Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Media Inaccuracies
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 14:59:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Real Iraq Story
Americans don’t often get the right picture out of Iraq.

By Karl Zinsmeister

How insightful is the Iraq reporting that you've been consuming? Take a little test.


If I tell you that scores of Iraqi detainees have been killed and maimed this year in Abu Ghraib prison, you may not be surprised. But you're probably guessing wrong about who hurt them. The moronic American guards who are now on trial for improperly humiliating some Iraqis caused no deaths or injuries: The many casualties in the prison were all inflicted by Iraq's guerilla terrorists.

During this spring's frenzy of reporting on the plight of detainees at Abu Ghraib, I was surprised that none of the stories mentioned what anyone who has spent time at the prison (as I have) knows is the central danger to the prisoners there. By far the gravest threats to the Iraqis in that facility are the mortars and rockets that guerillas regularly lob into the compound — knowing full well that the main victims of their indiscriminate assaults will be fellow Iraqis. One attack on April 21 of this year, for instance, killed 22 detainees and injured another 91.

The number-one priority for Arabs and Americans concerned about the rights of Iraqi detainees, therefore, ought to be eliminating the merciless assaults of the terrorist insurgents. The sexual indignities imposed by the prison's rogue guards would have to come second on any sensible list.

Shouldn't the reporting on Abu Ghraib have provided some context along those lines? Wouldn't a fuller media presentation of these facts on the ground in Iraq have given the public a better perspective on the various problems at the prison?

Or take another of the Iraq stories most loudly trumpeted in our media: the electricity shortages. You know Baghdad continues to suffer periodic blackouts — news reports remind us of that ad nauseum. Just one more example of U.S. ineffectiveness in this war: The generating system is broken and nothing gets fixed, right?

Wrong. Despite continuing efforts by guerillas to sabotage the grid, Iraq is now generating more electricity than existed in the country before the war. So why do we continue to hear about shortages? Two reasons:

First, Saddam shamelessly hogged the country's electricity in his capital, shunting 57 percent to Baghdad while the provinces were starved for juice. Today, power is distributed fairly to all population centers, and Baghdad gets 28 percent of the total. Though that means occasional shortages in privileged neighborhoods unused to such things, Iraqis as a whole are better off.

Second, Iraq is in the midst of a consumer surge. The economy will grow an estimated 60 percent this year. Iraqis, who have flocked to cell phones and imported a million cars, are also snatching up washing machines, air conditioners, and electronic devices never before available to them. A third of the country now has satellite TV. Electricity demand is thus rising even faster than the steady increases in generation.

Certainly there are problems that stem from growing electricity demand and a new fairness in distribution. But they are "nice" problems, not simple indicators of failure. Now let me ask: Has any of this been adequately explained in the Iraq reporting you've seen?


THE REST OF THE STORY
Over the last year and a quarter, America's major media have given us millions of words about the Iraq struggle, most of them accurate. Yet they've often done a poor job of communicating the big, important truths about developments in that country. The very largest, most critical truth they've missed is that the Shiite middle has stuck with us through many travails.

This was demonstrated again when the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr went on the warpath during the spring. Scads of reporters and newsroom analysts declared a general uprising, the loss of majority Shiite support, the beginning of the end for the U.S. in Iraq. "United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising," announced the lead sentence of an April 7 New York Times story written from Washington. A Newsweek headline on April 10 screamed: "THE IRAQI INTIFADA: Suddenly the insurgency is much broader and much more dangerous than anyone had imagined it could become."

These reports were wrong. Ordinary Shiites and Shia leaders alike subsequently made it clear that the mad cleric does not speak for the majority of them. They quietly plotted amongst themselves and with the Coalition to neutralize Sadr. His uprising petered out.

As someone who has recently spent three months on combat patrols with Coalition soldiers, I'll be the first to acknowledge that the U.S. is facing a hard guerilla fight in Iraq. It is, however, not a mass revolt, or a broad popular insurgency.

If you're a regular NRO reader, that's not news to you. But for many Americans, that is news. They shouldn't feel bad. The fault lies with reflexively alarmist and often incomplete reporting. Over the last 16 months I've published two books about the Iraq war based on my own experiences as an embedded reporter. In both I found it necessary to include an entire chapter about problems in media coverage I observed.

Many factors have skewed our Iraq reporting. Deadline pressure, sensationalism, and sometimes just laziness create a negative bias. The easiest reporting from a war zone is simply to point a camera at something that's on fire. A hundred counterparts that aren't in flames are "not a story."

But getting the full picture in a guerilla war requires more than just showing up for the explosions; you need to study and then describe the deeper, glacial changes taking place in society, the public temperament, the tactics of the terrorists, etc. Alas, few reporters show the appetite, endurance, or creativity for this slower style of reporting.

This bias toward failure is fanned by what Michael Barone calls the "zero defect standard" of today's media. For months, armchair journalists without the slightest understanding of what real war is like have howled that this guerilla struggle hasn't been run according to a tidy "plan." Why did we "allow" the looting? How come nobody anticipated the IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) threat? Isn't it wrong for GIs to invade people's houses?

Policy nerds and media critics imply that the transformations being attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been smoothly orchestrated like some kind of grand Super Bowl game. Of course even Super Bowls, we've learned, are subject to "wardrobe failures" and other breakdowns. But wars never proceed according to plan; they are always fought by the seat of one's pants, through constant improvisation.

On D-Day (one of the most carefully "planned" military events ever), 4,649 American soldiers were killed within just a few hours — many through what an accusatory mind could characterize as "screw-ups" (gliders and paratroopers landing in the wrong places, amphibious and landing craft unloading in water that was too deep, Air Force and Navy failures to suppress German fire on the beaches). At its recent 60th anniversary, the Normandy invasion was remembered for its high import and the majesty of its sacrifices. Yet by standards of war invoked by some contemporary media observers, those landings could be viewed as traumatic bungles.

British Labour-party leader Tony Blair recently complained that Western reporting on today's Iraq war had become "appallingly one-sided." He cited several examples of inexplicably negative and critical coverage of encouraging developments. Why, he asked, would reporters casually tar as "an American stooge" Raad Juhi, the bright, courageous, and principled Iraqi judge who signed the warrant to arrest Moqtada al Sadr for murdering a moderate fellow cleric, and who then arraigned Saddam Hussein?

Some of the antagonistic coverage is undoubtedly linked to ideological imbalances in today's press corps. A string of studies since the 1980s have shown that elite reporters vote for Democrats over Republicans, liberals over conservatives, by around ten to one. In a war that has taken on intense partisan connotations, the personal dispositions of reporters will inevitably affect the stories.

Today's war coverage is also often colored by the cultural gap that separates many reporters from soldiers. As Kate O'Beirne only half jokingly put it a couple of years ago, "You've got to remember, most journalists spent their high school years being stuffed into lockers by the kind of males who are running our military. Now they're determined to get even."

The individuals who make up our media elite didn't used to be so disconnected from military life. During World War II more than 700 Harvard men perished in combat. But in a typical class at many Ivy-level colleges today you can count on one hand the number of individuals who do military service. Most of the reporters who shape today's national news now come out of institutions where they have not a single friend or acquaintance or relative with military experience. This doesn't encourage sympathetic understanding of military work or military people.

The gulf between journalists and warriors doesn't always lead to hostility, but it regularly creates misunderstandings and ignorant claims. Editor and columnist Michael Kelly noted in a 1997 Washington Post column that "my generation of reporters" (the baby boomers) "is, in matters military...forever suffering a collective case of the vapors. At the least exposure to the most unremarkable facts of military life...we are forever shocked."


BIAS MATTERS
Does incomplete and unduly negative reporting matter in this war? It certainly matters to the public. The American people do not give our media high grades for their coverage of the Iraq war. Only 30 percent told the Pew Research Center they have a great deal of confidence "that the press is giving an accurate picture of how the war is going." Droves of viewers concerned they are being manipulated with negative imagery have migrated to alternative outlets (like Fox, the only news organization that has enjoyed clear net increases in audience and consumer trust over the last year and a half).

Many other Americans have simply tuned out or cancelled their subscriptions. In different polls, large majorities of the public now say that our news organizations are more inaccurate than accurate, and that reporters "get in the way of solving social problems" (Gallup and Princeton Survey Research). Fully 72 percent of Americans now say "the news media have too much power and influence in Washington" (Harris). As someone doing a lot of speaking on this subject, I can tell you that a substantial portion of the American public (and most of the soldiers serving in the war theaters) is dissatisfied with the last year's journalism from Iraq.

Unbalanced war reporting can have fatal effects. Any guerilla war is as much a struggle of truthful images as it is a military encounter. Unbalanced coverage can demoralize forces of good, and encourage the sowers of chaos.

Jim Marshall is a Vietnam combat veteran, a Congressman serving on the House Armed Services Committee, and a Democrat. After returning from a fact-finding trip to Iraq he had this to say: "I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes [and] not balancing this bad news with the 'rest of the story,' the progress made daily. ... The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation, and emboldens our enemy."

Tony Blair went even further in April 2004. He warned that some journalists and opinion shapers would like to see President Bush and "the power of America" defeated in Iraq. "The truth is," Blair wrote in Britain's Observer, "faced with this struggle on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back — if not half-hoping we fail — certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find."

— Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise, has just published Dawn Over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq. His previous book about the 2003 hot war is Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq.





The latest:
No-Second-Thoughts "Science" 08/04

Unreality Activists 08/04

The Real Iraq Story 08/04

Dubya Niceties 08/04

Previous Articles How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life

Peter Robinson shares Reagan's life lessons.

Buy it through NR







WFB: Day Two 08/04 10:02 a.m.

Goldberg: Rev. Whitewash 08/04 9:07 a.m.

Murdock: Hong Kong Press in Kung Fu Grip 08/04 8:55 a.m.

Murray: No-Second-Thoughts "Science" 08/04 8:53 a.m.

Malpass: Trouble with the Bubble Theory 08/04 8:53 a.m.

Seipp: Beyond the Valley of the Bush-Bashers 08/04 8:52 a.m.

Kudlow: A Recession to Remember 08/04 8:50 a.m.

Mac Donald: Unreality Activists 08/04 8:50 a.m.

Zinsmeister: The Real Iraq Story 08/04 8:49 a.m.

Cline: Dubya Niceties 08/04 8:42 a.m.

Coffin: The Ties that Bind the Senate (in Knots) 08/04 8:40 a.m.

York: What Would Kerry Say? 08/03 2:09 p.m.

Kmiec: Presidential Pryorities 08/03 11:40 a.m.

Nordlinger: The Joy of Tokenism 08/03 9:49 a.m.

Looking
for a story?
Click here




The Real Iraq Story
Americans don’t often get the right picture out of Iraq.

By Karl Zinsmeister

How insightful is the Iraq reporting that you've been consuming? Take a little test.


If I tell you that scores of Iraqi detainees have been killed and maimed this year in Abu Ghraib prison, you may not be surprised. But you're probably guessing wrong about who hurt them. The moronic American guards who are now on trial for improperly humiliating some Iraqis caused no deaths or injuries: The many casualties in the prison were all inflicted by Iraq's guerilla terrorists.

During this spring's frenzy of reporting on the plight of detainees at Abu Ghraib, I was surprised that none of the stories mentioned what anyone who has spent time at the prison (as I have) knows is the central danger to the prisoners there. By far the gravest threats to the Iraqis in that facility are the mortars and rockets that guerillas regularly lob into the compound — knowing full well that the main victims of their indiscriminate assaults will be fellow Iraqis. One attack on April 21 of this year, for instance, killed 22 detainees and injured another 91.

