US. Doctors Give Helping Hand to Iraqi Amputees: A Story They Dont Want You To Read

Well if your an inhabitant of North America or Europe and a regular viewer of mass media you have been inundated with images and stories of failure out of Iraq.

If your an inhabitant of ATS, then youve probably read nothing but vile and disgusting opinion pieces decrying the war, but rarely do you see the benefits of the Iraqi occupation.

Although it sounds almost cliche now, removing Saddam did in fact help the people of Iraq. Though it sounds nebulus there are proven instances where whole lives have been transformed by the Iraqi liberation.

The following is one such story.

Back when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, seven merchants were found guilty of using U.S. dollars instead of Iraqi dinars and were punished by having their right hands chopped off and X�s tattooed on their foreheads.

In Islamic culture, having a right hand cut off is a severe form of public shame. For Saddam's regime, sending Iraqis back into public without a hand reinforced the former dictator's harsh rule.

But for seven Iraqi men, nine years of public shame are finally over.

These men are now in Houston undergoing rehabilitation. Through plastic surgery, the black X�s are gone from their foreheads and they all now have state-of-the-art prosthetic right hands, which once again allows them to do simple things like tying their shoes.

�They all cried and had tears in their eyes when they put these on,� said David Baty, director of prosthetics at Dynamic Orthotics and Prosthetics in Houston
Each of the prosthetic hands cost between $25,000 and $50,000. For each of the Iraqis, the whole procedure and rehabilitation is worth about $150,000.

But for the Iraqi men, everything is being done for free.

Regardless of your politics you must all agree that this would have never happened without the removal of Saddam. These poor men waited nine long years for someone to help blot out their dissability, and were doing it for free. These men are just a specific example of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have had new horizons opened up by the US invasion.

In short this makes me feel justified even if its in just a small way for believing that things are changing within Iraq.

Complete Story:
Link

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Agent47]

I'm antiwar of course, but I will admit that there is good being in Iraq. While not every American soldier is a shoot-first-beat-iraquis-later stereotype, there are more of them than these kind souls. They do excellent work, but in the end it simply doesn't balance out. Too much harm is being done by the occupation.

While these stories soften my stance a tad, it does not affect the bottom line- the occupation has been a half-cocked adventure gone horribly wrong from Day 1.

DE

I said this before and say it again.

Its not the presence of the US and other country's in Iraq thats utterly wrong.

Its the pretence, method and lies that were wrong about it.

If there was a case built to portrait Saddam purely as an evil dictator that hurt his own people in many more ways, they could have gone in without any problem with the truthfull and almost devine sounding reason to liberate the iraqi people and help them.

Now they choose the path of creating a WMD problem, saying he was an active helper to al-Qaida and that there was an imminent threat of Saddam attacking neighbouring and other country's.

The means don't justify the goal, EVER. Especialy not if this could have been done a whole different way.

The Iraqi people aren't stuppid either and they DO have media coverage and what do they see? The US calling them and their goverment terrorists and a threat to the world.

If they had gone in with the pure and soul intention of liberating the Iraqi people, the Muslims oposition to the liberation would have been far less then their oposition to the invasion that happend.

A nice wartime feelgood story.

Who exactly doesn't want me to read that, and how should the story influence my opinion about an illegal foreign incursion predicated on a litany of lies by the Bush administration?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Who exactly doesn't want me to read that, and how should the story influence my opinion about an illegal foreign incursion predicated on a litany of lies by the Bush administration?

Well I would suggest that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the UN would want you to soften your position against a legitamite and justified military actions. If you want to see this justification I would suggest you run a search for "Sryian WMD" and "Syrians terrorists caught with WMD, trained in Iraq". The evidence is mounting against the cliched "wheres the WMD" and "Iraq didnt violate 1441" knee jerk responses to the war in Iraq. You can not deny that the war was started on facts, and that it is currently helping transform the daily life of millions of Iraqis for the better.

Agent, lwhile there is a lot of good beign done, there is also a lot of harm beign done. In the end, it jsut ends up being shades of grey. You can justify all you want, and I can point out abuses all over the place. In the end, I've accepted this as another human fallacy, in that the intent was probably bad but rationalized, and has both its sinners and its saints. You can point to as many of each as I can. So why argue over it?

