Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on November 24, 2005, 05:48:29 PM
-
How I Lost the War in Iraq
Okay, okay. I admit it. It’s my fault. Lord knows, I’ve tried to pretend that I’m not to blame. After all, I opposed the invasion. I spent years assailing the Bush administration — you know, the people who chose the war. I’ve even spent thousands of dollars in taxes paying for our soldiers in Baghdad and Falluja. How could I be responsible for the mess over there?
I finally faced the cruel truth when President Bush and Vice President Cheney recently lifted their noses from the grindstone — what hours of hard work they put in keeping us safe! — and tackled this question head-on. With customary Kantian rigor, they pointed out something that had never once occurred to me. It is my skepticism, defeatism and invidious “realism” — put simply, my bad attitude — that have been undermining our nation’s mission in Iraq.
As you can imagine, their words sobered me up. And I began a thorough and searching moral inventory of the political mistakes I’ve made over the past three years, misjudgments that — let’s be brutally frank — have given aid and comfort to every pro-fascist murderer who straps on a bomb to blow up a mosque or a market.
The list of my blunders could hardly be more damning:
1. Although Saddam was a despicable tyrant, I opposed toppling him because I thought the war would prove bloody and hugely expensive, and would probably leave the world more chaotic and dangerous than before.
2. I insisted that the White House was inflating its claims about Iraq being an imminent threat.
3. I doubted that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
4. I believed that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would botch the reconstruction of Iraq.
5. I was shocked and appalled by Abu Ghraib.
6. I worried that the war would turn the world against us.
7. I scoffed every time we captured or killed the insurgents’ number-two man.
8. I . . .
You get the point. Blaming the war’s failures on those who actively opposed it and predicted, often with scary accuracy, just how it would go wrong, reminds me of the time in high school when our football coach blamed the team’s lousy performance on our lack of school spirit during a pep rally.
Knowing that the public has soured on the war, the administration has itself been staging pep rallies for both Bush and his “vice president for torture,” as former CIA head Stansfield Turner recently dubbed Dick Cheney. With the righteous self-pity that defines modern conservatism, the administration has been blaming its problems on everybody to the left of Bill O’Reilly. No matter that the right controls the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court and most corporate boardrooms. No matter that Iraq was the Bush administration’s war of choice. Somebody else is to blame.
And so, to the cheers of their flying monkeys in the blogosphere, Bush and Cheney spent the past fortnight practicing their usual tricks — slandering critics’ patriotism, implying that dissent is an attack on our troops, and dishonestly claiming that a bipartisan Senate commission cleared them of misrepresenting prewar intelligence when, of course, it did no such thing. True sore winners, they bristled with outrage at being judged for their results, not their professed intentions.
While I always enjoy the rare appearances of the incomparable Cheney, who emerged from his spider-hole wearing his cummerbund as high as a doo-rag, true connoisseurs of flop-sweat have relished watching Bush grow more rabbity with each passing day. Talk about your ironies of history. Dubya doubtless thought Vietnam was finally behind him when Dan Rather got zapped, yet here he is hunkering down in full Lyndon Johnson mode. Just as LBJ spent his final time in office speaking only to uniformed personnel who wouldn’t dare diss their commander in chief, so Bush has been spending an eerie amount of time on military bases talking to captive audiences. (He likes being seen with American soldiers — as long as they’re not dead or wounded.) You have to admire his stern claims that he won’t “cut and run” from Iraq, when everybody knows members of his administration are busy figuring out how, before next November’s elections, they’ll be able to cut and jog.
The real cutters and runners are in the GOP — they’re suddenly worried about getting re-elected. Whether it’s Pennsylvania’s reactionary senator Rick “Dead Fetus Hugger” Santorum ducking the chance to appear with the president at a Veterans Day speech, or Representative J.D. Hayworth saying he’d prefer that Bush not campaign with him in his home state of Arizona, Republicans are now scurrying to make sure that they aren’t harmed by the increasing unpopularity of what’s happening in Iraq. Like the White House, they know that their real problem isn’t Americans who opposed the war all along — they didn’t vote Republican anyway. It’s the millions of Americans who trusted in Bush’s judgment, supported the war, and now see the whole thing as a debacle.
The right’s political jockeying finds an echo in the bad-faith fiesta thrown by liberal hawks who must deal with the fact that they promoted an invasion that’s turned out badly. None has been more egregious than smug, gee-whizish New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who always seems like the sort of high school history teacher who couldn’t finish his doctorate but wows 16-year-olds by calling Brazil “amazon.country.” Although he served as the war’s most prominent liberal fig leaf, he’s still trying to have it both ways, taking credit for his visionary ideals in supporting democracy and a remade Middle East, then faulting other people for their incompetence in executing the master plan. What did he think he’d get from George Bush and Dick Cheney? They didn’t exactly turn Afghanistan into the Switzerland of Central Asia (with opiates instead of chocolates); in fact, they mocked the idea of nation-building during the 2000 campaign, and, in the run-up to war, kept claiming that the whole Iraq operation would be a piece of cake.
