Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: "Beneath Iraq and a hard place"
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
Jonman
Anyone else catch this on More 4 tonight (Tues 10th Jan)? Rory Bremner program essentially cataloguing an entire list of the scandals, corruptions and pretty much unbelievable goings on in Iraq since the end of 'major combat operations'.

This is a fantastic program - it's like a British Farenheit 911, but is markedly less dramatic in it's presentation of the facts.

I really feel that if you could somehow show this program to every Republican in America, there'd be a Democrat in the White House for the next 30 years.

I strongly suggest (while in no way condoning naughty downloading in general) seeing if you can't get a copy of this program if you missed it. It's pretty eye-opening, even for those of you that follow the news fairly closely.


P.S. Couldn't decide if this should go in Issues or Media - other mods feel free to move if you fancy it.
little_bear
Hmm, it's not on any torrent sites at present. Any chance it's going to be repeated? Sounds interesting.
Mata
More 4 is superb. If I'm feeling in the mood for something interesting in the evening they often can fill the slot.

I was out at the pub quiz, but I'll keep an eye out for it. What was it called?
Calantyr
Didn't he do a similar one a couple of years back? I take it that this is a follow up?

If so, could someone find a download? I really wanna see it.
Jonman
QUOTE (Mata @ Jan 11 2006, 01:27 AM)
More 4 is superb. If I'm feeling in the mood for something interesting in the evening they often can fill the slot.

I was out at the pub quiz, but I'll keep an eye out for it. What was it called?
*


The clue's in the title.
Mata
Ah. Fair point.
Greeneyes
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Jan 11 2006, 01:35 AM)
Didn't he do a similar one a couple of years back? I take it that this is a follow up?

If so, could someone find a download? I really wanna see it.
*


I seem to recall seeing an episode of B,B&F quite a while back called "Between Iraq and a hard place". Would this be the one you are referring to? Or did they make another with a similar title? Damn good, though.
Calantyr
Yep, that's the one. I checked the Channel 4 web page and this recent one does indeed seem to be a revision of it, with all the new stuff that's happenned in the years between.

Oh Iwantiwantiwantiwantiwant.
Astarael
Sounds interesting and full of useful stuff. I'll try to see if I can watch it, but my comp sometimes refuses to play videos.
monkey_called_narth
the problem is that there is very little diffrence between the democrates and the republicans , they both get all there campainge money from large corperations in order that the canadate serve there intrests first, i.e. george w. had boeing and kerry had gm. what we need is a labor party that will represent the people rather then the two parties that represent the bourgeoisie.
Calantyr
QUOTE (monkey_called_narth @ Feb 5 2006, 06:51 PM)
the problem is that there is very little diffrence between the democrates and the republicans , they both get all there campainge money from large corperations in order that the canadate serve there intrests first, i.e. george w. had boeing and kerry had gm. what we need is a labor party that will represent the people rather then the two parties that represent the bourgeoisie.
*


Ha ha! Like that'll happen!

When all the lobbiests are bought out by corporations and interests groups there is no chance for legislation being passed to stop it. And you have a two-party system where no one but the Democrats of the GOP have a chance.

This depressing outlook was brought to you by the letter F.
monkey_called_narth
actually there is a labor party that runs for small time chairs, currently in south carolina the labor party is running a person, and "workers for a labor party" a smallish orginization im involved with is running 2 canadates with outstanding support for the school board in saint louis. mind you that none of these are very exciting but atleast they get the idea of a labor party out there and even though it is small time elections that change very little people are showing a large amount of support in both places for the "labor partys". like i said befor we need a party that represents the people and most countrys in the world have a labor party. i wouldnt say its immpossible, just a work in progress.
Astarael
That would probably be good for the American political system, but the two main parties have more money and hence more power to push through whatever they want. It could take off if more officials from labor parties are elected into more powerful positions and do enough good things that their reputation spreads and more are elected until they have more influence. Many a grassroots movement has been impressive when it's picked up speed.
EvilSpork
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1794821.php

This is what I found.
Calantyr
QUOTE (EvilSpoon @ Feb 7 2006, 12:26 AM)


I love you.

Please, have my childs.
EvilSpork
Of course, of course...

I thought it was a pretty good program. It was worth the 48 minute runtime, in my opinion.
Calantyr
It's a very powerful piece that really does throw all that has happenned into new light.

The most depressing thing is that everything that has happenned was predicted beforehand. Of course those who said it were shouted down as nay-sayers, defeatists, terrorist-lovers, etc.

How can people go along with their elected officials on such a debacle? Meh.
Mata
Because it would be 'unpatriotic' to disagree. Apparently.