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
So why argue over it?

I totally agree that you could use the recent Wedding Attack as a counter weight to the afformentioned story, and I think your exactly right about shades of gray. I think we argue over it because grey is far less appealing than perceived black and white. Personally I argue over facts, and there for I try to stay away from such debates as this one because it leaves to much up to emotion.

At the end of the day though I can be proud of what my country has did for these men.

Originally posted by Agent47
You can not deny that the war was started on facts, and that it is currently helping transform the daily life of millions of Iraqis for the better.

I deny the first aspect totally. The war was started on a predetermined agenda by PNAC, on fabricated evidence and lies and conjecture, and on a unilateral unsanctioned effort with declining support from a so-called "coalition of the willing" and with immense repercussions for the US economy (except for a handful of criminal cronies).

On the second point, it depends precisely on who you are in Iraq. There are always good people amongst the criminals who will make what they can from adversity. Thousands of innocents have also been turned into cinders and rotting corpses. Your statement of "transformation for the better" is rather US-centric.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I deny the first aspect totally. The war was started on a predetermined agenda by PNAC, on fabricated evidence and lies and conjecture, and on a unilateral unsanctioned effort with declining support from a so-called "coalition of the willing" and with immense repercussions for the US economy (except for a handful of criminal cronies).

And where did you get this whale of a tale? Did Mr. X leave a letter under your door, or did the trees whisper this one to you in the park? Can you prove that PNAC was the driving force behind the war? Or can you prove that a few people in power belong to PNAC. You are drawing lines between two unrelated aspects, just simple conjecture. I agree it was unsanctioned effort, but I disagree that the support is declining. So a few socialists pulled a few engineers out of Iraq (Im speaking of Spain), that doesnt write off the remaining strong troop presence nor the possible troop reinforcment out of Inida.

Once again I direct you to any thread concerning the Oil for Food Program or Iraq Shipping WMD to Syria for the real truth about what you erroneously label "conjecture."

Originally posted by Agent47

US. Doctors Give Helping Hand to Iraqi Amputees: A Story They Dont Want You To Read

What's the point? What are you saying? Or implying? Or hinting at here?

Stories/posts like this drive me nuts, especially when they are posed as some type of justification or excuse for the unnecessary BUSH war. I find them an insult to one�s intelligence and one big waste of time.

I ask the poster: What the hill are you saying?

If you are saying the American news media is deficient in its coverage and selection of news: Then I agree. Most of the reporting is crap. We don�t really have news anymore in the USA. We have �newsertainment�; almost news; conjecture and speculations; and golly let�s not leave out Screaming Heads (saw lots of them on cable during the Clinton thing).

The vast number of news media outlets in the USA is owned by 7 large multinational corporations. Self interest and self promotion is the hallmark now used in news coverage. Please do not tell me about �that liberal media bias� crap. Who has not noticed the only time you hear folks whining about that fiction is when it is a substituted as an excuse for failures of policy. (And that�s from the �take personal RESONSIBILITY folks, too) Am I the only one here to go crazy over such antics?

Let�s face some real facts my friend 47: I agree with your first assertion: Americans are a generous and caring people. It is one of the qualities that make us a great people and to be proud as a citizen. But please do not try to use that fact as some form of justification for the failed policies of the clown now occupying the WH. Over 700 pair of Moms and Dad�s have sons and daughters who have been lost in a war fought for multiple and changing justifications. What is it today: WMD? Threat to US security? Terrorists� connections? ...Oh, I remember, today you want to use the �Saddam was a bad guy.� excuse���..

Does this make the war right? Justify the cost in resources and lives spent to date?

In my considered opinion, this war is criminal and if Kerrey is elected he should allow Bush et al be extradited to The Hague to face the current charges of war crimes at the World Court. (Another story the news media has failed to report)

Yes. I agree. For the most part, the media in the US sucks.


[Edited on 23-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

Originally posted by gmcnulty
What is it today: WMD? Threat to US security? Terrorists� connections? ...Oh, I remember, today you want to use the �Saddam was a bad guy.� excuse���..