The number-one priority for Arabs and Americans concerned about the rights of Iraqi detainees, therefore, ought to be eliminating the merciless assaults of the terrorist insurgents. The sexual indignities imposed by the prison's rogue guards would have to come second on any sensible list.

Shouldn't the reporting on Abu Ghraib have provided some context along those lines? Wouldn't a fuller media presentation of these facts on the ground in Iraq have given the public a better perspective on the various problems at the prison?

Or take another of the Iraq stories most loudly trumpeted in our media: the electricity shortages. You know Baghdad continues to suffer periodic blackouts — news reports remind us of that ad nauseum. Just one more example of U.S. ineffectiveness in this war: The generating system is broken and nothing gets fixed, right?

Wrong. Despite continuing efforts by guerillas to sabotage the grid, Iraq is now generating more electricity than existed in the country before the war. So why do we continue to hear about shortages? Two reasons:

First, Saddam shamelessly hogged the country's electricity in his capital, shunting 57 percent to Baghdad while the provinces were starved for juice. Today, power is distributed fairly to all population centers, and Baghdad gets 28 percent of the total. Though that means occasional shortages in privileged neighborhoods unused to such things, Iraqis as a whole are better off.

Second, Iraq is in the midst of a consumer surge. The economy will grow an estimated 60 percent this year. Iraqis, who have flocked to cell phones and imported a million cars, are also snatching up washing machines, air conditioners, and electronic devices never before available to them. A third of the country now has satellite TV. Electricity demand is thus rising even faster than the steady increases in generation.

Certainly there are problems that stem from growing electricity demand and a new fairness in distribution. But they are "nice" problems, not simple indicators of failure. Now let me ask: Has any of this been adequately explained in the Iraq reporting you've seen?


THE REST OF THE STORY
Over the last year and a quarter, America's major media have given us millions of words about the Iraq struggle, most of them accurate. Yet they've often done a poor job of communicating the big, important truths about developments in that country. The very largest, most critical truth they've missed is that the Shiite middle has stuck with us through many travails.

This was demonstrated again when the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr went on the warpath during the spring. Scads of reporters and newsroom analysts declared a general uprising, the loss of majority Shiite support, the beginning of the end for the U.S. in Iraq. "United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising," announced the lead sentence of an April 7 New York Times story written from Washington. A Newsweek headline on April 10 screamed: "THE IRAQI INTIFADA: Suddenly the insurgency is much broader and much more dangerous than anyone had imagined it could become."

These reports were wrong. Ordinary Shiites and Shia leaders alike subsequently made it clear that the mad cleric does not speak for the majority of them. They quietly plotted amongst themselves and with the Coalition to neutralize Sadr. His uprising petered out.

As someone who has recently spent three months on combat patrols with Coalition soldiers, I'll be the first to acknowledge that the U.S. is facing a hard guerilla fight in Iraq. It is, however, not a mass revolt, or a broad popular insurgency.

If you're a regular NRO reader, that's not news to you. But for many Americans, that is news. They shouldn't feel bad. The fault lies with reflexively alarmist and often incomplete reporting. Over the last 16 months I've published two books about the Iraq war based on my own experiences as an embedded reporter. In both I found it necessary to include an entire chapter about problems in media coverage I observed.

Many factors have skewed our Iraq reporting. Deadline pressure, sensationalism, and sometimes just laziness create a negative bias. The easiest reporting from a war zone is simply to point a camera at something that's on fire. A hundred counterparts that aren't in flames are "not a story."

But getting the full picture in a guerilla war requires more than just showing up for the explosions; you need to study and then describe the deeper, glacial changes taking place in society, the public temperament, the tactics of the terrorists, etc. Alas, few reporters show the appetite, endurance, or creativity for this slower style of reporting.

This bias toward failure is fanned by what Michael Barone calls the "zero defect standard" of today's media. For months, armchair journalists without the slightest understanding of what real war is like have howled that this guerilla struggle hasn't been run according to a tidy "plan." Why did we "allow" the looting? How come nobody anticipated the IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) threat? Isn't it wrong for GIs to invade people's houses?

Policy nerds and media critics imply that the transformations being attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been smoothly orchestrated like some kind of grand Super Bowl game. Of course even Super Bowls, we've learned, are subject to "wardrobe failures" and other breakdowns. But wars never proceed according to plan; they are always fought by the seat of one's pants, through constant improvisation.

On D-Day (one of the most carefully "planned" military events ever), 4,649 American soldiers were killed within just a few hours — many through what an accusatory mind could characterize as "screw-ups" (gliders and paratroopers landing in the wrong places, amphibious and landing craft unloading in water that was too deep, Air Force and Navy failures to suppress German fire on the beaches). At its recent 60th anniversary, the Normandy invasion was remembered for its high import and the majesty of its sacrifices. Yet by standards of war invoked by some contemporary media observers, those landings could be viewed as traumatic bungles.

British Labour-party leader Tony Blair recently complained that Western reporting on today's Iraq war had become "appallingly one-sided." He cited several examples of inexplicably negative and critical coverage of encouraging developments. Why, he asked, would reporters casually tar as "an American stooge" Raad Juhi, the bright, courageous, and principled Iraqi judge who signed the warrant to arrest Moqtada al Sadr for murdering a moderate fellow cleric, and who then arraigned Saddam Hussein?

Some of the antagonistic coverage is undoubtedly linked to ideological imbalances in today's press corps. A string of studies since the 1980s have shown that elite reporters vote for Democrats over Republicans, liberals over conservatives, by around ten to one. In a war that has taken on intense partisan connotations, the personal dispositions of reporters will inevitably affect the stories.

Today's war coverage is also often colored by the cultural gap that separates many reporters from soldiers. As Kate O'Beirne only half jokingly put it a couple of years ago, "You've got to remember, most journalists spent their high school years being stuffed into lockers by the kind of males who are running our military. Now they're determined to get even."

The individuals who make up our media elite didn't used to be so disconnected from military life. During World War II more than 700 Harvard men perished in combat. But in a typical class at many Ivy-level colleges today you can count on one hand the number of individuals who do military service. Most of the reporters who shape today's national news now come out of institutions where they have not a single friend or acquaintance or relative with military experience. This doesn't encourage sympathetic understanding of military work or military people.

The gulf between journalists and warriors doesn't always lead to hostility, but it regularly creates misunderstandings and ignorant claims. Editor and columnist Michael Kelly noted in a 1997 Washington Post column that "my generation of reporters" (the baby boomers) "is, in matters military...forever suffering a collective case of the vapors. At the least exposure to the most unremarkable facts of military life...we are forever shocked."


BIAS MATTERS
Does incomplete and unduly negative reporting matter in this war? It certainly matters to the public. The American people do not give our media high grades for their coverage of the Iraq war. Only 30 percent told the Pew Research Center they have a great deal of confidence "that the press is giving an accurate picture of how the war is going." Droves of viewers concerned they are being manipulated with negative imagery have migrated to alternative outlets (like Fox, the only news organization that has enjoyed clear net increases in audience and consumer trust over the last year and a half).

Many other Americans have simply tuned out or cancelled their subscriptions. In different polls, large majorities of the public now say that our news organizations are more inaccurate than accurate, and that reporters "get in the way of solving social problems" (Gallup and Princeton Survey Research). Fully 72 percent of Americans now say "the news media have too much power and influence in Washington" (Harris). As someone doing a lot of speaking on this subject, I can tell you that a substantial portion of the American public (and most of the soldiers serving in the war theaters) is dissatisfied with the last year's journalism from Iraq.

Unbalanced war reporting can have fatal effects. Any guerilla war is as much a struggle of truthful images as it is a military encounter. Unbalanced coverage can demoralize forces of good, and encourage the sowers of chaos.

Jim Marshall is a Vietnam combat veteran, a Congressman serving on the House Armed Services Committee, and a Democrat. After returning from a fact-finding trip to Iraq he had this to say: "I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes [and] not balancing this bad news with the 'rest of the story,' the progress made daily. ... The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation, and emboldens our enemy."

Tony Blair went even further in April 2004. He warned that some journalists and opinion shapers would like to see President Bush and "the power of America" defeated in Iraq. "The truth is," Blair wrote in Britain's Observer, "faced with this struggle on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back — if not half-hoping we fail — certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find."

— Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise, has just published Dawn Over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq. His previous book about the 2003 hot war is Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq.



 
erikagm Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:03:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Way too long, and I've got a monster headache coming from a confrontation with my lunatic ex gf...

But just for old arguments' sake, I totally disagree hif... LOL


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:09:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:20:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)

that's nothing new...americans kill americans all the time, english kill english etc etc

maybe they think that the iraqis they are killing are helping the "infidel" and therefore deserve to die. or perhaps they feel these losses of civilian life are acceptable casualties in their battle. or maybe they are just power hungry savages who don't give a damn...


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:21:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  and it's not as long as it first appears...it's merely the same story copied twice :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:23:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>and it's not as long as it first appears...it's merely the same story copied twice :)
>
OOPS sorry bout that, must be out of practice with my posting skills.
guess i'm due for a cyber-flogging.
any volunteers ?



 
breeze Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:23:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Never trusted the media anyway, they are never objective enough and never give the full story. Especially the media here in the states. In my country I at least knew that government censored the media so I didn't trust it anyway, here the problem is that people either don't care about the subject or they actually think that the coverage they get is pretty good..

Thanks for the article! I will be able to use it for my essay on American Media and its influence American POlitical Opinion...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:24:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)
>
very few of the insurgents are Iraqis.
Most of them are Iranians and Syrians with a few Saudis and others.
The only Iraqis left fighting are leftover Baathist that really don't care who they kill.


 
breeze Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:28:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>maybe they think that the iraqis they are killing are helping the "infidel" and therefore deserve to die. or perhaps they feel these losses of civilian life are acceptable casualties in their battle. or maybe they are just power hungry savages who don't give a damn...

They also believe that it's jihad against "infidel", which means anybody who is muslim and dies for its cause will go straight to heaven anyway.. so maybe this is why they don't think twice before bombing their own people.


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Aug 4 15:51:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Saddamn Hussein likes the motor city.




 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Aug 4 18:14:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)
>>
>very few of the insurgents are Iraqis.
>Most of them are Iranians and Syrians with a few Saudis and others.
>The only Iraqis left fighting are leftover Baathist that really don't care who they kill.

that's nice of you to claim this, but at least addressing it in the article would be the least the author could do to create some sort of feeling of factual evidance.

maybe i'll read the rest later, doubt it though.


 
FN Posted: Wed Aug 4 18:29:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ah, at last another political thread.

Just came back from a debate with 2 very interesting family members who would fit in on GT I'm sure :o)

Anyway, I'll check it out and reply to it tomorrow, I've had it for today :o)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 19:16:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>that's nice of you to claim this, but at least addressing it in the article would be the least the author could do to create some sort of feeling of factual evidance.
>
Well, it is pretty much common knowledge.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Wed Aug 4 19:31:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Common knowledge is skewed.

As for politics, my current stance on the War on Iraq and Bush follows:

I'm American. And yeah, I do like America in a way. I like how Wendy's has a dollar menu, and I like my sweaters, and I like how I'm luckier than a good numer of kids my age halfway around the world. And I do like this country. After all, my family is here, and I was born here, so it's a tad inherent that I like the country. Anyway- I am fairly patriotic. The same way I like my high school... semi-school-spirited. But back to the schpeel.