Democratic politicians have been just as bad. As Rosa Brooks noted in her Los Angeles Times column, November has become “Repudiate Your Iraq Vote Month” — which is obviously linked to the war’s poll numbers. Years after it might have made a difference, Bill Clinton called the war a mistake, a declaration that was immediately viewed through the prism of his wife’s presidential ambitions. Was this Willie’s slick way of signaling to liberal voters that, despite all Hillary’s hawkish talk, she didn’t believe in the war?
Meanwhile, both members of last year’s Democratic ticket publicly said that they’d been wrong in okaying the war. While John Edwards did this the canny way — identifying himself with all the ordinary Americans who put their faith in the president to do the right thing — John Kerry displayed his customary tin ear. He blamed the administration for misleading him into approving an invasion. (Didn’t he learn anything in Vietnam?) “Knowing what we know now,” he brayed, “I would not have gone to war in Iraq.” Now that’s leadership. I imagine he also feels strongly that it was a mistake to have booked steerage on the Titanic, failed to defend Pearl Harbor or traded Shaq to Miami.
While one could only laugh at Kerry’s political ineptitude, I found myself admiring the gutbucket integrity of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars, who’s known as a sentimental tough guy — he visits soldiers in military hospitals and grows teary at their suffering. Murtha had been solidly behind the war in Iraq, so when this great friend of the military called for an immediate withdrawal, you knew that the war was over in the American people’s heads, if not yet on the streets of Baghdad.
Predictably, the White House dragged out its familiar playbook, The Chickenhawk’s Guide to Smearing War Heroes, and tried to besmirch Murtha’s good name. Looking like he was battling a severe case of flatulence, beleaguered Scott McClellan compared the beefy old congressman to, of all people, Michael Moore. Well, I guess they both could shed a few pounds.
It’s unlikely that such attacks will work this time. Indeed, watching Murtha on Meet the Press, one saw a decent, profoundly sincere man who, though a Democrat, was conservative in the old-fashioned sense of the word. You didn’t have to agree with his call for immediate withdrawal to grasp that he was articulating a feeling now shared by the majority of Americans.
“In hindsight,” Tim Russert asked him, “do you believe your vote in Iraq was a mistake?”
“Obviously, it was a mistake,” Murtha replied. And hearing this doughty old Marine say such words, you knew that the question was no longer, “Should we have gone to war in Iraq?” but “How do we get our tulips out of there?”
by JOHN POWERS
-
Silat, keep this post handy for the future, when people like you are listed as the ones with no vision or spine.
-
Looks like it's my fault as well.
-
you guys are funny. You are looking at the Iraq war as a failure, when it's a complete success and is a world changing historical event.
20 years from now, you guys are gonna be great examples of how wrong and ignorant people can be.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you guys are funny. You are looking at the Iraq war as a failure, when it's a complete success and is a world changing historical event.
20 years from now, you guys are gonna be great examples of how wrong and ignorant people can be.
You're beginning to sound like Boroda :eek:
-
Originally posted by Fishu
You're beginning to sound like Boroda :eek:
Do you think the Iraq war is a failure? If so, on what grounds?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
20 years from now, you guys are gonna be great examples of how wrong and ignorant people can be.
maybe, time will tell either way.
but you guys get to be that example today.
it shouldn't take anyone 20 years to see it. the majority of Americans are seeing it clearly. though many who remain 'blind by choice' may never realize how wrong this has gone. who we've become.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
maybe, time will tell either way.
but you guys get to be that example today.
it shouldn't take anyone 20 years to see it. the majority of Americans are seeing it clearly. though many who remain 'blind by choice' may never realize how wrong this has gone. who we've become.
I see it clearly today. We won the war, got rid of Saddam and any threats he could have presented in the future....which was the stated goal since Clinton.
We are weeding out the terrorists and have installed a democracy in the middle of the middle east. We are winning big time.
Jordan has announced that terror and islamic extremists are at war with them. Terror and muslim extremism is now recognised as a threat and is being addressed.
The USA is once leading the way.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Jordan has announced that terror and islamic extremists are at war with them. Terror and muslim extremism is now recognised as a threat and is being addressed.
The three hotel bombings have changed the whole complexitym without question.
Karaya
-
the oil is flowing now and in the future, the war is over...again.
the price was minimum.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
the oil is flowing now and in the future, the war is over...again.
the price was minimum.
The war against Iraq didn't change the oil flow. Guess again.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
maybe, time will tell either way.
but you guys get to be that example today.
it shouldn't take anyone 20 years to see it. the majority of Americans are seeing it clearly. though many who remain 'blind by choice' may never realize how wrong this has gone. who we've become.
How wrong has it gone?
One of the complaints I hear the troops have is all you see on the media is what has gone wrong but not the positives that are being done and they are doing.
Not surprising. How often does the media present good news as news?
