Will the Nick Berg execution outrage the U.S.?

I'm glad that you have thought hard about your reasons for watching it. Your justification makes some sense. I wonder how many people did the same, and how many simply wanted to see someone's head being cut off.

I don't agree that choosing to turn away from one of the most gruesome sights in the world is the same as choosing "the bliss of ignorance". I was deeply affected by the descriptions I heard and read about the event, and that was quite enough to make me fully aware of "the reality of war". Maybe some people need to see something or experience something before they understand it, for me it's never been necessary.

 

As bad as it is,frankly Nick Berg was lucky. As a man being held by the products of a severely misogynistic culture...he was given the respect to state his name and,despite, the agonizing 4-minute death...it was alot more humane then what would have happened if it were a woman.

if it was a woman...they would have kept her gagged,raped her repeatedly,and then dismembered her slowly all on camera.

why should we care about Nick's death in a time of war and many deaths??

because..this masked bastard that was reading his speech said that there will be more of these "slaughterings".

next time it could be a woman or even a child.

this is a targetted killing. when they see our outrage over Nick's death, they will want to anger and hurt Americans and our Allies more...they will move on to more sensitive targets.This was meant to anger the US and the western world alike.


if these men arent stopped or we leave...next time...it could very well be a nice middle-aged British lady who was in Iraq replanting foliage with the rest of the "do-gooders" trying to replace what the military destroyed.

It could be a pretty 18 year old hippy girl there rebuilding houses.(and they are there...all these philanthropy groups are there rebuilding)


Nick Berg's death sends a clear message. we need to get the hell out of Iraq.

Military and civilians alike.Al-Qaeda cares nothing for anyone or anything but their fundamentalist cause and nothing is more dangerous or unstoppable then a religious zealot.

 

With one of our own in the White House, the world is saying the same thing about us.

 

Nick Berg's death sends a clear message. we need to get the hell out of Iraq.

If we cut and run now, I suspect Iraq will end up worse than it was under Saddam. One side sees this act as a clear message that we should leave. The other side sees it as a clear message that we should send more troops.

My suspicion is that if we pull out now, two things will happen. Iraq will go to pieces and terrorist attacks will become more international and less concentrated in Iraq.

On the otherhand, it's hard to see how even successfully turning Iraq into a democratic nation will fix the underlying problem, which is people being brought up on hatred, propoganda and zealotry. Many people in that part of the world are taught at a very young age that violence against innocent people and hatred are acceptable. Text books in Saudi Arabia teach that Jews drink the blood of Arabs during certain religious occasions, stuff like that.

 

You obviously know nothing about Iraqi society which was the most secular and well educated and infrastructurally advanced in the entire region (yes due to Saddam's investment in the country contrary to what US media would have everyone believe). They were also a pluralistic society and not given at all to religious zealotry.

I would strongly urge you to do some in depth research about the nation and its peoples before naively swallowing more of these sorts of sweeping and distorted generalisations.

 

Nick Berg's death sends a clear message. we need to get the hell out of Iraq.


Heh, heh. We can make Iraq an experiment in anarchy.

 

However likely the descent into civil war, better they fight each other and have only themselves to blame or cheer for whatever emerges than to remain as the foreign power dictating to them what WE will allow them to have whilst calling it "liberation".

Democracy is a evolutionary process which must be desired and embraced indigenously for it to have any legitimacy in the eyes of the populace whatsoever. To impose democracy is an utter contradiction in terms.

Let us recall that whilst other nations embroiled themselves in OUR civil war, neither the French nor the British ever attempted to oust our government and determine for us who our leaders should be.

Let us take a lesson from our own history and leave them well enough alone.

It is sufficient to simply ensure that whatever may subsequently erupt does so within the borders of Iraq, but our only moral imperitive is to end our illegal role in this mess.

 

The religous zealotry I was referring to was not specific to Iraq. I worded it badly. I was trying to refer to the region in general.

I don't see how civil war is a better alternative in Iraq. Certainly millions would die. Turkey would likely anex the Kurdish territories. Do you really think it's better if a million or two Iraqi's die at the hands of other Iraqis than if a few thousand die to coalition fighting? You must not hold value human life very highly.

