hence you are in strong support of their actions ?


Which do you prefer:a) The Iraqi people live under Saddam and suffer the oppression and torture inflicted by the Baathist regime.b) The Iraqi people go through a difficult and painful period of post-war reconstruction but emerge a free people.I choose b. What about you?

Why are you only assuming two possible outcomes. The weapons inspection program could have been allowed to reach its conclusion and the world may have taken some more coordinated action. Why Iraq ? why not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or any of the may barbaric regimes in the area. Democracies are only started from within as they did in your country and recently in Russia.

What right do you have to exchange one set of evil where the Shia are tortured by the Sunni , To another where the Sunni are tortured by the Shia. I would possibly have some sympathy for your argument if the US was rushing round all the rogue states of the world turning them all into democracies but this is clearly a feeble after thought by the American administration that bares little relationship to the opinion of real Iraqis in the country.

Isn't it an 'ad hominem' attack to find so much to hate about America that you would rather see the Iraqi people remain under Sadaam?

how strange. Nobody here hates America . I merely despise the sick and twisted administration of your country the two things are not the same. The crimes of Saddam speak for themselves that has nothing to do with the disregard of the United nations and the breaking of its charter, the Illegal Invasion of a sovereign country, the total lack of respect for the Geneva convention. The kidnap , the torture, the use of chemical weapons, the massacre at falluja , the targeting of Hospitals and TV stations. the use of land mines , the events at abu graab the use of depleted uranium .....

As pointed out to you before the crimes of one does not negate the crimes of the other. If you are sickened by the crimes of Saddam (as we are) then why would not all of the above sicken you equally ? Are you morals blinded by the colours of your nation state ? it seems so .

February 12, 2006 8:56 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

"I find your train of thought astonishing. You think the Iraq situation is worse than Sudan? The Holocaust? Rwanda?"

Honestly, are you trying for straw man fallacy of the month? Did I even mention them? I did, however, mention a few relevant examples that you conveniently ignored. If you are "referring to the level of torture, misery and suffering inflicted on innocent people," then the examples I gave, examples that your tax dollars aid, were perfect examples. (Unless of course you don't have a problem with boiling people to death.)

"You totally missed the point about the Civil War. The war was the price America paid to end slavery. Freedom has a price."

No, I recognised that you were presenting a flawed analogy. You were trying to compare an internal struggle for freedom with a war of aggression. Of course the leaders of aggressive campaigns always claim noble intent. It's meaningless. The measure is by action. Now, there was a chance at freedom being achieved internally in Iraq, but one particular nation did not want that to happen:

Let us not forget that at the conclusion of the 1991 war, the United States allowed Hussein's forces to use helicopter gunships to put down uprisings. In their book, Bush and Scowcroft offer a pathetic explanation for that decision (see p. 490 of "A World Transformed"), but the real reason is clear: A breakaway Kurdish state in the north and Shi'a [note: some use Shitte; not sure what AP style is] Muslim state in the south would have made it more difficult for the United States to control the region; a dictator of a unified Iraq who supports U.S. policy is much preferred. Governments that might truly represent the people are feared by U.S. policymakers, given that those people sometimes have funny ideas about who should control the resources of their lands.

US leaders, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, speak of their desire to see 'regime change' in Iraq. However, ever since 1991 US administrations have shied away from provoking fundamental change in Iraq, and have sought instead 'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein', according to Thomas Friedman, Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, writing on 7 July 1991: sanctions were there to provoke a coup to create 'the best of all worlds', a return to the days when Saddam's 'iron fist... held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia.' In March 1991 this prospect was described by Ahmed Chalabi (now leader of the Iraqi opposition group the Iraqi National Congress) as 'the worst of all possible worlds' for the Iraqi people. (Quoted in Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, 1994, p. 9)

The US commitment 'leadership change' rather than 'regime change' was demonstrated when Kurds and Shias rose against the regime in March 1991: the US granted permission to Baghdad to use helicopter gunships against the rebels, refused to release captured arms dumps to rebel forces, and refused to intervene to defend the rebellions. Richard Haass, director for Near East affairs for the US National Security Council, explained in March 1991, 'Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime.' (Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, HarperCollins 1999, p. 37) 'Washington's calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum.' (FT, 1 Feb. 2002, supplement p. III)

An officer involved in US planning says, 'Our question was, "What about the day after?" For example, do you take the Republican Guard [the military unit most loyal to Saddam] and disarm it? Or is it preferable to turn it from having a capability to protect Saddam to a capability to protect Iraq?' (New Yorker, 24 Dec. 2001, p. 63) Protect Iraq from fragmentation, that is. In Feb. 1991, large elements of the Republican Guard, including the Hammurabi Heavy Division, the most powerful single force in the Republican Guard, were boxed in near Basra, almost certainly about to be destroyed, when President Bush Sr. called a ceasefire, preserving this central pillar of the regime.