Examples. Todays NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) front page lists this as their top stories
Suicide Bombing in Iraq Kills 30 and Wounds Dozens
Korean Scientist Admits He Lied About Source of Egg Cells
Putin Defends Reining In Private Groups
Forget the Career. My Parents Need Me at Home.
Toxic Flow Reaches Chinese City; Oil Company Blamed
They cant even put a positive spin on today
Accident During Parade Hurts 2
Or the
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Suicide Attacker Kills Over 30 in Baghdad
Stem Cell Expert Resigns
Bush's Space Plan in Jeopardy
Town Turned Into Terror Hub
Or the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/)
Pinochet charged over dissidents
Greenhouse gases at historic high
Legend Best 'enters final hours'
Pick a major paper or news outlet and see how many positive stories they have as opposed to negative ones.
the War as well as the rest of the world is hardly being reported in a "fair and balanced" manner.
So why not think everything is wrong or going wrong? When thats all you ever hear about thats the only part that gets any kind of serious coverage.
And its not just the war, its everything. Take the year on the NFL for example. Which is and has been getting more press? Payton Manning and the Colts thus far undefeated season, The Seahawks resurgance, the Bears Defence?
Or has it been donimated by Stories of The Vikings Sex boat scandal and TO debacle.
Which made larger headlines.
Gas Prices going up?
OR gas prices comming back down to well below pre Katrina levels?
Or the Katrina Victims. Which is the one your hearing about,
Stories like this?
Big Joe Henry Toy Drive (http://www.nj1015.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=918&z=1)
or Stories like this?
Katrina Victims forgotten (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/17/katrina/)
so it really isnt all that surprising that people think EVERYTHING has gone wrong.
That is all the media is telling us.
And finally who have we become?
IMO nothing we already werent
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you guys are funny. You are looking at the Iraq war as a failure, when it's a complete success and is a world changing historical event.
20 years from now, you guys are gonna be great examples of how wrong and ignorant people can be.
Heck, he probably thinks Jimmy Carter was a great economist also.
-
Silat did you write this yourself?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Heck, he probably thinks Jimmy Carter was a great economist also.
Everybody knows it was Billy that was the economist. Jimmy just wouldnt give him enough money to play with to prove it. :)
-
The war will end when:
Option
A. Alternate energy source is developed i.e. the world won`t rely on oil anymore and Saudi Arabia goes back being the s**t hole it used to be and won`t have any cash to finance terrorists.
B. Oil wells run dry in the mid east and ...see above
C. Muslims get their hands on nukes and in nuklear exchanges all goes up in smoke
D. Muslim terrorists succeed in destroying western values and western way of life, and establish Islamic law over the entire world.
..my 2 shekels
-
its like the winning team quitting the game at halftime with a 5 to one advantage.
leftist elitist liberals should be tied to the stake and burned alive. they are the bane of western civilization. At least they should kill themsleves to save the rest of us the trouble.
we cant stands them......
:noid
-
This thread is priceless. Left and/or right wing zealots can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
Some things never change.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you think the Iraq war is a failure? If so, on what grounds?
It was a failure to begin with.
However now that you've got the war started, the US needs to also stay there until its democracy is safe and secure from takeovers.
Otherwise you've lost everything with the war and it will be hundred times worse than with Saddams regime.
-
It's most likely that if the coalition would choose to bail out from Iraq today, a short civil war would ensue and Iraq would become an extremist Islamic government.
-
Iraq was/is the right war, at the right place, at the right time
it is a failure why? that it's borders are easier to cross than our sw border and that every Abu, Ayman or muja-wannabe who has a suicide wish to "kill the infidels" can easily cross them and fullfil their wish?
Iraq is going fine, we just need to move the battle to the borders and the center of the country would stablize - maybe into the counties which are supplying the cheekboness and their weapons. Can you say Iran? Syria?
so sorry this isn't just another 60 minute sitcom west wing war. Some things take time and the fortitude to see them through.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Silat did you write this yourself?
Its John Powers.
A movie and pop culture critic for NPR who now wants us to believe that he is a foreign policy and war expert.
He is a left wing radical extremist that fits in perfect with the "Bush Hater" crowd.
-
Originally posted by Silat
1. Although Saddam was a despicable tyrant, I opposed toppling him because I thought the war would prove bloody and hugely expensive, and would probably leave the world more chaotic and dangerous than before.
[/b]
Bloody...not nearly as bad as It could have been, Expensive...yes I will agree with that
2. I insisted that the White House was inflating its claims about Iraq being an imminent threat.
Loudly criticised yet hardly proven
3. I doubted that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
probably very little but he could have had EVERYTHING to do with the NEXT 9/11
4. I believed that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would botch the reconstruction of Iraq.
Other than set major policy these three have very little to do with what's actually done on the ground.
5. I was shocked and appalled by Abu Ghraib.
shocking and appalling things happen everyday, the world is an imperfect place
6. I worried that the war would turn the world against us.
[/b]
aside from france Germany and Russia, the liberals of the world will get over it.