A. Learn to use the quote function.

B. Yes this is a "saddam was a bad guy" justification for the war, but it is not the justification of the day. Ive actively justified this war with data and facts showing Iraq possessed WMD, that WMD was shipped to Syria, and that terrorists then got their hands on these weapons. Your right that todays media is crap because those stories go straight under the radar. As I said to MA, there is a mounting body of evidence that proves the necessity of the Iraq war, and nullifies your knee jerk anti war responses.

Originally posted by DeusEx
I'm antiwar of course, but I will admit that there is good being in Iraq. While not every American soldier is a shoot-first-beat-iraquis-later stereotype, there are more of them than these kind souls. They do excellent work, but in the end it simply doesn't balance out. Too much harm is being done by the occupation.

While these stories soften my stance a tad, it does not affect the bottom line- the occupation has been a half-cocked adventure gone horribly wrong from Day 1.

DE

Do you really believe that? There are many more soldiers there that do actually care. It is hard though to try and help a people that turn around and try to kill you. Soldiers are rebuilding schools and hospitals and many other buildings. You are not going to see the pictures of them though. Its not exciting enought. Just think about that the next time you say that most soldiers are careless brutes.

Reply to 47..........

I agree and admit my technical skills in the use of this BBS is somewhat lacking but is no answer to the issues I posted.

Distraction along with an ad hominem reply��� I�m impressed��.NOT.

You make some outrageous claims in your section B���.do you have the citations from responsible news sources to back up your assertions? I would appreciate if you could share them with us. We might then all then learn something new.

I would love to see your data and facts Iraq possessed the WMD Bush has now admitted they did not;

That the WMD was shipped to Syria right under the noses of the US � British Air Forces monitoring or Iraq and the no-fly zone;

And that THOSE TERRORISTS (unnamed) got their hands on the WMD.

You seem to have more information then the CIA has provided to the President. How�s tha?

I would also add that you also consider the well established ethical principal, �The end never justifies the means. But disappointedly you have to end your reply with another personal attack.

Is that the best you have pal?

Originally posted by gmcnulty
You make some outrageous claims in your section B���.do you have the citations from responsible news sources to back up your assertions? I would appreciate if you could share them with us. We might then all then learn something new.
Is that the best you have pal?

I dont really have to do your research for you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The disscussion and evidence presented there runs 8 pages long and comes from real news dispatches.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Agent47]

I dont really have to do your research for you but oh well, no obs never learn.

EXCUSE ME?

You do my research? Don�t you have it all backwards? You make unsubstantiated assertions and I have to search for the proof?

I don�t think so.

Is this just a smoke screen you are foisting or is it an indication of a thought process disorder? I�ll assume the former.

As for your citation as proof for your wild claims����It does not even qualify as a secondary source. Oh it might silence some folks at a street corner BS session but this is the BIG TIME, pal���.such sources just do not cut it.

(www.abovetopsecret.com...)


You are good at distraction, avoidance, and personal attacks but lack the academic debating skills to carry and maintain an argument.

Just address one point I have made twice: Why has publicly Bush admitted that WMD does not exist while you maintain they do?

Slavish and steadfast adherence to a discredited and partisan argument is no virtue. It is indicative more of pigheaded ignorance, I think you must agree!





[Edited on 23-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

Originally posted by gmcnulty
You are good at distraction, avoidance, and personal attacks but lack the academic debating skills to carry and maintain an argument.

Im sure Im just an incompetent idiot who just managed to end up with this shiny medal for denying ignorance all by luck.

If you read the thread you might learn something.
Start using the search function of the board, try to think outside of the box instead of expecting me to baby you through pages upon pages of research as to how Iraqi WMD ended up in Syria.

You yourself provided no links also. Give me one acredited article where bush has pubilicy said "there is no WMD in iraq". I dont think that has ever happened.

Try not to be so hard on your self..........God still loves you.

As for Bush, and others admitting no WMD try www.cooperativeresearch.org...

at the Cooperative Research Project. They list a few dozen cites. I had trouble opening it and had to use the cached cite at:

216.239.41.104...:wzGT4LV99PAJ:www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcetree.jsp%3FEVENT_SOURCE_TREE_ID%3D224+bush+admits+no+wmd&hl=en



BTW I read and researched that site months ago and used it recently wondering if it was the Bush preamble to invasion of Syria...........the next place American boys will die for Bush et al.....

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by gmcnulty]