Awaiting the disinformation explosion...

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Martlet considering that OBL was a direct enemy to Saddams government (as were any Islamic terrorist groups) and the fact that the only known terrorist camp (well at least publicied lately) was in fact in the north-east, kurdish ruled part of the country, there was little proof to back up your statement.

If something, Saddams attacks on the kurds could have been seen as a campaign to get rid of the illegal terrorist camps in the northern territory.

Could have, even though that's not likely to be the case. He was a murdering bastard. But a threat to the US? Not likely.

No, this war had nothing to do with any perceivable threats to the US, it was GB2 finishing his daddy's job. He wanted to stabilise the situation in the middle east by imposing US power on the region --> effectively replacing the government of Iraq with a US puppet government. And make a few bucks in the process.

I wouldn't be surprised if soon people will find out that GWB's family has directly or indirectly large quantities of stock of the company that was secretely and solely awarded the reconstruction of the country. I smell another Watergate (or do you even care anymore.)

Thank you for playing, please try again.

[Thrawn]

It is the US's responsibility and the US's failure.  The US took it upon itself to take military control of Baghdad.  They suppanted the authority of the policing forces of that city and so has an obligation to provide those services for the Iraqi people.  

The US government saw fit to risk the lives of US soldiers to protect the Iraqi Ministry of Information and Ministry of Oil.  

They did not see fit to guard the incredibly important and priceless artifacts and documents, even though a group of historians informed the Bush administration of the importance of museme and library, well before the war began.  Important not just to the Iraqis but all of humanity.

But this is about liberating the Iraqi people and not about oil right.  

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It is the US's responsibility and the US's failure.  The US took it upon itself to take military control of Baghdad.  They suppanted the authority of the policing forces of that city and so has an obligation to provide those services for the Iraqi people.  

The US government saw fit to risk the lives of US soldiers to protect the Iraqi Ministry of Information and Ministry of Oil.  

They did not see fit to guard the incredibly important and priceless artifacts and documents, even though a group of historians informed the Bush administration of the importance of museme and library, well before the war began.  Important not just to the Iraqis but all of humanity.

But this is about liberating the Iraqi people and not about oil right.  

right.

Not about artifacts, either.

They lost a portion of the police force in my town due to budget cuts.  I'm going to go rob the bank.  It's not my fault, it's the governments.

[lazs2]

hmm.... the vast museum staff had been trained prior to the war on how to remove the entire contents of the museum and put it in safe places in a 24 hour period in the case of war.

They had weeks to do their job with no real danger to them at all... they really fell down on the job... or did they?

either way.... stuff gets broken in wars.. really, read a couple of books if you don't believe me... heard there was some neato stuff in germany before the war...

the crocodile tears of liberals.... kinda disgusting in their transparency
lazs

[blitz]

Originally posted by lazs2
hmm.... the vast museum staff had been trained prior to the war on how to remove the entire contents of the museum and put it in safe places in a 24 hour period in the case of war.

They had weeks to do their job with no real danger to them at all... they really fell down on the job... or did they?

either way.... stuff gets broken in wars.. really, read a couple of books if you don't believe me... heard there was some neato stuff in germany before the war...

the crocodile tears of liberals.... kinda disgusting in their transparency
lazs

Cultureless Pappnase !


regards Blitz

[Wlfgng]

yeah they are.. can you believe the Iraqi's ?

[blitz]

Originally posted by Pongo
Well you didnt have to wait long for a disinformation explosion. It started long befor the war and will continue long after it.

read up

To informative to have only a link


Brillinant if imperfect analysis from the great Chomsky, January 6, 2001
Reviewer: Eric from New London, CT  
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky provide a radical critique of the American Mass Media through the formulation and testing of a "propaganda model." This propaganda model states that, contrary to popular opinion and conservative thinking, the media does not have a liberal or anti-establishment bias. The Mass Media is owned largely by wealthy individuals, banks, and corporate interests. The media depends upon the state for information and assistance in its day-to-day operations. Thus, free-market forces cause the media to adopt a bias in favor of corporate interests, government interests, and the status quo in general. The "Propaganda Model" is tested out on a variety of foreign affairs matters, ranging from Nicaragua to the "Plot to Kill the Pope" to Vietnam to East Timor. In between, a few comments on domestic affairs such as the FBI's intrusions and Watergate are thrown into the mix. Chomsky is a brilliant scholar and analyst, and his theory largely holds up under investigation. The propaganda model demonstrates how a free press such as our own can produce more influential and effective propaganda than a press with state censorship such as that of Communist countries. However, Chomsky's conclusions are difficult to swallow: The independent media which Chomsky prefers is biased based on the ideology of those doing the publishing, and therefore no better than the mainstream media in terms of fairness or accuracy. On page 299, Chomsky argues that the break-ins and harassment by the FBI of the Socialist Worker's Party were covered up by the media because the SWP represents no powerful interests. It is just as likely that few newspaper readers would be interested in the fate of a tiny, unpopular political organization. Finally, the propaganda model fails to take one factor into account: Perhaps the reason why people accept media distortions is that they WANT to be convinced that the government is doing right by the people, that our country is honorable and decent compared to our foes, and that the status quo is acceptable. Humans have a basic psychological desire to be convinced of such things, and a media that screamed about corruption and inequality would be unpopular indeed. In short, Chomsky's writing is thoroughly readable and his biting analysis is a must-see for Americans interested in how their media operates. Just look upon his analysis and conclusions with an open, yet critical, mind. --.