The War on Iraq has to be one of the most badly botched things in history. For one, several Americans have no CLEAR idea what America's Aims of the War were. For those that don't know, they were to find nuclear weapons (which hasn't happened, I don't believe. Find me an article or something if it has). And even if that HAS happened, an aim of the war (at least the aims that were presented at the beginning) was NEVER to find Hussein and lock him up. I know there was that undertone- but if Bush wanted to get rid of Hussein, why didn't he just say so from the beginning instead of kinda keeping it as a side agenda?? Does that seem bad to anyone else??

Also, what's up with Bush having gone to Harvard and not knowing the things he... doesn't... know.

"War is peace." - George Bush. Uhhh, no, it's not. War is War and Peace is Peace. Don't confuse the two. War might be made (at least in most people's line of thinking) to attain peace, but war does not = peace.

Also, how convenient that we're fighting a war with a country that can supply up with easier access to oil AND a possible economy boost.

What ever happened to looking for the Osama Bin Laden?? What happened to THAT??

And what's being done about Afghanistan?? Where's the news coverage on that?

And isn't the US "helping" run the government (or starting gov) of Iraq? But why the US? What happened to the UN?? Or other countries??

Bah.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Aug 4 19:34:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Well, it is pretty much common knowledge.

don't give me that "i'm a redneck but think i'm an elitist" crap.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 4 19:47:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I couldn't get through that article. It seemed to be based on the presumption that I've been hearing innaccuracies by the media about the Iraq War and believing them. It beings "If I tell you that scores of Iraqi detainees have been killed and maimed this year in Abu Ghraib prison, you may not be surprised. But you're probably guessing wrong about who hurt them." No, it's pretty obvious that I would have heard something about American soldiers killing 'scores' of Iraqi detainess, so I would have little reason to believe it was our soldiers. The article then says something about the torture scandal only being second in things to be focused on. Worse things going on justify our lowering the world's opinion of America even further?

Any intelligent person knows the media is innacurate - take http://.mediamatters.com for instance. This article appears to be revealing some truths about the war in Iraq to make the media seem liberal event - though there are many, many things that are more important the media should talk about for the sake of the country that any liberal or person who wants a better world should want revealed.

Maybe what the article is talking about should be reported about more. I guess, though, that that would take away from all the time they're taking to talk about John Kerry's wife telling someone to shove it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 19:59:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>Common knowledge is skewed.
>
Yeah, especially if you rely on the network news for it.

>As for politics, my current stance on the War on Iraq and Bush follows:
>
>I'm American. And yeah, I do like America in a way. I like how Wendy's has a dollar menu, and I like my sweaters, and I like how I'm luckier than a good numer of kids my age halfway around the world. And I do like this country. After all, my family is here, and I was born here, so it's a tad inherent that I like the country. Anyway- I am fairly patriotic. The same way I like my high school... semi-school-spirited. But back to the schpeel.
>
>The War on Iraq has to be one of the most badly botched things in history. For one, several Americans have no CLEAR idea what America's Aims of the War were. For those that don't know, they were to find nuclear weapons (which hasn't happened, I don't believe. Find me an article or something if it has). And even if that HAS happened, an aim of the war (at least the aims that were presented at the beginning) was NEVER to find Hussein and lock him up. I know there was that undertone- but if Bush wanted to get rid of Hussein, why didn't he just say so from the beginning instead of kinda keeping it as a side agenda?? Does that seem bad to anyone else??
>
Did you not get the part where we went in after not just nukes, but chem and bio as well ? And did you not get the part where the whole world believed he had these things, not just Bush ?
And did you not get the part that Hans Blix documented that he had these in great quantities, before he was kicked out?
Also, if you had read the whole article you would have seen the part where no war has ever gone as planned......ever.

>"War is peace." - George Bush. Uhhh, no, it's not. War is War and Peace is Peace. Don't confuse the two. War might be made (at least in most people's line of thinking) to attain peace, but war does not = peace.
>
If you really believe that Dubya actually uttered those words, not taken out of context, that he really believed that War and peace are synonyms, that says a helluva lot about your ignorance.

>Also, how convenient that we're fighting a war with a country that can supply up with easier access to oil AND a possible economy boost.
>
Yeah it's really been a lot cheaper to wage war instead of just buying it from him or whoever. That argument is just stupid.

>What ever happened to looking for the Osama Bin Laden?? What happened to THAT??
>
What makes you think we're not still after him ? Do you actually think we would broadcast that kind of information ? Of course we're still looking for him.

>And what's being done about Afghanistan?? Where's the news coverage on that?
>
What kind of news coverage do you want ? What should we be doing "about Afghanistan" ? We are busy building roads and schools and stuff like that.
It's in the news, just not on the regular network news. Go back and read the whole article. You will see why it doesn't get on with Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.

>And isn't the US "helping" run the government (or starting gov) of Iraq? But why the US? What happened to the UN?? Or other countries??
>
>Bah.
>
Other countries are helping, but we are doing the brunt of the work because we can afford it and the major powers that could have helped, refused, ie. France and Germany.
The UN is worthless. You cannot name anything the UN has done that was worth a shit.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 4 21:39:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>innocenceNonus said:

>>What ever happened to looking for the Osama Bin Laden?? What happened to THAT??
>>
>What makes you think we're not still after him ? Do you actually think we would broadcast that kind of information ? Of course we're still looking for him.

"I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." - George Bush, on Osama bin Laden.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 21:56:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>innocenceNonus said:
>
>>>What ever happened to looking for the Osama Bin Laden?? What happened to THAT??
>>>
>>What makes you think we're not still after him ? Do you actually think we would broadcast that kind of information ? Of course we're still looking for him.
>
>"I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." - George Bush, on Osama bin Laden.
>
And what do you think that means, taken out of context as it was ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 4 21:58:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>"I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." - George Bush, on Osama bin Laden.
>>
>And what do you think that means, taken out of context as it was ?
>
Do you doubt that there are several groups of special forces looking for him at this very moment in northern Pakistan ?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 4 22:02:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And what do you think that means, taken out of context as it was ?

I put something misleading to see what you'd say, and because I get annoyed at your tendency to quote a long thing someone says, and then point out certain things, often based on nothing, that make it hard to counter what you've said.

Never mind.

Anyway, from what I've heard about Bush's briefings and such indicate that he still is trying hard to catch Osama bin Laden. However, to deal with the fact that he may not, he has avoided even saying bin Laden's name if possible since the beginning of the plans to invade Iraq, unless it's to claim Hussein and Osama are connected, which has been false by common sense for a while now, and further defeated by the 9/11 Commission he fought so hard against.

It's not out of context, he was asked about any news of a possible capture of Osama bin Laden.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 4 22:04:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Do you doubt that there are several groups of special forces looking for him at this very moment in northern Pakistan ?

Speaking of those groups, does anyone find it interesting that about two months ago there were reports of the Bush administration putting pressure on people to have a key member of al Qaeda captured by about the time of the Democratic Convention, which conveniently happened? If only they worked at the level they apparently can all the time, thus doing their jobs.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 4 22:25:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Do you doubt that there are several groups of special forces looking for him at this very moment in northern Pakistan ?

Good 'ol Pakistan. Except hold on a second - today in the New York Times, there's an article about how a prisoner has confirmed that they're allowing people to train for the Taliban in order to fight against us! And here I was saying God bless America and Pakistan. Shame on me.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Aug 5 01:21:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Okay, I didn't miss this.


 
iwonder Posted: Thu Aug 5 04:04:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If Pakistan is fighting the Al-Q, it's purely because their prez can't do without American dollars. In their own backyards they are training the talibans and fermenting trouble in India, Nepal and Iraq. Most of the terrorists caught in the Afgan and Iraq wars have been found to have Pakistan connections. Coming from an Indian, you can think these views biased. But time and again India has shown proof of all this. Only America can't help but soft-paddle Pakistan if it is to build a base anywhere near the Arab wrold.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 06:43:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  iwonder said:
>If Pakistan is fighting the Al-Q, it's purely because their prez can't do without American dollars. In their own backyards they are training the talibans and fermenting trouble in India, Nepal and Iraq. Most of the terrorists caught in the Afgan and Iraq wars have been found to have Pakistan connections. Coming from an Indian, you can think these views biased. But time and again India has shown proof of all this. Only America can't help but soft-paddle Pakistan if it is to build a base anywhere near the Arab wrold.
>
Pakistan is not training these idiots for the Taliban. They are training in Pakistan. That's very different. There are large parts of Pakistan that are very remote, too remote to govern with the resources available to them at this time.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 06:48:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Do you doubt that there are several groups of special forces looking for him at this very moment in northern Pakistan ?
>
>Speaking of those groups, does anyone find it interesting that about two months ago there were reports of the Bush administration putting pressure on people to have a key member of al Qaeda captured by about the time of the Democratic Convention, which conveniently happened? If only they worked at the level they apparently can all the time, thus doing their jobs.
>
Zacq, your're either very naive or your just a dumbass.
Why don't you produce these "reports" ?
If you truly believe that this administration would bargain American lives for political gain, then you are in for a rude awakening with Kerry, because that's exactly what he did in Vietnam.


 
addi Posted: Thu Aug 5 08:40:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  like a moth continualy flying into a light bulb...

I watched several hours of the democratic convention last week. it confirmed why I am marking my ballot for the democrats and Kerry come November. Yes, some of it made me want to shout "Right On!", and some things said there made me want to slam my fist into the TV and shout "you're no different than those dumbass republicans!" I know most of my liberal friends felt the same.

Here's the key difference:

Republicans will watch the upcoming republican convention and shout, "Right on!" to every speaker and every platform view that is spewed forth to the salivating delegates and masses.

Discretion, questioning, intelligent filtering will not be used while listening to any of the wittless smucks paraded to the podium, and flapping their mouths away against the evils of Kerry, and Liberals, and women choosing for themselves, and Gays, and the general godlessness of those democratic heathens. If it comes from the mouth of this administration is HAS to be God's truth. Bush/Cheney would never lie to us.

With too few exceptions republicans are mostly automatons. They have been infected with the "Herd" mentality disease...

Bush: "Democrats are unpatriotic"

Republican: Yes, Democrats are unpatriotic!"

Bush: Saddam was in league with Al-Queda"

Republican: "Yes, Saddam was in league with Al-Queda"

Bush: "Everything in Iraq is going fine"

Republican: "Yes, Iraq is a Disney Paradise"


Bush: "If Kerry wins this election gay men will be trying to marry your son, and your daughters will be getting abortions every 6 months"

Republican: "Kerry is the anti-christ!"

you get my point.

Kerry is not the end all to most democrats. We don't have him high on a pedistle expecting him to save America and the world. He is simply the only viable choice we have against the idiocy of Dubya. The lesser of two evils, so to speak. We have a critical eye and see through the ad nauseum speeches shoved down our throat on his Vietnam heroism.

Republicans on the other hand are like sheep. They have long since lost their capacity to filter truth from falsehoods. They listen to Rumsfeld, or Coulter, or O'Reilly, or Rush, or the myriad of other mindless wonders filling the media and feast on their every word, as if God himself had written it down on stone tablets high atop Mt. Sinai for the sole purpose of propogating the glory that is Republicanism.

When a plate of shit is put in front of a democrat by another democrat they say, "Hey, this is shit!"

When a plate of shit is put in front of a republican by another republican they say, "Hey, thanks for the manna from heaven!"