I agree that we shouldn't be there in the first place, but it's too late for that. We're there. Our moral imperitive is to try to improve the country as much as possible by helping to instill as stable and non-oppresive a government as possible, by building the infrastructure, and by preserving as much human life as possible.

You said to take a lesson from history, well history would tell you that you don't remove a countries government and then just walk away.

 

The only ignorance I see here is your generalization of military men and women.

 

Um, that has been happening for a LONG time already.

ALREADY HAVE, my freind. We have only seen TEN of the more than ONE THOUSAND photos taken in those Iraqi prisons, some of them depicting MURDERS as gross and "atrocious" as this one. I don't see any difference between the way the Iraqi prisoners are treated by American soldiers and Haliburton employees and how this dude was treated by Iraqi solders. "Atrocities" are already happening. If you think, somehow, America has a higher moral ground than the Iraqis, you are seriously brainwashed.

 

Maybe I missed it, what what attrocities were Halliburton employees committing? I only knew about the ones that US Soldiers committed.

 

The direction came from CIA agents and Haliburton military contractors (mercenaries) the latter of whom have no direct accountability to congress yet bear arms in our country's name for profit (read: our tax dollars).

 

its so disturbing I think we will high tail and run..

 

There is a far BETTER OPTION than just leaving. Kucinich actually had a 10-point plan for getting out of Iraq that has been the only thing that's made sense in all of this. Basically, it would involve public apology for the invasion and request from the UN for assistance. ALL US troops would be replaced by UN peacekeeping troops, paid for by the US, as would all reconstruction. US firms would not be permitted to have contracts any longer, and the US would release any and all claims to the oil in Iraq. The UN would also supervise and hold FREE PUBLIC ELECTIONS in Iraq as soon as possible, and the IRAQIS would decide on the type of government they want.

THIS COULD WORK. Of course, don't hold your breath, since as we all know, this invasion was NEVER about what was best for Iraq. It's about controlling oil and this planet. And the US ruling elite won't give that up - not if a MILLION US soldiers have to die.

 

Willow ofcourse that sounds good on paper but what would happen to the little integrity we have left? Kucinich is never going to become prez so thats not even a logical solution. Im sorry to be so pesimistic but im just keeping things realistic

 

Kucinich's plan seems a little scary to me. The UN has an abysmal record when it comes to nation building, and given the massive amount of curruption involved with the oil-for-food program and the number of high ranking UN officials as well as member nation officials that were on Saddam's payroll, there could be a conflict of interest there.

I would also fear a scenario where, as soon as a few UN troops were killed, the UN would bail out of the country and leave it to it's own devices.

 

The UN certainly has no longer of a record of corruption than the US - and no worse of a record on "nation building." Further, admitting wrongdoing and removing the US troops would allow the US to regain SOME kind of credibility worldwide - which is important, since Bush basically has the entire PLANET despising us enough to want us all dead.

Of course, I don't expect this to happen, like I said. And really, I don't care if it does or not. I personally hope the US stays in Iraq and keeps fucking up for the whole world to see. It's the ONLY possible way that the world might rebel from American hegemony. A friend of mine pointed out months ago that things have to keep getting worse and worse for the world to wake up - the American "way of life" isn't going to save this planet - it's going to take it to hell. And maybe that has to really happen before people will stop thinking that having a bunch of plastic crap made in China is the solution to humanity's crisis.

 

"and to see soldiers taking incriminating photos, abusing iraqi prisoners and raping women is a little below the US standards (which was quite low to begin with)."

Shut the FUCK up. You dont know SHIT. No prisoners were raped or abused. The were humiluated(SP?) Get it straight dumbass.

 

ACtually Trippy there are litegations(sp) of abuse and rape. I have heard more along the lines of "forced to give oral sex.." than ass raped but wuts the difference.

 

Public apology for what? Ousting Saddam Hussein? I was not a huge supporter of the war by any means, but I think the request to make the U.S. apologize is absurd, weather you agreed with the war or not.

Bravo....maybe we can have another repeat of Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Angola, or Somalia.

Why should American firms be excluded? Many European companies have already won a lot of the bids for different business contracts, especially cell phone companies.

So if they wanted an oppressive theocracy without any regard to minority rights they should be allowed to have it?

No; the situation you described would most likely utterly fail. In addition, it would not be the best thing for Iraq or it's people.