Personally I think it's the other way around: you want the best for your country so you protest when the leaders are being stupid. I suspect this attitude wouldn't win me many Republican friends.
artist.unknown
QUOTE
Personally I think it's the other way around: you want the best for your country so you protest when the leaders are being stupid. I suspect this attitude wouldn't win me many Republican friends.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Former (Republican) President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

A true Republican would look at today's neo-conservative big government, deficit spending, wire-tapping party and cry.
Mata
Roosevelt was dead-on the mark there. The problem is that a party is only as good as its members, and if the modern Republicans are neo-conservatists then that is what a 'true' Republican currently is. This doesn't mean that they are living up to the spirit of their forebears, but that's unfortunately beside the point.
artist.unknown
Oh, I agree. The Republican party as it's traditionally been no longer exists. Although I don't agree with traditional Republican ideology, this new incarnation is an even more heartless conglomerate of self-serving policies. I think it's even sadder that they can't even represent themselves as they really are, instead of clinging to an image of tradition that they simply don't stand for. If some hardliners realized that the people they're blindly checking off for on the Republican ticket (and people in my grandparents' generation do that) aren't actually Republican , then people like Bush and co. might not be voted into office. That's why I agree that programs like this ought to be required viewing. But alas.
Mata
The thing about strong believers in anything is that they will dismiss anything that disagrees with their world-view. Bush is one, Osama bin Laden appears to be another, I suspect that Blair is prone to it (although he does occasionally show signs of the leader that he once appeared to be, but sadly too rarely for it to be of any consequence), the new-ish president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also seems to be in a similar camp. You could show them the best set of data in the world to demonstrate just how bloody stupid they are all being and they still would deny it.
monkey_called_narth
the problem is that republicans are seen today as always having been conservitive. the problem with that is the fact that BOTH parties were at one point in time liberal, remimber that big war... you know... the one that "created america" the REVOLUTIONARY war where "americans" fought against there LEADER. Dialectics are important. *grumbles about the backwarndess of the republicans*


my pet peave is the whole liberal - conservatve labels. there are things that diffrent people are liberal about and ideas that the same person might be conservitive about. no ones tottaly conservative or liberal. a free market economy is very much a liberal idea and thats all you here many republicans screaming about. just so people know this as well, many native american tribes were communist so that would make communism a "conservative idea".

WE NEED A WORKERS PARTY THAT REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE!


and i am tottaly off topic and spammy
Calantyr
True. The current two-party system in the USA is one of two mainly centrist ones. Left-centre, right-centre. Because both try to be as inclusive as possible it results in two MEGA parties which are really just copies of each other. One is slightly more cuddly than the other, one has slightly more cowboy hats.

I get the impression that the lib dem party is the only thing that is stopping it happenning here. Well maybe not stopping, maybe slowing the process slightly.

Why am I posting on the forums at 6 in the morning?
Mata
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Feb 13 2006, 05:52 AM)
One is slightly more cuddly than the other, one has slightly more cowboy hats.
*

When you put it like that, it's no wonder the Republicans won the last election!
artist.unknown
QUOTE
the problem with that is the fact that BOTH parties were at one point in time liberal, remimber that big war... you know... the one that "created america" the REVOLUTIONARY war where "americans" fought against there LEADER.

Um...actually, none of the original parties survive today. The two "original" political parties, which did not come into formal existance until the second president was running for office, were the so-called Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Once things settled down, the Hamiltonians were actually "conservative" in that they believed that the wealthy should control the government, as they did in Europe, among other economic structural considerations, and the Jeffersonians were "conservative" in the cowboy hat sense. It should be noted that the 55 richest men in the colonies at the time were, by a SHOCKING COINCIDENCE, the 55 men making up the Constitutional Convention. So really, although the parties have continually changed, died, and been created (any of you voted for the Bull Moose party recently?), the Big Rich Gits have been around the entire time, and that's the constant factor. Not the best interest of the citizens, but the best interests of the Big Rich Gits (with the cunning use of cowboy hats to hide the horns). [/end cynicism]
sjbbandgeek
The American Revolutionary War was not a radical movement for serious change such as the French Revolution. American people had found great wealth in thier colony, and had outgrown their parent nation. Wanting to protect their wealth was the real major motive for war.
monkey_called_narth
Not necessarily... im currently reading Marxism and the USA by Alan woods. You should check it out.

You’re putting far too much into the protection of there wealth. The stamp act was the thing that sparked the revolutionary war but there was many separate things that also helped lead into the revolution. Not all of them are money driven. The American Revolution was fairly significant, well it was significant enough to the "second American revolution" other wise known as the civil war. The civil war wasn’t entirely about freeing the slaves and uniting the nation. The semi-feudalistic semi-slave system was well out of date and eventually would have calapsed upon itself. Capitalism is a much stronger, more dependable system then the miss-matched system in the south. The south lost for more then one reason. Feudalism is a progressive step out of slavery, capitalism from feudalism, and the next progressive step is socialism. In the words of Marx " the proletariat dictatorship".