Regards Blitz




America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.

[Martlet]

why are Eurotards always going on about the big American "conspiracy" and "coverup"?

[blitz]

Originally posted by Martlet
why are Eurotards always going on about the big American "conspiracy" and "coverup"?

Unbelievable Aggressiveness of resent american foreign politics comes to mind, connected with a propaganda show that is unique


Regards Blitz





America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Gryffin
I'm sorry Saurdaukar, I normally don't comment on these fruity political threads, but I can't let this one go. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks.

In fact, I think you will find that most of the attackers came from saudi arabia, a country where only the top few people are pro US, while the vast majority of the population hates both the saudi leadership and america.

On a less serious note, I love your avatar!

See Martlet's response.

And thank you.  

[OIO]

Good ol' Slick Willy said it best:


"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board (news - web sites).
"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030416/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_clinton_030416002722

[AKIron]

Originally posted by OIO
"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."

Finally something me and ole Slick can agree on. Or was he being sarcastic?

[eddiek]

I don't proclaim to know the absolute truth about all that is going on in the Middle East.
I take what I read and hear from multiple sources and form my own opinion.  I don't trust any one single source of information from the news media.

Tell ya what.
You go back and read multiple sources about your country's aggressions in the last century.  You're so quick to point and ridicule and try to incriminate America for an "illegal war", look in the mirror, pal.  
See how your countrymen/ancestors were led by the nose by Goebbels and Uncle Adolf, how much better life was going to be for Germany.  See how many unprovoked acts of war your country committed.  Unprovoked attack on Poland.  Breaking a non-aggression pact with the USSR.
Look at your country's "Final Solution", how many Jews were wiped out to make room for your country's "Master Race".
Add up how many deaths resulted from your country's acts of aggression and attempted domination, then look at what is happening now.

Coalition forces are PURPOSELY trying to avoid killing noncombatants.  Coalition forces are not in Iraq to take over the country for the oil riches, at least not IMO.

Tally up your death count, blitz, think about it, then come back and tally up how many civilian deaths coalition forces have caused.
Throw out the UN "Oil for Food" program and the little "millions of Iraqis died as a result of those sanctions" line too.  Ole Sodom was able to build 70-odd palaces in the years since the first Gulf War, how did he do that if he was using the oil money to feed his beleagured, starving people?

On second thought, forget it blitz.

Me thinks you're just suffering from an inferiority complex.  
Your country lost the last two wars it took part in, in a BIG way.  
Go on thinking how high and mighty you are, how you have such higher morals than Americans.
But first chance you get, take a trip to Auschwitz or one of the other death camps YOUR country sponsored.

"Let those without sin cast the first stone..."

Put down the rock, blitz.
Your country still has more than  few bloodstains on her hands.......

[fffreeze220]

Originally posted by Gryffin


On a less serious note, I love your avatar!

I thought the same lol. Its really cool

[cpxxx]

Blitz do  you have no concept of irony? Considering where you live.

Criticisms of the American troops failing to secure the museums and hospitals from looting borders on the absurd. Just who anticipated that the Iraqis themselves would loot their own hospitals and museums? It's almost unheard of.

Armies always have objectives to capture, no army includes the local museums or hospitals nor should they.  

Thrawn's criticism is typical. On the face of it he seems to be making a good point.  As I write this it is approximately one week after the fall of Baghdad. One whole week later Thrawn and people like him expect a relatively small force of American troops to police the whole city, restore all electricity, water and services. Protect every street corner, shop, house and hospital from looters and thieves.  Even Superman could hardly be expected to do that.

In the real world not in the fantasyland Thrawn and Blitz inhabit. These things take time.  Not that they care about that. America bashing is all they are interested in.

Note: I am not American.