7. I scoffed every time we captured or killed the insurgents’ number-two man.
[/b]
so you are saying you DONT want US troops to succeed? When one number-two man is killed he is often replaced no?
8. I . . .
You get the point.
no I don't get your point. Actively blaiming every failure of the war on Bush becuase it hurts him and that supports your agenda does hurt the overall effort. Asking for a troop pull out immediatly gives a HUGE win to terrorists all over the world. Calling the war grim/failure/mess at halftime is grosly exaggerating the situation. I beleive in my heart that there are people out there in this world and in the US that want the war in Iraq to fail because they hate the president that much.
and PS you didn't lose the war in Iraq, it is not lost.....as I said it's only halftime.
-
I still havent seen anyone come up with how we've "Failed" in Iraq
I keep seeing people say we failed. But I've yet to see anyone give any conclusive evidence of exactly what.
We havent "Failed" at anything untill or unless we pull out and have given up. THEN we can say we 'Failed"
-
Originally posted by VOR
This thread is priceless. Left and/or right wing zealots can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
Some things never change.
Enlighten us to "the forrest".
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I still havent seen anyone come up with how we've "Failed" in Iraq
I keep seeing people say we failed. But I've yet to see anyone give any conclusive evidence of exactly what.
We havent "Failed" at anything untill or unless we pull out and have given up. THEN we can say we 'Failed"
AMEN!
-
Failed to understand, improvise, and conquer beyond reproach, apparently.
And who's "we"?
-
I dunno... the troops are not upset... We are developing new weapons and tactics .... 100 times better (and probly less dangerous) than a whole bunch of war games...
The country (iraq) is better of so far as freedom and infrastructre than it has ever been... we get to kill lots of terrorist martyrs and establish an outpost in a hostile muslim extremist controlled region...
except for cost.... we seem to be doing fine.
lazs
-
damn
imagine if the US have 1 million troops stationed in Iraq
A million will be enough to patrol Iraq, and cover the border gaps around the so-called Axis of Evil regimes (Syria and Iran)
A million or more will be enough to prevent foreign fighters from entering iraq. A million or more will be enough to prevent advanced weapons and capitals frrom enttering iraq
-
probly not much point in that... would be good to train a million iraqi troops and have a base there tho.
All in all... seems to working out pretty good.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Silat, keep this post handy for the future, when people like you are listed as the ones with no vision or spine.
I dont march in lockstep with PARTY Nuke.
I actually use my head and think.
I vote country not party...
Nuke when do you forsee this fantasy of yours happening?
I mean the one where you and Bush are heldup as right?
How many years?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Its John Powers.
A movie and pop culture critic for NPR who now wants us to believe that he is a foreign policy and war expert.
He is a left wing radical extremist that fits in perfect with the "Bush Hater" crowd.
Goes along with your Hate all things that dont follow BOOSH :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Bloody...not nearly as bad as It could have been, Expensive...yes I will agree with that
Loudly criticised yet hardly proven
probably very little but he could have had EVERYTHING to do with the NEXT 9/11
Other than set major policy these three have very little to do with what's actually done on the ground.
shocking and appalling things happen everyday, the world is an imperfect place
[/b]
aside from france Germany and Russia, the liberals of the world will get over it.
[/b]
so you are saying you DONT want US troops to succeed? When one number-two man is killed he is often replaced no?
no I don't get your point. Actively blaiming every failure of the war on Bush becuase it hurts him and that supports your agenda does hurt the overall effort. Asking for a troop pull out immediatly gives a HUGE win to terrorists all over the world. Calling the war grim/failure/mess at halftime is grosly exaggerating the situation. I beleive in my heart that there are people out there in this world and in the US that want the war in Iraq to fail because they hate the president that much.
and PS you didn't lose the war in Iraq, it is not lost.....as I said it's only halftime. [/B]
Pulling out the criticism is hurting the troops card?
Give me a break and a reasonable discussion.
You march in lockstep with party lines and apparently do not see the forest for the trees...
That being said.
We needed more troops on the ground and our illustrious warrior president didnt see it that way. He removed anyone who said otherwise.
He doesnt have the balls to institute a draft and put his money where his mouth is.
And by the way I can pull out any number of writings from the troops, to counter yours, who dont see it the right wing way
-
Originally posted by Silat
Pulling out the criticism is hurting the troops card?
Give me a break and a reasonable discussion.
You march in lockstep with party lines and apparently do not see the forest for the trees...
That being said.
We needed more troops on the ground and our illustrious warrior president didnt see it that way. He removed anyone who said otherwise.
He doesnt have the balls to institute a draft and put his money where his mouth is.
And by the way I can pull out any number of writings from the troops, to counter yours, who dont see it the right wing way
Well you march right along with if you say a lie loud and long enough it becomes true. That's the left's problem is most of what you and them say you cannot prove. Most of what is said isn't reasonable criticism....it's outright slander and lies. I would agree with a few more troops to shore up security till the elections but then it's time for the Iraqis to start getting their feet wet.