 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 09:17:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Q. Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.


that's the full quote about the whole not worried about him thingy...he's merely stating that it's not bin laden that we should be worried about but the terrorist networks as a whole. you kill bin laden and al quada will not just vanish in a puff of smoke


 
FN Posted: Thu Aug 5 09:24:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Haha, I love how he stumbles over his words


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 09:26:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Addie, you could get the same idea across by saying the republicans present a united front and the democrats can't get their shit together.



 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 09:27:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi i can't believe you actually posted that! how can you even divide americans up as "stupid republicans" and "smart" democrats. sure the stereotype is "conservative republican" and "liberal democrat" but i honestly believe that most americans fall in between these models. it's hard sometimes to see this sometimes because the ones that get the news are the radicals on either end.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:06:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>addi i can't believe you actually posted that! how can you even divide americans up as "stupid republicans" and "smart" democrats. sure the stereotype is "conservative republican" and "liberal democrat" but i honestly believe that most americans fall in between these models. it's hard sometimes to see this sometimes because the ones that get the news are the radicals on either end.
>
It's the liberal's willingness to subscribe to anything and everything that is anti-Bush.
How else can you explain their embrace of Al Sharpton ? Still no apology for Tawana Brawley.
Or their nomination of a man who beached his boat and chased a wounded retreating man and killed him, then claimed a medal for valor for doing so ?
This thread was about woeful media reporting of what is actually going on in Iraq. Liberals want Dubya's administration to fail and fail badly over there. So much so that the liberal controlled media won't even report on anything remotely good coming from over there, and it would seem, the welfare of the Iraqi people are secondary to their political agenda.


 
addi Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:13:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Addie, you could get the same idea across by saying the republicans present a united front and the democrats can't get their shit together.

before the media age both parties conventions sometimes actually had debates and conflicts on platforms and candidates. Those were healthier times. Now both parties feel the need to present a united front at the expense of the value honest debate can bring to our national leadership. It's now a sterile cleanly packaged media presentation on both sides

The democrats did present a united front hif. As I said, I don't see that as a good thing for the country. I know the news you get your sources from probably didn't see it that way.


 
addi Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:22:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>addi i can't believe you actually posted that! how can you even divide americans up as "stupid republicans" and "smart" democrats.

I know what you mean. every time I start questioning if that's really a fair assessment on my part casper I read one of hif's political posts and justify it : )

seriously, my post was a generalization. I do believe taken in that light it is fairly accurate, however, I understand there are exceptions, of course, and that if a head count was taken a number of stupid democrats would turn up.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:34:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Pakistan is not training these idiots for the Taliban. They are training in Pakistan. That's very different. There are large parts of Pakistan that are very remote, too remote to govern with the resources available to them at this time.

"The prisoner, who gave his name as Muhammad Sohail, is a 17-year-old from the Pakistani port city of Karachi, held by the Afghan authorities in Kabul. In an interview in late July, in front of several prison guards, he said Pakistan was allowing militant groups to train and organize insurgents to fight in Afghanistan."

That's from the article. I didn't say Pakistan was training the Taliban. I used the word 'allowing,' which is exactly what's going on.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:35:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Pakistan is not training these idiots for the Taliban. They are training in Pakistan. That's very different. There are large parts of Pakistan that are very remote, too remote to govern with the resources available to them at this time.

Hmm, sort of like some of the people from al Qaeda who lived in sections of Iraq not controlled by Hussein who somehow proved the connectino bewteen Iraq and al Qaeda.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:40:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
> Discretion, questioning, intelligent filtering will not be used while listening to any of the wittless smucks paraded to the podium, and flapping their mouths away against the evils of Kerry, and Liberals, and women choosing for themselves, and Gays, and the general godlessness of those democratic heathens.

Speaking of which, here's a little proof with a quote from Michael Savage.

"You know something; I'm voting for Bush, I just made up my mind. There's nothing in this for me. I'm a white male, I'm a white, male, married heterosexual -- I don't want the Democrats. Everywhere I turn, there's another hot coal in my eye. For example, today's DNC calendar of public events included lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender meeting, the disability meeting, the ethnic meeting, the American Indian meeting, the Asian/Pacific Islander meeting, the Hispanic meeting, and the African American meeting -- God bless 'em, they're entitled to their meeting, I'm entitled to my vote, they're not my party, end of story. And that's it. I'm not voting for a party of ethnic minorities and women and immigrants."


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:46:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>
>It's the liberal's willingness to subscribe to anything and everything that is anti-Bush.
>How else can you explain their embrace of Al Sharpton ?

bahahaha! Yes, let in all who want to enter the country. Can i get an amen?! or a hallelujah?

>Or their nomination of a man who beached his boat and chased a wounded retreating man and killed him, then claimed a medal for valor for doing so ?

wow, one man's hero is another man's axe murderer... awesome. are you insane?



 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:50:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i like how no one knows what the hell they're talking about.

can prolly write a pretty good fiction novel out of what people on this board hypothesize/generalize.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:51:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>This thread was about woeful media reporting of what is actually going on in Iraq.

How come I almost never hear numbers about innocent Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq? Like the total, not just 'Three American soldiers and several Iraqis were killed today.' Until the minimum estimates hit ten thousand I never heard a total.

Here's the problem with people's views of the Iraq war based on the media and such. Democrats, for the most part, want to make it seem like a war for oil where we indiscriminantly bomb thousands of citizens with cluster bombs (the bombing part is essentially true). The Republicans want to say the war was for... well that's changed a few times, but they stress all the Iraqis we've liberated from an evil man, which we have. The favorite footage of Democrats is the ones that show the horror that's being caused by the war, while the Republicans keep showing the statue being pulled down and other positive things.

Too few people are recognizing that the war is somewhere in the middle. I've heard dozens of stories of Iraqis in front of wrecked home screaming 'Kill America' and other things, but I've also read blogs by Iraqis talking about all the people they know with better lives now. And unless you sort of take the average of all the stuff you hear on television and see on the internet, you're either fully against the war or completely for it.

Personally, I'm for the war, but feel that we rushed into it far too quickly, without the necessary resources, good enough support, and a plan for getting out. Whether Bush was correct or not depends on whether or not the he's telling the truth that all information indicated stockpiles of weapons, making Saddam a legitimate threat immediately.

What I do know is that this war was done in a way that is spawning countless numbers of new Arab terrorists, and is splitting America part more and more as the Republicans become more hostile to the Democrats and vice versa.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:52:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>and is splitting America apart more and more as the Republicans become more hostile to the Democrats and vice versa.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:54:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  political debates would be rather fun today. as neither candidate really takes a stand in words that actually mean anything, i'm pretty sure it'd turn into a dissing contest and shortly thereafter a fist fight.



 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 10:58:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh, the reason why i'm staying out of the middle of the ring on this one is actually figuring out whose information here is factual or not, and where it has gone askew would require far, far, far too much effort and time.

so yeah, i'll continue to toss shit from the stands, don't try to duck.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:02:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Pakistan is not training these idiots for the Taliban. They are training in Pakistan. That's very different. There are large parts of Pakistan that are very remote, too remote to govern with the resources available to them at this time.
>
>Hmm, sort of like some of the people from al Qaeda who lived in sections of Iraq not controlled by Hussein who somehow proved the connectino bewteen Iraq and al Qaeda.
>
There you go generalizing again.
What you are describing is only one of many links between Iraq and Al-qaeda.
And the only part of Iraq that Saddam did not control was the Kurdish region and the Kurds are our allies, not trainers of terrorists.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:03:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey can somehow quickly tell me how many electoral votes Washinton D.C. has, if any?


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:04:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And the only part of Iraq that Saddam did not control was the Kurdish region and the Kurds are our allies, not trainers of terrorists.

So if bin Laden, maybe, I don't know, funded the Kurds in anti-Hussein activities, wouldn't that make bin Laden and Hussein seem less like buddies?


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:05:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Hey can somehow quickly tell me how many electoral votes Washinton D.C. has, if any?
3


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:08:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Zacq said:
>>Hey can somehow quickly tell me how many electoral votes Washinton D.C. has, if any?
>3

Congratulations Casper, you're smarter than Bill O'Reilly!

Sorry this is a little off-topic, but this is at least about the media. Last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I laughed mighty hard.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:08:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And the only part of Iraq that Saddam did not control was the Kurdish region and the Kurds are our allies, not trainers of terrorists.
>
>So if bin Laden, maybe, I don't know, funded the Kurds in anti-Hussein activities, wouldn't that make bin Laden and Hussein seem less like buddies?

i'm lost...are you implying that this took place? or is this completely hypothetical? if it's hypothetical then i REALLY don't see the point...


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:10:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>casper said:
>>Zacq said:
>>>Hey can somehow quickly tell me how many electoral votes Washinton D.C. has, if any?
>>3
>
>Congratulations Casper, you're smarter than Bill O'Reilly!
>
>Sorry this is a little off-topic, but this is at least about the media. Last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I laughed mighty hard.


Can you list every states/territories electoral vote count off the top of your head? the only reason i knew that is because it's the odd man out (as far as i know dc is the only place that has more votes than representatives)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:10:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Personally, I'm for the war, but feel that we rushed into it far too quickly, without the necessary resources, good enough support, and a plan for getting out. Whether Bush was correct or not depends on whether or not the he's telling the truth that all information indicated stockpiles of weapons, making Saddam a legitimate threat immediately.
>
Whether or not he's telling the truth ?
As opposed to lying ?
Are you fucking crazy ?
THE WHOLE WORLD SAID HE HAD THEM ! over and over again, the whole world agreed that he had them. Even if the whold world was wrong (it's a possibility), how can dubya's statement be construed as a lie ?

>What I do know is that this war was done in a way that is spawning countless numbers of new Arab terrorists, and is splitting America part more and more as the Republicans become more hostile to the Democrats and vice versa.
>
We are killing the terrorists where they live instead of on our own streets.
That's a good thing. This war was long time coming, as we have been under attack from Al-Qaeda for too many years with zero response.
As for the support, it would be nice, but it's not necessary to defend ourselves.
And yes, it is polarizing our country, much the same way we were polarized during the vietnam era. Apparently we didn't learn anything from that experience.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:13:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>Personally, I'm for the war, but feel that we rushed into it far too quickly, without the necessary resources, good enough support, and a plan for getting out. Whether Bush was correct or not depends on whether or not the he's telling the truth that all information indicated stockpiles of weapons, making Saddam a legitimate threat immediately.
>>
>Whether or not he's telling the truth ?
>As opposed to lying ?
>Are you fucking crazy ?
>THE WHOLE WORLD SAID HE HAD THEM ! over and over again, the whole world agreed that he had them. Even if the whold world was wrong (it's a possibility), how can dubya's statement be construed as a lie ?

because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:13:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>casper said:
>>Zacq said:
>>>Hey can somehow quickly tell me how many electoral votes Washinton D.C. has, if any?
>>3
>
>Congratulations Casper, you're smarter than Bill O'Reilly!
>
>Sorry this is a little off-topic, but this is at least about the media. Last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I laughed mighty hard.
>
Yeah, that makes him a real dumbass doesn't it ?
And it makes you so much smarter than him.
duh. . . .