And I know that the us wasn’t founded on the two party systems it is today, but it doesn’t change the fact that many of the people who were involved with the revolution took part in the creation of these parties. Like you said, the republicans and democrats were both founded and are run by money-grubbing aristocrats
Oni Usagi
QUOTE (monkey_called_narth @ Feb 16 2006, 03:25 AM)
Not necessarily... im currently reading Marxism and the USA by Alan woods. You should check it out.

You’re putting far too much into the protection of there wealth. The stamp act was the thing that sparked the revolutionary war but there was many separate things that also helped lead into the revolution. Not all of them are money driven. The American Revolution was fairly significant, well it was significant enough to the "second American revolution" other wise known as the civil war. The civil war wasn’t entirely about freeing the slaves and uniting the nation. The semi-feudalistic semi-slave system was well out of date and eventually would have calapsed upon itself. Capitalism is a much stronger, more dependable system then the miss-matched system in the south. The south lost for more then one reason. Feudalism is a progressive step out of slavery, capitalism from feudalism, and the next progressive step is socialism. In the words of Marx " the proletariat dictatorship".

And I know that the us wasn’t founded on the two party systems it is today, but it doesn’t change the fact that many of the people who were involved with the revolution took part in the creation of these parties. Like you said, the republicans and democrats were both founded and are run by money-grubbing aristocrats
*



I have a few issues with this post. First of all America had very capitalist tendencies long before the Civil war. A good example of this for these purposes is slave traders and buyers bartering of slaves. There wasn't a set price or standard by the government, each person had to decide what the person was worth to them. This demonstrates a Free Market Economy a trait found (or at least attempted) in Capitalism.
Secondly, you are in all technicality right that America wasn't a two party system back in the day. You are however, at least technically, mistaken that it is one today. There are many other parties out there still today. While this may not be evident in the Presidency in most cases (Perot did get quite a few votes you know), It's not unheard of for so called 3rd party officials to take office in local governments.
Phyllis
QUOTE (monkey_called_narth @ Feb 15 2006, 11:25 PM)
The semi-feudalistic semi-slave system was well out of date and eventually would have calapsed upon itself. Capitalism is a much stronger, more dependable system then the miss-matched system in the south. The south lost for more then one reason. Feudalism is a progressive step out of slavery, capitalism from feudalism, and the next progressive step is socialism.
*

Sorry but...the US was never feudal. I'm not sure if you were actually implying that or not. It had vague feudal tendencies with indentured servants...but one of the reasons we have such an inadequate social welfare system in comparison to Europe is our lack of a feudal history. There was a lot of emphasis on making your own way rather than taking your place in society. It's the American Dream....the idea that anyone can come here without a dime to their name and be like Andrew Carnegie if they just work hard enough. But the happy little myth makes no mention of monetary policy or the fact that some people need to be unemployed in order for capitalism to work.

But anyway, I'm rambling. You can tell I'm taking Foundations of Social Welfare this term, can't you? >_> Capitalism was very much in effect during the time of slavery in this country. And though in the very beginning the system kind of resembled feudalism....the US has never been really feudal.

How did we get on this tangent when this thread started with talking about Iraq, anyway?
monkey_called_narth
i said the south were semi-feudal semi-slave.

i would blame the reason for our lack of social welfare system on our lack of feudalism. in the world most political systems are designed to keep the poor poorer and make sure that the rich get ritcher. sure you get the lucky few every now and then but your chances of striking it rich are about a million to one and its called.... "the lottery" even when you win the lottery your taxed on 10% of your winnings (the last time i checked).

QUOTE
I have a few issues with this post. First of all America had very capitalist tendencies long before the Civil war. A good example of this for these purposes is slave traders and buyers bartering of slaves. There wasn't a set price or standard by the government, each person had to decide what the person was worth to them. This demonstrates a Free Market Economy a trait found (or at least attempted) in Capitalism.


i never sadi they didnt have capilatist tendancys befor the civil war, im saying that the north won becasue they were capitalist. and though the south took part in capitalism it wasnt a truly capitalist state. there was in fact a set price by the government, slaves generally cost 30 shillings, some sold for higher and on "under the table deals you could by them for lower. (i belive, im not sure about the actually currency but i know that the base line was 30)


QUOTE
Secondly, you are in all technicality right that America wasn't a two party system back in the day. You are however, at least technically, mistaken that it is one today. There are many other parties out there still today. While this may not be evident in the Presidency in most cases (Perot did get quite a few votes you know), It's not unheard of for so called 3rd party officials to take office in local governments.


i fully support you on this one, however without people bing aware that the 3rd party is an option and that it is a valubal resource... youll only have the 2 main parties that will take presidancy.


this debate should be taken elswhere to finish, this tangent is getting really really off topic. sorry, i started it so the tangent is my fault.
sjbbandgeek
Meh, tangents are usually fun, especially when they turn A.P Euro class into an Uma Thurman appreciation hour.
And from what I know about Marx, he was a smart person. He was also a romantic. So keep in mind that Thesis + Antithesis= Synthesis.
Calantyr
Marx was cool. Bright little thinker and a randy bugger to boot. ("Accept the means of my production, b*tch!")