-
Originally posted by VOR
This thread is priceless. Left and/or right wing zealots can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
Some things never change.
for most here the war is in the abstract. how many of these zealots do you think actually have had or have family over there, in either of the gulf wars, i'm guessing none...
-
Failure?
Hmmm...
Schools are up and teaching not only boys but girls also. That's a failure.
Iraqis want peace as much as the next, recuritment for Police and Army is higher than Pre War Iraq. Diffinately a Failure.
Citizens of Iraq are directing/turning in locations of insurgents... Baath Party what? Now it's like getting Religions to play nice together... Hmmm like the Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and Bhuddhist. *Listening to John Lennons "Imagine" right now* BIG Failure.
and the promise of 70 virgins after MartyDum? Hell I married one woman and have been with her for 25 years now...69 more women wouldn't be Heaven, it'd be a livin Hell.
But then again if I remove my Rose colored glasses the town of Perfect fades away....
Because I can see past the trees and realize it's just as any other War *except Grenada* that it's not the enemy demoralizing the American Troops overseas...it's his/her homelands own media.
God Bless Our American Troops during the times they need us the most.
Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years.
Mac
US Army Retired
-
So Torque, is your default position that somebody who has relatives fighting in Iraq cannot possibly support the war?
You do know that lady Cindy Sheehan isn't the only American with family members who fought or are fighting in Iraq, you know that right?
-
Originally posted by Torque
for most here the war is in the abstract. how many of these zealots do you think actually have had or have family over there, in either of the gulf wars, i'm guessing none...
Does one have to have "family over there" to have a point of view or opionion on the war?
My country is at war over there, and as such I have a great deal of interest and opinion on the subject.
I feel the war is going very well and better than I ever expected it would go.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So Torque, is your default position that somebody who has relatives fighting in Iraq cannot possibly support the war?
Maybe if someone don't have family over there, they should have no reason to oppose the war and should just keep quite. :lol
-
With customary Kantian rigor, they pointed out something that had never once occurred to me. It is my skepticism, defeatism and invidious “realism” — put simply, my bad attitude — that have been undermining our nation’s mission in Iraq.
by JOHN POWERS
It seems there is some historical precedent that could slightly dislodge Mr Powers tongue from his cheek.
Giap was prepared to take a gamble. His divisions had been battered whenever they met the American forces in conventional combat and the VC- if not exactly on the retreat -was at least being pushed backwards. Hanoi was perfectly aware of the growing US peace movement and of the deep divisions the war was causing in American society. What Giap needed was a body-blow that would break Washington's will to carry on and at the same time would undermine the growing legitimacy of the Saigon Government once and for all. In one sense, time was not on Giap's side. While Hanoi was sure that the Americans would tire of the war as the French had before them, the longer it took, the stronger the Saigon Government might become. Another year or so of American involvement could seriously damage the NLF and leave the ARVN capable of dealing with its enemies on its own. Giap opted for a quick and decisive victory that would be well in time for the 1968 US Presidential campaign.
In 1968 the General launched a major surprise offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war and sealed the General's fame as the dominant military genius of the 20th Century's second half.
John Colvin author of "Giap Volcano Under Snow"
maybe not...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I feel the war is going very well and better than I ever expected it would go.
i'm sure this would make a good sig under pictures of all the victims of both sides of the war,
guess it depends on the viewpoint where you watching it from.
-
How about under a picture of the million or so victims of the sanctions policy?
On second thought, I guess that picture would need some sort of alternate caption.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i'm sure this would make a good sig under pictures of all the victims of both sides of the war,
guess it depends on the viewpoint where you watching it from.
In the same way that the war against Germany in WWII cost lives, yet was for the greater good and ended up freeing a continent to live free lives ( with the exception of Russian zones) and restoring order.
I guess you have to have a more than just a limited, basic view in order to see.
-
Nuke, why come up with WW2 ? because i'm from germany?
ok imagine i'm from um...lets say, Argentina! what would you say then?
beside that, comparing a total world war (ww2) with the Iraq war is
sorry, nonsens.
-
Originally posted by moot
Failed to understand, improvise, and conquer beyond reproach, apparently.
:rolleyes:
And who's "we"?
"We" would be the US and its participating allies
If you are a citizen of any of those countries
That would include you kemosabi
:)
-
why is the whole world so full of bullchit?
lets face it, we are all at war in this world because we are pathetic as a race. we know there is so much more to life than we can grasp and so against all our endevours the only option for our angers and our greed is destruction.
this whole thing is stupid, people talking of patriotism, of disolusionment of patriotism, of all this rubbbish.
none of you are dead.
we're all as full of it as any politician if we think we have a right to understand what world politics consists of.
kill one and 2 more always take thier place.
humans are pathetic and self destructive, and for the most part totaly capable of living almost a centuary in denial in many cases.
get over it already and talk about something that you do understand.
the way i see it, we may aswell all be at war and may the biggest country win! oh...thats whats happening really isnt it, under all the lies and media coverage and opinions and control.