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:15:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:

>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>
>

isn't that what the american system is based on?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:15:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Zacq said:
>>>Personally, I'm for the war, but feel that we rushed into it far too quickly, without the necessary resources, good enough support, and a plan for getting out. Whether Bush was correct or not depends on whether or not the he's telling the truth that all information indicated stockpiles of weapons, making Saddam a legitimate threat immediately.
>>>
>>Whether or not he's telling the truth ?
>>As opposed to lying ?
>>Are you fucking crazy ?
>>THE WHOLE WORLD SAID HE HAD THEM ! over and over again, the whole world agreed that he had them. Even if the whold world was wrong (it's a possibility), how can dubya's statement be construed as a lie ?
>
>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>
That still doesn't answer the question.
And it doesn't make Dubya a liar, assuming that you believe a lie is an untruth (known to be an untruth by the teller) told with the intent to purposely or maliciously mislead others.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:16:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>
>>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>>
>>
>
>isn't that what the american system is based on?

yes


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:18:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>casper said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>isn't that what the american system is based on?
>
>yes

so how can you condemn him for simply following the guidelines laid out in our constitution? popular consensus is how we've always made our decisions no? if you have a problem with that then don't blame bush, blame the system. And if you have a problem with the system then I'm assuming you have a better, more "logical" way...


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:18:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>casper said:
>>>Zacq said:
>>>>Hey can somehow quickly tell me how many electoral votes Washinton D.C. has, if any?
>>>3
>>
>>Congratulations Casper, you're smarter than Bill O'Reilly!
>>
>>Sorry this is a little off-topic, but this is at least about the media. Last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I laughed mighty hard.
>>
>Yeah, that makes him a real dumbass doesn't it ?
>And it makes you so much smarter than him.
>duh. . . .

Yep. It does. I think that the top-rated guy at Fox, with a television show and radio show, who seems to think he's knowledgeable politcally, should know that Washington D.C. has three electoral votes. I know preteens that know that.

Come one. He should freakin' know that if he wants to be respected at all.


 
antartica Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:18:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  totally off topic...
i hate politics, canna be stuffed about it at all...

but nice to see ya Papa Thong =)


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:23:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:

>Yep. It does. I think that the top-rated guy at Fox, with a television show and radio show, who seems to think he's knowledgeable politcally, should know that Washington D.C. has three electoral votes. I know preteens that know that.
>
>Come one. He should freakin' know that if he wants to be respected at all.

quick! how many electoral votes does alaska have? new mexico? arizona? what would be the point of memorizing these? i'm sure if you asked him how many electoral votes california has he'd be able to ramble it off because those are some hard numbers. 3 electoral votes count for squat. hell NM had the same problem that florida had in the last election and didn't count all their votes (absentee ballots were not counted i believe) but do you hear anybody saying anything? of course not...because our puny 5 votes wouldn't have made a difference one way or another


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:25:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Damn't, sorry. I didn't mean to say he didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I meant to say, he didn't know it had any votes. Bill O'Reilly didn't know that Washington D.C. had electoral votes.

Yeah, I don't care if he knows how many, but what does he think happens to citizens of Washington D.C.?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:27:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  antartica said:
>totally off topic...
>i hate politics, canna be stuffed about it at all...
>
>but nice to see ya Papa Thong =)
>
Thanks Ant, good to see the "minister of coolness" as well.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:29:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Damn't, sorry. I didn't mean to say he didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I meant to say, he didn't know it had any votes. Bill O'Reilly didn't know that Washington D.C. had electoral votes.
>
>Yeah, I don't care if he knows how many, but what does he think happens to citizens of Washington D.C.?
>
duh, maybe it just never came up ?
Your pinning a guys reputation on an obscure fact.
I'll bet if it were Al Franken instead of Bill O'reilly you wouldn't even have noticed it.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:31:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Damn't, sorry. I didn't mean to say he didn't know Washington D.C. had three electoral votes. I meant to say, he didn't know it had any votes. Bill O'Reilly didn't know that Washington D.C. had electoral votes.
>
>Yeah, I don't care if he knows how many, but what does he think happens to citizens of Washington D.C.?

hmmm...that is a different story :)

not to defend him or anything but have you ever been to DC? I'd be suprised if the few people who actually live there (and not just in the outlying states like most people) risk leaving their houses, dodging the bullets, to bother to vote...


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:32:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>duh, maybe it just never came up ?
>Your pinning a guys reputation on an obscure fact.
>I'll bet if it were Al Franken instead of Bill O'reilly you wouldn't even have noticed it.

Well I could pin his reputation on his constant lies and spin, but this was funny as it's not an obscure fact. Well maybe it is to Republicans.

It was sort of hard not to notice it. This isn't exactly what was said, but pretty much.

First Bill said something about it not having any electoral votes.
Woman being interviewed: Washington has three electoral votes.
Blank silence.
Bill: Washington D.C.?
Woman being interviewed: Yes, Washington D.C. has three electoral votes.
More blank silence.

The blank silence reminded me of when Bush, for about the eightieth time, couldn't pronounce Abu-Ghraib.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:33:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>not to defend him or anything but have you ever been to DC? I'd be suprised if the few people who actually live there (and not just in the outlying states like most people) risk leaving their houses, dodging the bullets, to bother to vote...

Actually, D.C. has a very large homeless population.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:35:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>casper said:
>>not to defend him or anything but have you ever been to DC? I'd be suprised if the few people who actually live there (and not just in the outlying states like most people) risk leaving their houses, dodging the bullets, to bother to vote...
>
>Actually, D.C. has a very large homeless population.

lol...my bad...forgot to count them...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:43:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>duh, maybe it just never came up ?
>>Your pinning a guys reputation on an obscure fact.
>>I'll bet if it were Al Franken instead of Bill O'reilly you wouldn't even have noticed it.
>
>Well I could pin his reputation on his constant lies and spin, but this was funny as it's not an obscure fact. Well maybe it is to Republicans.
>
Sorry to disappoint, but IT IS an obscure fact. I guarantee that if you poll everyone you know, almost none of them will have the answer without looking it up somewhere.
As for his "constant lies", I will dispute that as liberal spewing and spin.
Can you tell me how many times he has had to go public with a retraction because he spouted something that was not true ?
That is the practice of those in the media when caught in a lie you know.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:45:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>Sorry to disappoint, but IT IS an obscure fact. I guarantee that if you poll everyone you know, almost none of them will have the answer without looking it up somewhere.


yeah i think i saw it on jeopardy or something :)


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:49:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Sorry to disappoint, but IT IS an obscure fact. I guarantee that if you poll everyone you know, almost none of them will have the answer without looking it up somewhere.
>As for his "constant lies", I will dispute that as liberal spewing and spin.
>Can you tell me how many times he has had to go public with a retraction because he spouted something that was not true ?
>That is the practice of those in the media when caught in a lie you know.

Knowing that Washington D.C. has electoral votes is not obscure. Everyone I know knows that. It's fairly obvious.

Has Bill ever made a retraction on not really winning two Peabodies? Or not knowing where he grew up?


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:51:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Do you want me to write a lie by Bill O'Reilly, one for every week of the last two months? Or maybe more frequent? Then again, they're not all lies. In some cases he could be horribly misinformed.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 11:58:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Sorry to disappoint, but IT IS an obscure fact. I guarantee that if you poll everyone you know, almost none of them will have the answer without looking it up somewhere.
>>As for his "constant lies", I will dispute that as liberal spewing and spin.
>>Can you tell me how many times he has had to go public with a retraction because he spouted something that was not true ?
>>That is the practice of those in the media when caught in a lie you know.
>
>Knowing that Washington D.C. has electoral votes is not obscure. Everyone I know knows that. It's fairly obvious.
>
>Has Bill ever made a retraction on not really winning two Peabodies? actually he did apologize about that...he mispoke and said peabody (according to him) when he meant to say was the Polk award for journalism. and as far as i know he never claimed to have won it himself, he said "we won..." implying he was talking about his organization (Inside edition) as a whole...not him personally...of course this has absolutely nothing to do with anything...just throwing it out there:)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:00:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>>Knowing that Washington D.C. has electoral votes is not obscure. Everyone I know knows that. It's fairly obvious.
>
>hahaha, yeah, you cling to that one, it will take you far.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:02:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  August 2, 2004.

CALLER: I just think that you need to kind of bring a little bit more information on the table about when you were mentioning the 527s [e.g. MoveOn.org] and how that gives the Democrats a little more of an advantage to play dirty pool or whatever. I mean, you can look at groups like, you know, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and trace that back to its source and you find the same kind of connections that on the other side.

O'REILLY: I don't even know -- number one, I don't even know what that is. Number two, who's funding Swift Boats Veterans for Truth, do you know?

CALLER: Yes, I do. Actually that -- it's a whole association that is headed up by an attorney [John O'Neill] whose firm has very close ties to Bush. And in fact, he [O'Neill] never even served with Kerry.

But I am not debating whether what they say is true or not, I'm just saying that -- in -- to be fair, you really need to mention there are a lot of groups on the other side--

O'REILLY: But you see, I never heard of that group.

CALLER: --that have very deep pockets--

O'REILLY: I don't know who that group is.

CALLER: Well, it's a very [inaudible]--

O'REILLY: That's how off the radar they are.

CALLER: It's not off the radar. There's been a lot of press about them. In fact, they just came out with a book.

O'REILLY: Well, wai -- wai -- wai - wait -- wait. Let me ask you, where -- where has -- where have you seen this group featured in a national way? Where?

CALLER: They were just mentioned in the newspaper last week, because one of the people who supposedly served with Kerry ... that it was found that he did not, wrote a book about these Swift Boat Veterans that supposedly--

[...]

O'REILLY: All right, let's see if we can find out whether this group is. But -- but the fact that I don't know about them, [caller's name], that I never heard of them. That they were never pitched to The Factor in any way, shape, or form. I've never seen them on any of the cable news networks -- that speaks for itself.


News about the group has been covered by CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and CNBC 22 times since April. Their leader was a gues on Hannity and Colmes.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:07:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What is your point ?


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:07:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  July 27, 2004

In response to statements that the No Child Left Behind Act has been underfunded, O'Reilly said "Underfunding is nonsense." He has sense confirmed that he doesn't believe the Act has been underfunded.

A House Committee on Education and the Workforce shows Bush is budgeting 9.4 billion less for the Act's programs than authorized by Congress, the third straight time he hasn't fufilled the necessary budget.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:08:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>July 27, 2004
>
>In response to statements that the No Child Left Behind Act has been underfunded, O'Reilly said "Underfunding is nonsense." He has sense confirmed that he doesn't believe the Act has been underfunded.
>
>A House Committee on Education and the Workforce shows Bush is budgeting 9.4 billion less for the Act's programs than authorized by Congress, the third straight time he hasn't fufilled the necessary budget.
>
"necessary" being a very relative term here.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:10:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Bill O'Reilly claimed several times that Howard Dean wanted to 'pull out of Iraq immediately.'

Howard Dean, September 1, 2003: "I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there ... and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq."


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:13:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  July 21, 2004

O'REILLY: That movie has fallen off now, dramatically. So the -- the crazy Bush-haters who went out to see it, have seen it. And now the regular folks -- it's not like Spider-Man [2], where, you know, it's still doing great business. It's pretty much done.

