Author Topic: white house scraps coalition of the willing list (Read 573 times)

JB88 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2005, 02:10:45 AM »

i wasnt a big fan of the word "homeland" either.

Raider179 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2005, 02:43:26 AM »

How do you feel about "ground zero"?

1) we werent nuked

2) the land is still habitable

3) it gives the enemy propaghanda

JB88 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2005, 02:46:26 AM »

how does it give the enemy propaganda?

not sure that i am grasping that one.

not so much concerned about that particular term...but homeland just has such a how would one say it...a certain 'riechishness' about it.

Raider179 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2005, 10:00:47 AM »

Ground zero is a term defined by the location a nuclear bomb detonates. A nuke at the Twin towers would have flattened most of new york causing casulties in the millions. Instead of downplaying the attack by calling it a disaster or tragedy we gave the impression that we got hurt really really bad. Do Not Misunderstand me 9/11 was truly horrific on an unprecedented level but it was not a Ground Zero and by classifying it by such give the terrorists the idea that they can hit harder than they really did/can. just my opinion though

genozaur · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:31:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
I mean simply this. I got wrong informations (if somebody can prove it) and i made wrong decision. However im responsible for my decisions so i will get trail. If you will make bad decision at your work and your company will lose few bil.$$ , guess what happen.

Does the same eukw apply on politics overthere or they can produce BS w/o responsibility ?

im not quite sure i fgot your point correctly Crabo, what did you mean by Bad stuff ? at the end of your post ?

Not applicable to the USA politics.
There's only responsibility of the politicians to the ad hoc media opinion, which depends ....

genozaur · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:34:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Sort of hard to have a "coalition of the willing" when they are dropping out like flies.

And who's shooting down those flies ?

JB88 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:35:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Ground zero is a term defined by the location a nuclear bomb detonates. A nuke at the Twin towers would have flattened most of new york causing casulties in the millions. Instead of downplaying the attack by calling it a disaster or tragedy we gave the impression that we got hurt really really bad. Do Not Misunderstand me 9/11 was truly horrific on an unprecedented level but it was not a Ground Zero and by classifying it by such give the terrorists the idea that they can hit harder than they really did/can. just my opinion though

ah. ok. just wasnt quite seeing how you were applying it.

genozaur · « **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:41:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Here are the troop amounts

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

I had no idea the uk was down to less than 10,000 troops in Iraq. Support is definitely dwindling

A fresh addition to the "list of unwilling" is the Ukraine with its newly "democratically" elected president. This country is planning to withdraw her troops from Iraq by May 2005.

genozaur · « **Reply #23 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:51:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Ground zero is a term defined by the location a nuclear bomb detonates. A nuke at the Twin towers would have flattened most of new york causing casulties in the millions. Instead of downplaying the attack by calling it a disaster or tragedy we gave the impression that we got hurt really really bad. Do Not Misunderstand me 9/11 was truly horrific on an unprecedented level but it was not a Ground Zero and by classifying it by such give the terrorists the idea that they can hit harder than they really did/can. just my opinion though

You're absolutely right on this one.
But the purpose of the introduction of the term 'Ground Zero' was to scare the Americans into accepting whatever the "retaliatory" actions the ruling circles could deem necessary to undertake.
All that you say is right, but it may be considered as being just a slight side-effect of the "useful" propaganda.

bunch · « **Reply #24 on:** January 24, 2005, 04:27:47 AM »

Iraq is well on it's way to statehood & so is wherever you live if it ain't The USA

-MZ- · « **Reply #25 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:55:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada

Does the same eukw apply on politics overthere or they can produce BS w/o responsibility ?

It depends.

If the same party controls the White House and the Congress then forget it. America bent over with its pants around its ankles on Sept 11? No problem. Thousands dead and billions of dollars wasted because on bad intel? No problem.

Now, if the opposition party controls Congress, the someone's BJ can become a matter of utmost national importance.