I mean for christ's sake why dont we just have armageddon already and get over it.
-
Originally posted by mechanic
get over it already and talk about something that you do understand.
Say that while gazing into your mirror.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you think the Iraq war is a failure? If so, on what grounds?
Well, the grounds would be that it has taken the winds out of the sails of the real fight, disemboweled our economy, and created opportunities for America to be seen as dishonest in the eyes of the world! I could care less about the eventual outcome in IRAQ! I know what it is costing and who is making the money and who is giving their lives, and that should be all the grounds ayone needs to make an assumption of failure! All great world powers have made the same kind of mistakes that we are making in IRAQ. When history is written it will be the same as most of these types of wars, many wealthy people got wealthier and many poor people died!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
.. many wealthy people got wealthier and many poor people died!
other than maybe the American Revolution what war didn't/doesn't the above happen in?
yes, Peace would be ideal but i do not think that is on the table with the group who want us dead, you know - the same group our boys die daily fighting against in what some here call a "wrong" war.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
In the same way that the war against Germany in WWII cost lives, yet was for the greater good and ended up freeing a continent to live free lives ( with the exception of Russian zones) and restoring order.
I guess you have to have a more than just a limited, basic view in order to see.
So, if we were all gung ho about liberating folks from German oppression, then why did we allow hundreds of thousands maybe millions to die under soviet control? Why, because it would have been "too costly"! LMAO hawkers always end up with their feet in their mouths! Usually great world powers make the same mistakes and usually they make them in a country where they should be able to "win" easily. The only problem is that history has good lessons that should be remembered before entering a country on moral grounds! Attrition is unwinnable now as it has always been and anyone who thinks that the war in IRAQ will not turn into a war of attrition is just not very smart! IRAQ is a joke now and was a joke 3 years ago! I am truly sorry for all the servicemen and women who have given their lives for this cause. There are many in IRAQ right now who are doing their best and following orders like the good soldiers they are trained to be! It is not their fault for being in that situation! How many are being killed weekly over there by IED's? Is this winnable? Will it ever be winnable if IED's never stop being placed everywhere american soldiers travel? Many who were skeptical about the IRAQ invasion warned that it would probably turn into a war of attrition and their predictions are proving on target! One "ground" of failure is the division of the American nation that inevitably will come before all this is over!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
other than maybe the American Revolution what war didn't/doesn't the above happen in?
yes, Peace would be ideal but i do not think that is on the table with the group who want us dead, you know - the same group our boys die daily fighting against in what some here call a "wrong" war.
Eagler, I don't mean any disrespect to our troops as my family being from the south and poor has given many for this country! You don't need to use that when debating the politics of war! War is something that all human beings must live/die with! Some wars are fought out of neccessity and some arent! The debate here is whether IRAQ was a good choice/place to battle islamic fundamentalist. I believe that it was a bad choice and extremely bad timing! I've heard many, including friends of mine who are going over there, that I would rather fight them in their yard than mine! When u step into a trap, generally limbs are lost! The United States will prevail long after IRAQ is in the history books, the question is how many limbs will we lose? Islamic fundamentalist/terrorist have long awaited an opprotunity to lure the US into its home to "bleed" it as much as they could! It's pathetic that as smart and as strong as the US is we made such a blunder as we have in invading IRAQ! The only question now is how much blood will we give them before we decide that the strategy is not working!
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Nuke, why come up with WW2 ? because i'm from germany?
ok imagine i'm from um...lets say, Argentina! what would you say then?
beside that, comparing a total world war (ww2) with the Iraq war is
sorry, nonsens.
I'd say the same thing no matter where you are from. You tried to make a point by using the inocent who are killed in a war, saying that the war is not worth people dying.
My point is that people die in all war, not just the Iraq war. Iraq will be left a better place, just like Germany and Japan where.
And Skyrock, sorry, but I'm not even going to try to argue with you. You have made so many factually wrong statements and you don't even seem rational enough to calmly discuss in an intelligent manner.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Say that while gazing into your mirror.
i dont have any mirrors in my house as i tend to smash them when ever i get possesed by evil spirits.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'd say the same thing no matter where you are from. You tried to make a point by using the inocent who are killed in a war, saying that the war is not worth people dying.
My point is that people die in all war, not just the Iraq war. Iraq will be left a better place, just like Germany and Japan where.
And Skyrock, sorry, but I'm not even going to try to argue with you. You have made so many factually wrong statements and you don't even seem rational enough to calmly discuss in an intelligent manner.
Nuke, was vietnam left a better place? Was Somalia left a better place? A bad decision is a bad decision, bro!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Nuke, was vietnam left a better place? Was Somalia left a better place? A bad decision is a bad decision, bro!
\
I agree. It was a bad decision to cut and run from those places and to allow the thugs to take over.