It made six or seven million that week, and about one million that weekday alone.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:15:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  July 20, 2004

O'REILLY: You know, The Wall Street Journal has an article today about the attacks against FOX News, and they said well, Bill O'Reilly's nightly program only gets two million viewers. That's a lie. That's just not true. We get about five million viewers inside the United States, every night

Number ten on the Nielson ratings list for cable shows was the Dead Zone at four million viewers. The O'Reilly Factor did not appear on the list. Hmm.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:18:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm getting bored.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:20:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Zacq said:
>>>>Personally, I'm for the war, but feel that we rushed into it far too quickly, without the necessary resources, good enough support, and a plan for getting out. Whether Bush was correct or not depends on whether or not the he's telling the truth that all information indicated stockpiles of weapons, making Saddam a legitimate threat immediately.
>>>>
>>>Whether or not he's telling the truth ?
>>>As opposed to lying ?
>>>Are you fucking crazy ?
>>>THE WHOLE WORLD SAID HE HAD THEM ! over and over again, the whole world agreed that he had them. Even if the whold world was wrong (it's a possibility), how can dubya's statement be construed as a lie ?
>>
>>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>>
>That still doesn't answer the question.
>And it doesn't make Dubya a liar, assuming that you believe a lie is an untruth (known to be an untruth by the teller) told with the intent to purposely or maliciously mislead others.

well, although i would not consider it a lie, i would still blame the guy in charge for not having reliable sources. It's quite easy for everyone to slap the blame on the man under you, in this case, the one supplying the information, but has Bush publicly taken the blame for believing the bad information and using it as reason to go to war? 'cause if he hasn't then he should step up to it.

anyway, he was far too matter of fact in displaying the evidance, while this may have done a great job in rallying some rednecks for a snake-stompin' party, it should not have been displayed in such a fashion. I'm speaking of the sureness and absoluteness when relaying the "evidance" to the public; how Bush would say "there's no doubt" and other similar statements.

so basically, if you're relying on someone else's info and don't have the ability to check it for yourself, don't say anything w/ certainty.

on a similar note, wasn't a portion of the "evidance" about the WMDs proven to be planted? I recall some crap about a nigerian embassy. which, if is the case, proves that there is some conspiracy junk going down? which would say that bush is either a conspirator or a puppet? or, if there was no evidance planted, says nothing at all?




 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:21:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George Bush

Sorry. Had to.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:27:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Asswipe said:
>>casper said:
>>>Asswipe said:
>>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>isn't that what the american system is based on?
>>
>>yes
>
>so how can you condemn him for simply following the guidelines laid out in our constitution? popular consensus is how we've always made our decisions no? if you have a problem with that then don't blame bush, blame the system. And if you have a problem with the system then I'm assuming you have a better, more "logical" way...

i condemned no one, was just stating that if we were dealing w/ truths or untruths, which we're not, we're dealing w/ linguistics, then what bush, and the people who supported him for reasons of saving the world from saddam's nuclear armpits, believed was a fallacy.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:28:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>on a similar note, wasn't a portion of the "evidance" about the WMDs proven to be planted? I recall some crap about a nigerian embassy. which, if is the case, proves that there is some conspiracy junk going down? which would say that bush is either a conspirator or a puppet? or, if there was no evidance planted, says nothing at all?

If you're talking about the Niger uranium documents, there will be some finalized news about that in a few weeks thanks to Josh Marshall. I believe there will be an article in Washington Monthly, and a TV spot somewhere.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:28:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>duh, maybe it just never came up ?
>>>Your pinning a guys reputation on an obscure fact.
>>>I'll bet if it were Al Franken instead of Bill O'reilly you wouldn't even have noticed it.
>>
>>Well I could pin his reputation on his constant lies and spin, but this was funny as it's not an obscure fact. Well maybe it is to Republicans.
>>
>Sorry to disappoint, but IT IS an obscure fact. I guarantee that if you poll everyone you know, almost none of them will have the answer without looking it up somewhere.
>As for his "constant lies", I will dispute that as liberal spewing and spin.
>Can you tell me how many times he has had to go public with a retraction because he spouted something that was not true ?
>That is the practice of those in the media when caught in a lie you know.

when caught...


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:34:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)
>>
>very few of the insurgents are Iraqis.
>Most of them are Iranians and Syrians with a few Saudis and others.
>The only Iraqis left fighting are leftover Baathist that really don't care who they kill.

so why are these non-insurgent iraqis in our prisons?


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:36:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)
>>>
>>very few of the insurgents are Iraqis.
>>Most of them are Iranians and Syrians with a few Saudis and others.
>>The only Iraqis left fighting are leftover Baathist that really don't care who they kill.
>
>so why are these non-insurgent iraqis in our prisons?

sorry if i am confused, which i am, just not familiar w/ the names of the groups over there and who is fighting whom. pardon the ignorance. who is in the prisons and who is killing them?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:42:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>Zacq said:
>>>>>Personally, I'm for the war, but feel that we rushed into it far too quickly, without the necessary resources, good enough support, and a plan for getting out. Whether Bush was correct or not depends on whether or not the he's telling the truth that all information indicated stockpiles of weapons, making Saddam a legitimate threat immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>Whether or not he's telling the truth ?
>>>>As opposed to lying ?
>>>>Are you fucking crazy ?
>>>>THE WHOLE WORLD SAID HE HAD THEM ! over and over again, the whole world agreed that he had them. Even if the whold world was wrong (it's a possibility), how can dubya's statement be construed as a lie ?
>>>
>>>because basing truth on popular consensus is a logical fallacy.
>>>
>>That still doesn't answer the question.
>>And it doesn't make Dubya a liar, assuming that you believe a lie is an untruth (known to be an untruth by the teller) told with the intent to purposely or maliciously mislead others.
>
>well, although i would not consider it a lie, i would still blame the guy in charge for not having reliable sources. It's quite easy for everyone to slap the blame on the man under you, in this case, the one supplying the information, but has Bush publicly taken the blame for believing the bad information and using it as reason to go to war? 'cause if he hasn't then he should step up to it.
>
>anyway, he was far too matter of fact in displaying the evidance, while this may have done a great job in rallying some rednecks for a snake-stompin' party, it should not have been displayed in such a fashion. I'm speaking of the sureness and absoluteness when relaying the "evidance" to the public; how Bush would say "there's no doubt" and other similar statements.
>
>so basically, if you're relying on someone else's info and don't have the ability to check it for yourself, don't say anything w/ certainty.
>
>on a similar note, wasn't a portion of the "evidance" about the WMDs proven to be planted? I recall some crap about a nigerian embassy. which, if is the case, proves that there is some conspiracy junk going down? which would say that bush is either a conspirator or a puppet? or, if there was no evidance planted, says nothing at all?
>
And all of this still ignores the fact that vast amounts of chem/bio stuff was documented by Hans Blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties. None of that has been accounted for either.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:42:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Asswipe said:
>>>>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)
>>>>
>>>very few of the insurgents are Iraqis.
>>>Most of them are Iranians and Syrians with a few Saudis and others.
>>>The only Iraqis left fighting are leftover Baathist that really don't care who they kill.
>>
>>so why are these non-insurgent iraqis in our prisons?
>
>sorry if i am confused, which i am, just not familiar w/ the names of the groups over there and who is fighting whom. pardon the ignorance. who is in the prisons and who is killing them?

prisoners are in the prisons :)

and apperently the insurgents are killin them...to get at americans...or something...


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:45:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>And all of this still ignores the fact that vast amounts of chem/bio stuff was documented by Hans Blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties. None of that has been accounted for either.

this is true. anyone recall the reasons why the matter wasn't taken care of then?


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 12:46:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Asswipe said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>Asswipe said:
>>>>>why the hell would the iraqi's kill their own people? (from the first few paragraphs)
>>>>>
>>>>very few of the insurgents are Iraqis.
>>>>Most of them are Iranians and Syrians with a few Saudis and others.
>>>>The only Iraqis left fighting are leftover Baathist that really don't care who they kill.
>>>
>>>so why are these non-insurgent iraqis in our prisons?
>>
>>sorry if i am confused, which i am, just not familiar w/ the names of the groups over there and who is fighting whom. pardon the ignorance. who is in the prisons and who is killing them?
>
>prisoners are in the prisons :)
>
>and apperently the insurgents are killin them...to get at americans...or something...

yes, i can read what the guy wrote up above but i wasn't very fulfilled by his lack of explaining... anything at all.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 13:05:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>And all of this still ignores the fact that vast amounts of chem/bio stuff was documented by Hans Blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties. None of that has been accounted for either.
>
>this is true. anyone recall the reasons why the matter wasn't taken care of then?
>
Sure, it was taken care of, by 15 toothless UN resolutions.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Aug 5 13:54:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Bleh. This is boring. No useful information is being traded and everyone's mind is already made up.

Just a question, ifihadahif: Are you going to enlist or going to become a public servant of any sort?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 14:05:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Bleh. This is boring. No useful information is being traded and everyone's mind is already made up.
>
>Just a question, ifihadahif: Are you going to enlist or going to become a public servant of any sort?
>
Enlist ?
already served my time back in the '70's


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 14:49:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>>And all of this still ignores the fact that vast amounts of chem/bio stuff was documented by Hans Blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties. None of that has been accounted for either.
>>
>>this is true. anyone recall the reasons why the matter wasn't taken care of then?
>>
>Sure, it was taken care of, by 15 toothless UN resolutions.

well, since then has saddam put the weapons on display by using them?


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Aug 5 15:05:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>
>Did you not get the part where we went in after not just nukes, but chem and bio as well ? And did you not get the part where the whole world believed he had these things, not just Bush ?
-Chem and Bio weapons yeah. Sorry, I should have been more specific. WMD was what I meant. That I want to apologize for. But either way, that's still an aim of the war. But basically, ok. Hans Blix documented them right? So where are they now? If they're destroyed or lost or given away, then we basically went in on suspicions. We can't find them now, so what was the war for? You didn't provide an article saying they actually found them during the course of the war or even post war. Also, I believe that Hussein had them, but has gotten rid of them some how. And yeah- I do hate Hussein and think it's a good thing he's been removed from power. But that doesn't mean I like the war.

Btw, found this which I thought you might find interesting.

"Sarin not evidence of WMD: Blix
By Matt Moore in Sweden
May 18, 2004

FORMER chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that a shell containing sarin nerve gas used in an attack in Iraq was most likely a stray weapon possibly from the first Gulf War.

Mr Blix said today that the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.

The US-led coalition used that claim to justify the invasion even though UN inspectors failed to make any significant finds before the war.

The former Swedish foreign minister said the 155-mm shell used to attack a US military convoy Monday could have been part of a group of old, unused shells that were simply debris leftover from the war in 1991, adding the weapon could have been scavenged from a dump.

"It doesn't sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past and that's a very different thing from having stockpiles and supplies," he said. "

>Also, if you had read the whole article you would have seen the part where no war has ever gone as planned......ever.
- I'll give you that one.

>If you really believe that Dubya actually uttered those words, not taken out of context, that he really believed that War and peace are synonyms, that says a helluva lot about your ignorance.
- I'm not saying he thought they were actual synonyms. I guess I might have come off that way, but think about it. How can you say war IS peace? No, it's not. If he meant war will lead to peace, he should have said so. But telling me that putting a war in Iraq will bring peace to the country... That's VERY shady. After all, didn't we try to do that LAST time?