Also, according to himself, not Marxist.

All nations and peoples have had some degree of capitalism sinze the dawn of time. Especially England pre-1777 (or whenever that pesky colonial uprising happenned).

There was always a strange competition between church and state, individual freedom and feudalism, divine right and popular power. That this should be reflected in its daughter nation, the USA, during it's formulative years is not surprising.

It's interesting that the Democratic Party started in the south of the USA as a pro-confederacy/slave party. The Republicans was started in the north by the more liberal types. Now it has switched around. Maybe cemented by Lyndon Johnson in the civil rights movement?

Another case of the two-party system in the US. A party trying to be more inclusive and splitting the nation into more-or-less two camps.
sjbbandgeek
It seems to me that the North was conservative. Although they did abolish slavery, their main intentions were keeping the Union together.
That aside, the two parties have changed alot over the years, for the worse.
artist.unknown
QUOTE (monkey_called_narth @ Feb 16 2006, 08:25 AM)
The stamp act was the thing that sparked the revolutionary war but there was many separate things that also helped lead into the revolution. Not all of them are money driven.
*

Just to clear up a common misconception...no, it wasn't. The Americans were paying an average, including the stamp taxes, of $1 per year in taxes, as opposed to the $35 per year in Great Britain, despite the fact that average incomes were significantly higher in the colonies and the tax was intended to cover the costs of the war in North America. But! The colonies were not being represented in deciding to be taxed! Actually, no again. Jefferson, when sent over to negotiate with Parliament, was specifically instructed to not accept representation under any circumstances. The Taxation Without Representation gig was used to galvanize colonists into supporting the revolution. The seperation was more or less inevitable somewhere down the line, but the origins of the Revolution are pretty scummy. [/end pointless tangent]

More or less, the North was economically conservative, whereas the South was socially conservative. The first Progessives were Western, probably because they stood only to gain from social change; the West had neither economic nor political clout. The progressives and democrats joined parties eventually in order to be serious competition to the republicans. Parties change in order to survive. The Republican party is not going to change its current policies because it doesn't need to. They don't need to clean up the scandal or stop the VP from shooting people. It doesn't matter if the war in Iraq is a fiasco and $490 billion dollars are going to be wasted this year on the defense budget so we can continue to sacrifice young soldiers for a pointless cause, because people are still voting Republican. The pressure for change needs to come from outside of the party, not inside, but the democrats etc have failed to galvanize enough opposition to threaten the republican neo-cons. So nothing's going to change any time soon.
Whew. I knew I could bring this back around full circle if I tried hard enough.
monkey_called_narth
QUOTE
Thesis + Antithesis= Synthesis.


smile.gif interpenitration of opposites the main idea behind dialectical materialism smile.gif and one of the 3 main parts of marxism.

QUOTE
  Marx was cool. Bright little thinker and a randy bugger to boot. ("Accept the means of my production, b*tch!")

Also, according to himself, not Marxist.


true true... but jsut because he wasnt nessisarly a marxist doesnt mean he didnt know what he was talking about. marxism isnt so much based off of "yay marx" though we do like saying "yay marx, lenin, eangals, ect." its more of a "yay for dialetical matrialism, historical materialsim, and marxist economics"

QUOTE
The pressure for change needs to come from outside of the party, not inside, but the democrats etc have failed to galvanize enough opposition to threaten the republican neo-cons. So nothing's going to change any time soon.


we still need a workers party!!!! yay for the labor party!!
rileybloke
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Jan 11 2006, 01:35 AM) *
Didn't he do a similar one a couple of years back? I take it that this is a follow up?

If so, could someone find a download? I really wanna see it.


http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm is what you need; just repeated on More4, revised again about Aug/Sept, and heart-breaking really
Calantyr
QUOTE (rileybloke @ Nov 20 2006, 11:52 PM) *
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Jan 11 2006, 01:35 AM) *

Didn't he do a similar one a couple of years back? I take it that this is a follow up?

If so, could someone find a download? I really wanna see it.


http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm is what you need; just repeated on More4, revised again about Aug/Sept, and heart-breaking really


Old thread, but excellent link. Thanks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.