In Iraq, we will not cut and run, unless a Democrat is elected maybe.
-
honest question, what are you doing to hel;p the war effort nuke?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
\
I agree. It was a bad decision to cut and run from those places and to allow the thugs to take over.
In Iraq, we will not cut and run, unless a Democrat is elected maybe.
cut and run???????? We got wipped by the war of attrition bro! I don't know how old you are but you can read the history! Read some of the journals. a bad unwinnable war is a bad unwinnable war, you can't make it into a patriotism thing or a matter of ego! Your idealistic view that the US is soo strong that we can change the world is little out there bro! We as a nation must make extremely good and smart decisions when it comes to using/sending our forces to foriegn lands. We have limited resources and limited support for frivolous wars!
-
Originally posted by mechanic
honest question, what are you doing to hel;p the war effort nuke?
None of your business and illrelevent.
-
Skyrock, somone like you is impossible to argue with. You have made lots of assumptions about how I feel and you do not make a point.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Skyrock, somone like you is impossible to argue with. You have made lots of assumptions about how I feel and you do not make a point.
I do appologize if I have offended you personally, sir!
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Failure?
Hmmm...
Schools are up and teaching not only boys but girls also.
Iraq was one of the few countries that taught girls under Saddam.
Iraqis want peace as much as the next, recuritment for Police and Army is higher than Pre War Iraq.
Well no ****. The US had yet to disbanned the Iraqi army before the invasion.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
cut and run???????? We got wipped by the war of attrition bro!
It's over and we lost already?
1. Get rid of Saddam. ....Check
2. Get rid of WMD. Done before we started, so .... Check
3. Train Iraqi security
a. Train some 200,000 ... check
b. Train some more ... coming
4. Rebuild Iraqi infrastructure
a. Add 8 Gigawatts to electrical grid ... check
b. Rebuild water and sewer to better than under SH ... check
c. Rebuild over 2500+ schools .... check
d. Distribute textbooks for same .... check
e. Train 30k+ teachers ...... check
5. Set up a Democracy:
a. Write a constituion.... check
b. Ratify same ..... check
c. Hold parlimentary elections.... Dec 15th, Check
This is the picture of defeat?
6. Hold casualties to a minimum.
a. 18 months and 2100 dead. Horribly unfortunate, but less than we lost on Utah and Omaha on D1. Less than a third of what we lost on Iwo. We didn't stop then...
it's about 1/30th of what we lost in three days in Pennsylvania. It's time that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation shall have a new birth of freedom...
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I do appologize if I have offended you personally, sir!
you don't need to appologize or cal me sir. I don't take this stuff personally, I was just pointing out that if you want to argue someything, don't make assumptions about the person you are trying to debate.
Just make your points.
see you in the air.
-
pretty much what i figured....nada
my brother served in the first gulf war. this time on the wife's side two went over, one kid went to afghanistan and the other pulled special body guard duty in iraq. it's becoming an annual event ever decade shackling the reaganstein.
cracks me up hearing most of you bleacher blowhards tout "we" this and "we" that...
it's great that you watch the news and all...
-
So once again Torque, the only possibility if you have family fighting there is that you must oppose the war. That is the argument that you are making, right? Because only people who can support a war policy are those who have no direct relations fighting in that war.
So you certainly oppose the 911 afghanistan war then, right?
-
Originally posted by Torque
pretty much what i figured....nada
my brother served in the first gulf war. this time on the wife's side two went over, one kid went to afghanistan and the other pulled special body guard duty in iraq. it's becoming an annual event ever decade shackling the reaganstein.
cracks me up hearing most of you bleacher blowhards tout "we" this and "we" that...
it's great that you watch the news and all...
does your bro share your opinions of the war? does the two from the wifey side?
so this makes you the expert?
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Enlighten us to "the forrest".
Anything for a friend. :)
(http://www.bilbocine.com/forrest_gump.jpg)
(http://www.uky.edu/PR/News/Archives/2003/May2003/03-04_forrest_sawyer.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It's over and we lost already?
1. Get rid of Saddam. ....Check
2. Get rid of WMD. Done before we started, so .... Check
3. Train Iraqi security
a. Train some 200,000 ... check
b. Train some more ... coming
4. Rebuild Iraqi infrastructure
a. Add 8 Gigawatts to electrical grid ... check
b. Rebuild water and sewer to better than under SH ... check
c. Rebuild over 2500+ schools .... check
d. Distribute textbooks for same .... check
e. Train 30k+ teachers ...... check
5. Set up a Democracy:
a. Write a constituion.... check
b. Ratify same ..... check
c. Hold parlimentary elections.... Dec 15th, Check
This is the picture of defeat?
6. Hold casualties to a minimum.
a. 18 months and 2100 dead. Horribly unfortunate, but less than we lost on Utah and Omaha on D1. Less than a third of what we lost on Iwo. We didn't stop then...
it's about 1/30th of what we lost in three days in Pennsylvania. It's time that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation shall have a new birth of freedom...