>Yeah it's really been a lot cheaper to wage war instead of just buying it from him or whoever. That argument is just stupid.
- Buying oil is expensive, but definitely not up to the cost of a war. However, if you look at history, every time we've had a war, we've had an economic boost some time after.
>>
>What kind of news coverage do you want ? What should we be doing "about Afghanistan" ? We are busy building roads and schools and stuff like that.
>It's in the news, just not on the regular network news. Go back and read the whole article. You will see why it doesn't get on with Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.
> - I know we're still looking for Bin Laden and we're doing stuff in Afghanistan, but why isn't it more of a focus? After all, seems to me that both were bigger offenders to America than Hussein who didn't attack us.
>>
>Other countries are helping, but we are doing the brunt of the work because we can afford it and the major powers that could have helped, refused, ie. France and Germany.
>The UN is worthless. You cannot name anything the UN has done that was worth a shit.
>
- The UN is worthless. That I'll agree with. However, I'm not talking about the manual-labor-rebuilding part. If we put in a new system of government, isn't that infringing on the country's rights? And is it really THAT likely that America will pull out and allow the Iraqis to change the government for themselves?? Or that we won't have another ruler set up??

Anyway, whoever said it was right. No one's going to change their opinions. But I do like political debates (debates nothing. more like arguments) and reading about everyone's opinion.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 15:12:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>>And all of this still ignores the fact that vast amounts of chem/bio stuff was documented by Hans Blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties. None of that has been accounted for either.
>>>
>>>this is true. anyone recall the reasons why the matter wasn't taken care of then?
>>>
>>Sure, it was taken care of, by 15 toothless UN resolutions.
>
>well, since then has saddam put the weapons on display by using them?
>
no, what's your point ?
should we wait til he uses them AGAIN, before acting ?
Or should we encourage the UN to enact yet another resolution against him ?



 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 15:35:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Asswipe said:
>>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>
>>>>>And all of this still ignores the fact that vast amounts of chem/bio stuff was documented by Hans Blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties. None of that has been accounted for either.
>>>>
>>>>this is true. anyone recall the reasons why the matter wasn't taken care of then?
>>>>
>>>Sure, it was taken care of, by 15 toothless UN resolutions.
>>
>>well, since then has saddam put the weapons on display by using them?
>>
>no, what's your point ?
>should we wait til he uses them AGAIN, before acting ?
>Or should we encourage the UN to enact yet another resolution against him ?
>

well, i asked because i was curious and did not know. when did he use them originally? again, i apoligize for my ignorance but if you don't mind giving a history lesson i'd appreciate it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 15:36:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>Did you not get the part where we went in after not just nukes, but chem and bio as well ? And did you not get the part where the whole world believed he had these things, not just Bush ?
>-Chem and Bio weapons yeah. Sorry, I should have been more specific. WMD was what I meant. That I want to apologize for. But either way, that's still an aim of the war. But basically, ok. Hans Blix documented them right? So where are they now? If they're destroyed or lost or given away, then we basically went in on suspicions. We can't find them now, so what was the war for? You didn't provide an article saying they actually found them during the course of the war or even post war. Also, I believe that Hussein had them, but has gotten rid of them some how. And yeah- I do hate Hussein and think it's a good thing he's been removed from power. But that doesn't mean I like the war.
>
Do you really believe he destroyed this stuff on his own in secret, with no documentation ? That in itself is a violation of his cease-fire agreement.
If he did destroy it, why didn't he just say so and avoid the whole war and the deaths of his family ?

>Btw, found this which I thought you might find interesting.
>
>"Sarin not evidence of WMD: Blix
>By Matt Moore in Sweden
>May 18, 2004
>
>FORMER chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that a shell containing sarin nerve gas used in an attack in Iraq was most likely a stray weapon possibly from the first Gulf War.
>
>Mr Blix said today that the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
>
>The US-led coalition used that claim to justify the invasion even though UN inspectors failed to make any significant finds before the war.
>
>The former Swedish foreign minister said the 155-mm shell used to attack a US military convoy Monday could have been part of a group of old, unused shells that were simply debris leftover from the war in 1991, adding the weapon could have been scavenged from a dump.
>
>"It doesn't sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past and that's a very different thing from having stockpiles and supplies," he said. "
>
Sure it could have been an old shell, but what about the 30,000lbs of Sarin gas that Al-Quaeda was caught with in Jordan just a few months ago ?

>>Also, if you had read the whole article you would have seen the part where no war has ever gone as planned......ever.
>- I'll give you that one.
>
>>If you really believe that Dubya actually uttered those words, not taken out of context, that he really believed that War and peace are synonyms, that says a helluva lot about your ignorance.
>- I'm not saying he thought they were actual synonyms. I guess I might have come off that way, but think about it. How can you say war IS peace? No, it's not. If he meant war will lead to peace, he should have said so. But telling me that putting a war in Iraq will bring peace to the country... That's VERY shady. After all, didn't we try to do that LAST time?
>
No we didn't try to do that last time.
Do you not know the reason for the first Gulf war ? Or for that matter, reason for the current one ?

>>Yeah it's really been a lot cheaper to wage war instead of just buying it from him or whoever. That argument is just stupid.
>- Buying oil is expensive, but definitely not up to the cost of a war. However, if you look at history, every time we've had a war, we've had an economic boost some time after.
>>>
Yeah those unemployment lines I stood in, in the early '80's were great post VietNam bonuses !

>>What kind of news coverage do you want ? What should we be doing "about Afghanistan" ? We are busy building roads and schools and stuff like that.
>>It's in the news, just not on the regular network news. Go back and read the whole article. You will see why it doesn't get on with Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.
>> - I know we're still looking for Bin Laden and we're doing stuff in Afghanistan, but why isn't it more of a focus? After all, seems to me that both were bigger offenders to America than Hussein who didn't attack us.
>>>
How much more of a focus do you want ?
We got every resource available over there. It's just not being broadcast on the evening news every night.

>>Other countries are helping, but we are doing the brunt of the work because we can afford it and the major powers that could have helped, refused, ie. France and Germany.
>>The UN is worthless. You cannot name anything the UN has done that was worth a shit.
>>
>- The UN is worthless. That I'll agree with. However, I'm not talking about the manual-labor-rebuilding part. If we put in a new system of government, isn't that infringing on the country's rights? And is it really THAT likely that America will pull out and allow the Iraqis to change the government for themselves?? Or that we won't have another ruler set up??
>
When you depose a government, you have to replace it with something to avoid anarchy. How is it infringing on their rights to give them a representative government ?
Yes, it is very likely that we will pull out, just as we did in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Philippines, etc. .

>


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 15:56:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Do you really believe he destroyed this stuff on his own in secret, with no documentation ? That in itself is a violation of his cease-fire agreement.
>If he did destroy it, why didn't he just say so and avoid the whole war and the deaths of his family ?

That would not seem very logical, but did we ever ask the man what he did to the weapons? chances are, you are right, they sold them to others who'd better be able to effectively use them. any idea on who that might be?

>>
>Sure it could have been an old shell, but what about the 30,000lbs of Sarin gas that Al-Quaeda was caught with in Jordan just a few months ago ?

yeah, and what about the nukes the ruskies had set up in cuba 40 years ago? my point is, i'm assuming you are saying this gas came from iraq? prove this or, if there is no connection, then al-queda having gas doesn't matter--well, it does, but not right here.

>Yeah those unemployment lines I stood in, in the early '80's were great post VietNam bonuses !

you already said, or that article you posted yesterday already said, that iraqi's are buying the crap-load out of AC units and cell phones... and where do you think they're getting those items? and all the other US goods? you can't deny that replacing the iraqi government opened up a whole new base of consumers, and while this may not directly benefit any US workers, as there's no production left in the US, the people who own the companies are sure as shit benefitting. again, i'm not claiming this to be the reason for the war or anything, but there is someone making a lot of money because of it.

>When you depose a government, you have to replace it with something to avoid anarchy. How is it infringing on their rights to give them a representative government ?
>Yes, it is very likely that we will pull out, just as we did in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Philippines, etc. .
>
>>

we still occupy korea


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:12:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>
>we still occupy korea

and the US bases in Okinawa and Japan, and Germany.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:23:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Do you really believe he destroyed this stuff on his own in secret, with no documentation ? That in itself is a violation of his cease-fire agreement.
>If he did destroy it, why didn't he just say so and avoid the whole war and the deaths of his family ?
- Not destroyed. Moving it around somewhere would be more likely. And also, why WOULD he say so? You have to remember that he used WMDs on his own people. Tons of people. And he probably didn't think at the beginning of the war that his family would all get killed.
>
>Sure it could have been an old shell, but what about the 30,000lbs of Sarin gas that Al-Quaeda was caught with in Jordan just a few months ago ?
- So you're saying that's from Iraq? Because otherwise, I don't see what it's got to do with the War on Iraq.

Btw- another thing I found online.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

>>
>No we didn't try to do that last time.
>Do you not know the reason for the first Gulf war ? Or for that matter, reason for the current one ?
>
-Current War (reasons taken from http://www.alternet.org/story/15069) are "(1) to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas." Persian Gulf War reasons (taken from AMSCO United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Exam)- well, from reading it, it was to fight (again) Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait. But basically, all aims point to trying to keep peace in the Middle East. And that's what I meant. I didn't mean that both times we were trying to bring peace to Iraq specifically. Anyway, the way it relates to what I was saying is this- if war is peace, why isn't the peace lasting?? if war is going to bring peace to the area, why didn't it last time?

>>>>Yeah those unemployment lines I stood in, in the early '80's were great post VietNam bonuses !
- Once again, I wasn't clear. Sorry- that I'll take. But most of the wars we've won have been good for the economy that follows. Maybe not immediate economy, but there are improvements in the economy if not industry.

>How much more of a focus do you want ?
>We got every resource available over there. It's just not being broadcast on the evening news every night.
- well, my point was that we shouldn't have swung into a war on Iraq before we finished up things that we had started.
>
>>
>When you depose a government, you have to replace it with something to avoid anarchy. How is it infringing on their rights to give them a representative government ?
>Yes, it is very likely that we will pull out, just as we did in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Philippines, etc. .
- It's not infringing on their rights, but who's to say that when they wish to change it, they'll be able to? I mean, what keeps another Saddam Hussein from coming to power again? Also, we usually pull out of countries after we're happy with the outcome or when we don't want to spend the money to govern the area anymore.
>>


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:25:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No, we don't occupy Korea, we have a military base there, same as Okinawa, Japan, and Germany, and many other places in the world.
That is not the same as occupying them.
If they ask us to leave, then we leave.
We used to have bases in France until the 60's when they asked us to leave.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:37:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Do you really believe he destroyed this stuff on his own in secret, with no documentation ? That in itself is a violation of his cease-fire agreement.
>>If he did destroy it, why didn't he just say so and avoid the whole war and the deaths of his family ?
>- Not destroyed. Moving it around somewhere would be more likely. And also, why WOULD he say so? You have to remember that he used WMDs on his own people. Tons of people. And he probably didn't think at the beginning of the war that his family would all get killed.
>>
So now you are in agreement that he did have wmd's?

>>Sure it could have been an old shell, but what about the 30,000lbs of Sarin gas that Al-Quaeda was caught with in Jordan just a few months ago ?
>- So you're saying that's from Iraq? Because otherwise, I don't see what it's got to do with the War on Iraq.
>
No other country in the region had the capabilities to produce it in those quantities.

>Btw- another thing I found online.
>http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm
>
>>>
>>No we didn't try to do that last time.
>>Do you not know the reason for the first Gulf war ? Or for that matter, reason for the current one ?
>>
>-Current War (reasons taken from http://www.alternet.org/story/15069) are "(1) to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas." Persian Gulf War reasons (taken from AMSCO United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Exam)- well, from reading it, it was to fight (again) Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait. But basically, all aims point to trying to keep peace in the Middle East. And that's what I meant. I didn't mean that both times we were trying to bring peace to Iraq specifically. Anyway, the way it relates to what I was saying is this- if war is peace, why isn't the peace lasting?? if war is going to bring peace to the area, why didn't it last time?
>
Specifically, the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait and for no other reason.
The current Gulf war was because Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1551.That is what gave us the legal impetus for invasion and all the other stuff is fluff made up by spinmeisters, both liberal and conservative.