Now, in the cases you conveniently ignored, freedom has a profit not a price. If your government would stop propping up Karivmov, for example, it would mean that U.S. tax dollars would be saved and Uzbek lives would be spared horrible deaths.

"Would you have been 'anti-war' back then?"

Again, faulty analogy. A war of aggression and a struggle for freedom are not the same thing no matter how you might want them to be.

"a) The Iraqi people live under Sadaam and suffer the oppression and torture inflicted by the Baathist regime."

Try a.1) I would not have helped bring the monster "to power on a CIA train" in the first place.

or a.2) I would have allowed the Iraqi people to free themselves in 1991. All they asked for was access to captured Iraq military equipment but were denied. They might have made it anyway had the U.S. not allowed the Republican Guard to go and quell the uprising and had not allowed Iraqi forces to go in and fly their helicopters to assist in putting down the rebellion. That was a conscious decision by the U.S. not to allow the people of Iraq to be in charge of their own country.

or a.3) I would not have held Iraq under 13 years of crippling sanctions that weakened the people and strengthened the butcher. Then they could have a had a chance at real freedom - freedom with Iraqis in charge.

As for the "freedom" today, it is already too late. Forgetting for now the puppet government that was installed until non-violent Iraqi protest forced elections. Forgetting for now that the U.S. says it will occupy the country indefinitely. Forgetting for now that the democratic will of the people is to have had an end to their occupation years ago. The U.S. has already gone in and stripped the public wealth of the nation in the name of "free markets," which, when the U.S. does invoke them, always benefit U.S. corporations over the people of the country in question.

"b) The Iraqi people go through a difficult and painful period of post-war reconstruction but emerge a free people."

Yes, on a long enough time line, the U.S. will be out of Iraq. Then it will have a chance at being free provided that it does not have to endure interference from some other nation.

"Isn't it an 'ad hominem' attack to find so much to hate about America that you would rather see the Iraqi people remain under Sadaam?"

No, hence your need to spend less time at church and more studying elementary logic. I mistakenly thought that it was such a common term that you would know what it meant. Try looking up the term if you don't know what it means.

As for me 'hating' America, well, only if one take the totalitarian position that criticism of government policy equals hatred to the entire nation. Unfortunately for people who take this position, I have the tendancy to defend Americans in need, praise progressive movements in the U.S. and progressive actions by the government (not many of those these days), and have a lot of American friends.

Now here's a question for you: why won't you even say "Boo!" about your government's support now for a man who is so viscious that he has boiled several opponents to death and has had a man's hand boiled until the flesh sloughed off the bone as a form of torture? If you end that, there will be freedom for the people of Uzbekistan and it won't have a price, it will literally cut prices - millions saved on military "aid" to Karimov's regime. Then the people can achieve true freedom internally.

February 12, 2006 12:09 pm  
Blogger None333333 said...

You didn't answer my question: a or b?

Instead you attacked the United States and brought up the past.

I did look up the definition of ad hominem and you make quite a few such comments.

why won't you even say "Boo!" about your government's support now for a man who is so viscious that he has boiled several opponents to death and has had a man's hand boiled until the flesh sloughed off the bone as a form of torture? If you end that, there will be freedom for the people of Uzbekistan and it won't have a price, it will literally cut prices - millions saved on military "aid" to Karimov's regime. Then the people can achieve true freedom internally.

Probably because I've never heard of the guy.

February 13, 2006 4:25 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

I heard your false dichotomy and ignored it. And I did not attack the U.S., I attacked past policies of the U.S. Only someone with a totalitarian mind would fail to recognise this.

Next, I challenge you to point out where I have made even one ad hominem. The problem it that you still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I suggest you get T. Edward Damer's book Attcking Faulty Reasoning.

And, you've never heard of Islam Karimov? Well, you are not very well informed, but if you are sticking to the U.S. media or to right-wing websites, I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of him... until I mentioned him. And that was my point. I did mention him and you cannot even bring yourself to comment on him.

February 13, 2006 11:26 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home