>>>>>Yeah those unemployment lines I stood in, in the early '80's were great post VietNam bonuses !
>- Once again, I wasn't clear. Sorry- that I'll take. But most of the wars we've won have been good for the economy that follows. Maybe not immediate economy, but there are improvements in the economy if not industry.
>
Didn't the Great Depression follow WW1 ?
Actually the economy will follow a cycle of ups and downs whether we have a war or not.

>>How much more of a focus do you want ?
>>We got every resource available over there. It's just not being broadcast on the evening news every night.
>- well, my point was that we shouldn't have swung into a war on Iraq before we finished up things that we had started.
>>
Why not ? Our military is set up to be able to fight a war on two fronts. The work in Afghanistan is pretty much clean up and police work. The search for Bin Laden is pretty much special forces stuff, not the regular military.

>>When you depose a government, you have to replace it with something to avoid anarchy. How is it infringing on their rights to give them a representative government ?
>>Yes, it is very likely that we will pull out, just as we did in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Philippines, etc. .
>- It's not infringing on their rights, but who's to say that when they wish to change it, they'll be able to? I mean, what keeps another Saddam Hussein from coming to power again? Also, we usually pull out of countries after we're happy with the outcome or when we don't want to spend the money to govern the area anymore.
>>>
Spin it any way you want,
we pull out when we finish what we went there to do.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:43:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm pretty sure we still "occupy" korea. as in, we have troops stationed there watching over shits.


 
casper Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:49:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>i'm pretty sure we still "occupy" korea. as in, we have troops stationed there watching over shits.

that's because we are still at war with n. korea. we are just at a cease fire at the moment (prolly the longest ceasefire in history but besides the point)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:50:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>i'm pretty sure we still "occupy" korea. as in, we have troops stationed there watching over shits.
>
No, we do not occupy Korea, we don't even come close. If we did, they would be able to serve in our armed forces like folks from Guam and Puerto Rico.
South Korea is a soverign nation with it's own form of parliamentary government and we are there at the request of their government. Our troops are there to keep the North Koreans on their own side of the DMZ.
Come to think of it, we have never occupied that country, not even during the Korean war.
We have lots of troops in Germany too, but we don't occupy that country.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:50:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>So now you are in agreement that he did have wmd's?
>- If you scroll up, I said the following, "Also, I believe that Hussein had them, but has gotten rid of them some how."
>>
>No other country in the region had the capabilities to produce it in those quantities.
>- But can other countries store it?? Stuff like that doesn't HAVE to come from that region, does it? (real question btw, not an aruging point)
>>>>
>Specifically, the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait and for no other reason.
-But why liberate Kuwait? To bring some sort of peace there, right? That's the only reason I can think of that our actions would have been approved...
>The current Gulf war was because Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1551.That is what gave us the legal impetus for invasion and all the other stuff is fluff made up by spinmeisters, both liberal and conservative.
> - But why was the resolution made in the first place? To preserve peace. Granted it didn't work...
>
>Didn't the Great Depression follow WW1? Yes, but how was the economy during the time of war? All those planes and guns have to come from somewhere.
>Actually the economy will follow a cycle of ups and downs whether we have a war or not.
>- That is true, but wars do boost the economy because the country has to produce in order to use. Not to mention (as Asswipe said) that the people of Iraq are being sold American goods.
>>>
>Why not ? Our military is set up to be able to fight a war on two fronts. The work in Afghanistan is pretty much clean up and police work. The search for Bin Laden is pretty much special forces stuff, not the regular military.
>- Fine, fine. Personally, I think we rushed into the war too early and too soon. Maybe a reason for this is because everyone was feeling pretty patriotic right then, but I don't think it's a good thing to multitask unless needed.
>>
>Spin it any way you want,
>we pull out when we finish what we went there to do.
- And then some. After all, after every war or spat we've won, we usually take a little as winnings, whether that be a new ally/ place to put a base or some money or anything really.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:52:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  btw- that middle purple section isn't supposed to be all purple. I forgot to delete some of those brackets.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 16:55:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>So now you are in agreement that he did have wmd's?
>>- If you scroll up, I said the following, "Also, I believe that Hussein had them, but has gotten rid of them some how."
>>>
>>No other country in the region had the capabilities to produce it in those quantities.
>>- But can other countries store it?? Stuff like that doesn't HAVE to come from that region, does it? (real question btw, not an aruging point)
>>>>>
>>Specifically, the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait and for no other reason.
>-But why liberate Kuwait? To bring some sort of peace there, right? That's the only reason I can think of that our actions would have been approved...
>
Peace ? there was no war, Kuwait was being occupied by Iraq and we went along with a coalition to liberate them.

>>The current Gulf war was because Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1551.That is what gave us the legal impetus for invasion and all the other stuff is fluff made up by spinmeisters, both liberal and conservative.
>> - But why was the resolution made in the first place? To preserve peace. Granted it didn't work...
>>
>>Didn't the Great Depression follow WW1? Yes, but how was the economy during the time of war? All those planes and guns have to come from somewhere.
>>Actually the economy will follow a cycle of ups and downs whether we have a war or not.
>>- That is true, but wars do boost the economy because the country has to produce in order to use. Not to mention (as Asswipe said) that the people of Iraq are being sold American goods.
>>>>
They were buying American goods before the war dude.
As for the wartime economy, ask anyone who was here during ww2. They had nothing, because everything was being rationed.

>>Why not ? Our military is set up to be able to fight a war on two fronts. The work in Afghanistan is pretty much clean up and police work. The search for Bin Laden is pretty much special forces stuff, not the regular military.
>>- Fine, fine. Personally, I think we rushed into the war too early and too soon. Maybe a reason for this is because everyone was feeling pretty patriotic right then, but I don't think it's a good thing to multitask unless needed.
>>>
>>Spin it any way you want,
>>we pull out when we finish what we went there to do.
>- And then some. After all, after every war or spat we've won, we usually take a little as winnings, whether that be a new ally/ place to put a base or some money or anything really.
>
What did we take after ww2 ?
Or Korea ?
Or Bosnia


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Aug 5 17:13:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Peace ? there was no war, Kuwait was being occupied by Iraq and we went along with a coalition to liberate them.
- But Iraq had invaded Kuwait, right? So why would we bother going if peace isn't an issue?
>>
>>They were buying American goods before the war dude.
- Larger market there now. Before, while they were still buying American goods, it wasn't as common, and I doubt the goods came easy as they do now. As said before, the article says that now goods are selling faster than ever.
>As for the wartime economy, ask anyone who was here during ww2. They had nothing, because everything was being rationed.
- But what happened to the economy post-WWII? Basically, wars cause some sort of boost in the economy MOST of the time. Granted, Vietnam does seem the be a rather poor example... but then again, we didn't exactly win that war either.
>>
>What did we take after ww2 ?
>Or Korea ?
>Or Bosnia

-Well, WWII was mainly good because we acquired new allies- which, as you said, we have bases in many of those countries right now. Plus, Japan and America are pretty close by economy right now. We have japanese goods all over the place. Besides trade and military advantages, we also became an (if not the) evident leader in world power.
- Korea- didn't you say that we're still at war with them (N. Korea), but currently on cease-fire? Also, we did gain an ally in S. Korea.
- Bosnia I have no idea. I guess I should research it, but currently, I'm all researching/checking up/reading-ed out.

Anyway you slice it, once you win the war and "do what you have to do" you come out with a little more extra than you started with.


 
Puck Posted: Thu Aug 5 17:42:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  antartica said:
>i hate politics

Right behind ya, ant!

"God is a Liberal, God is a Democrat, God wants you to vote Republican."


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 18:02:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>i'm pretty sure we still "occupy" korea. as in, we have troops stationed there watching over shits.
>>
>No, we do not occupy Korea, we don't even come close. If we did, they would be able to serve in our armed forces like folks from Guam and Puerto Rico.
>South Korea is a soverign nation with it's own form of parliamentary government and we are there at the request of their government. Our troops are there to keep the North Koreans on their own side of the DMZ.
>Come to think of it, we have never occupied that country, not even during the Korean war.
>We have lots of troops in Germany too, but we don't occupy that country.

i'm sorry, i was using the normal definition of the word "occupy", the one that doesn't mean "To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest". actually, pretty much all 5 of the word's definitions fit for what we've done with/to korea except one. but yes, we havn't "occupied" korea in the 1/5 of the word "occupy" that you're referring to. the other 4/5ths are mine though, fucker.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 5 18:08:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Asswipe said:
>>>i'm pretty sure we still "occupy" korea. as in, we have troops stationed there watching over shits.
>>>
>>No, we do not occupy Korea, we don't even come close. If we did, they would be able to serve in our armed forces like folks from Guam and Puerto Rico.
>>South Korea is a soverign nation with it's own form of parliamentary government and we are there at the request of their government. Our troops are there to keep the North Koreans on their own side of the DMZ.
>>Come to think of it, we have never occupied that country, not even during the Korean war.
>>We have lots of troops in Germany too, but we don't occupy that country.
>
>i'm sorry, i was using the normal definition of the word "occupy", the one that doesn't mean "To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest". actually, pretty much all 5 of the word's definitions fit for what we've done with/to korea except one. but yes, we havn't "occupied" korea in the 1/5 of the word "occupy" that you're referring to. the other 4/5ths are mine though, fucker.
>
Actually none of them fit. We don't control anything over there. We serve at the pleasure of their government.
We would be obliged to leave whenever they ask us to. We haven't conquered anything there either. We merely stopped the communist insurgency from the north and secured the southern half of the country.
Would you also say we occupy Germany or Japan right now ?
Fucker


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Aug 5 18:15:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Holy CRAP! Come now- no need for hostility. Just relax, like the song goes.

"Relax, don't do it.."


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 18:20:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>
>Actually none of them fit. We don't control anything over there. We serve at the pleasure of their government.
>We would be obliged to leave whenever they ask us to. We haven't conquered anything there either. We merely stopped the communist insurgency from the north and secured the southern half of the country.
>Would you also say we occupy Germany or Japan right now ?
>Fucker

yes, i would say we occupy germany and japan in 4/5ths of the definitions of the fucking word occupy you dumb mother fucker.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Aug 5 19:00:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>Actually none of them fit. We don't control anything over there. We serve at the pleasure of their government.
>>We would be obliged to leave whenever they ask us to. We haven't conquered anything there either. We merely stopped the communist insurgency from the north and secured the southern half of the country.
>>Would you also say we occupy Germany or Japan right now ?
>>Fucker
>
>yes, i would say we occupy germany and japan in 4/5ths of the definitions of the fucking word occupy you dumb mother fucker.

but no, not in the way you use the word


 
Nikki Posted: Fri Aug 6 14:32:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  OMIGOD

It's a man-post, only!


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Aug 6 15:08:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nikki said:
>OMIGOD
>
>It's a man-post, only!

so you can see that you fit right in.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Fri Aug 6 16:29:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I posted, and I'm not a man...

Am I misunderstanding something??


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Aug 6 16:31:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>I posted, and I'm not a man...
>
>Am I misunderstanding something??
>
nah, Nikki's just not the sharpest tool in the shed ...


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]