The quote you used by me was in reference to Vietnam
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Iraq was one of the few countries that taught girls under Saddam.
Well no ****. The US had yet to disbanned the Iraqi army before the invasion.
Maybe a typo maybe not but why would Sadam let the US disband his army BEFORE the invasion?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Enlighten us to "the forrest".
Originally posted by VOR
Anything for a friend. :)
(http://www.bilbocine.com/forrest_gump.jpg)
(http://www.uky.edu/PR/News/Archives/2003/May2003/03-04_forrest_sawyer.jpg)
I LIKES CHOCOLATE...AND Cake!!!
-
The majority of the US peopel feel the war in Iraq is not going well, therefore, the war is not going well. Raise your hand if your smarter than the majority of the US people.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The majority of the US peopel feel the war in Iraq is not going well, therefore, the war is not going well. Raise your hand if your smarter than the majority of the US people.
this the same majority that picked goron over bush in the popular vote in '00?
-
The same majority that wanted to start the war and bashed the french for not joining the war?
-
This war needs to be won. It MUST be fought. If not now then within the next 20 years on a scale far, far larger than this one. We need every able bodied man to do his duty.. and we need relief for the kids that have been bearing this incredible burden.
So, lets give the kids a break. Help 'em out.
If your under 45 years of age, enlist. They'll take you. Take that kids place in the line.
-
there are no winners in war, merely the people who are left alive.
-
Stop playing the ill realistic CS and go fight the terrorist in Iraq! much more fun!
No bunny hopping, no cheaters, you get paid for participating this game, no whining of mismodelling - it's as realistic as it gets!
.. and much much more!
:aok
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The majority of the US peopel feel the war in Iraq is not going well, therefore, the war is not going well. Raise your hand if your smarter than the majority of the US people.
I am smarter than the majority of American people. I am in the top 2% statistically.
I'd be willing to bet that every single person who posts here and supports the war is smarter than the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are sheep but think they're not.
-
I'd rather have someone pretend to shoot me for years and get a little buzz than only once for the ultimate buzz. but hell, wouldnt say no if i was forced to join up, and would make a good deal of whatever they made me do 'in the name of freedom'.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I am smarter than the majority of American people. I am in the top 2% statistically.
I'd be willing to bet that every single person who posts here and supports the war is smarter than the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are sheep but think they're not.
i dont have a national average IQ for the US, what would you say it is?
i'm geussing if you're in the top 2% that would put you in triple digits though(i hope, god bless america).
spose this aint none of my business either though.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
cut and run???????? We got wipped by the war of attrition bro!
In Nam
We got whipped politically. Not militarily
The media, and people like Fonda, and the politicians running the war from Washington. did more to defeat us then the NVs ever did in the feild
-
Originally posted by VOR
Anything for a friend. :)
(http://www.bilbocine.com/forrest_gump.jpg)
(http://www.uky.edu/PR/News/Archives/2003/May2003/03-04_forrest_sawyer.jpg)
Ah yes, comical banter (translate: spin, diversion, etc, etc)
Now answer the question:
"This thread is priceless. Left and/or right wing zealots can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
Some things never change. "
What is the forest, friend?
-
Originally posted by Torque
my brother served in the first gulf war. this time on the wife's side two went over, one kid went to afghanistan and the other pulled special body guard duty in iraq. it's becoming an annual event ever decade shackling the reaganstein.
cracks me up hearing most of you bleacher blowhards tout "we" this and "we" that...
it's great that you watch the news and all...
And the selfrightous crack me up.
This isnt some sort of exclusive club that only you or family members serving have a say or whose opinions are only valid.
This isnt just your family or families of those serving at war. This is the country itself involved and "we" are all a part of it for better or worse.
While "we" may not personally be in the military or have family members over there fighting,"we" have friends or know people over there.
And "we" worry about them also,"We" also feel sorrow when "we" hear of a soldiers death. "We also feel the outrage when a suicide bomber kills himself taking some of "our" soldiers with him. Or when someone is captured and beheaded on Al Jazera
While not serving in the military ourselves "we" care enough to donate packages and items to send over to OUR servicemen or women to keep send them a bit of home. Because "we" know that just as important as guns,bullets and flackjackets are it is as important for our troops to know "we" stand behind them reguardless of our views on the war.
On 911 did anyone not think "we" were attacked? How many felt the highjackers just crashed planes into a couple of buildings killing some people?
No,we all considered it an attack on us. Even if "we" didnt know anyone in those buildings or on those planes. "We" all felt "we" were attacked.
Be it for, or against the war "we" speak out on it on behalf of the (our) soldiers. We do this because it is our duty, our right as countrymen to do so.
"We" see these soldiers as extentions of our own families because they very well could be our fathers, our mothers,our sons, our daughters,our friends, family or fellow townspeople.
We say "we" because as a country, be it for or against it "We" are in this together.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
In Nam
We got whipped politically. Not militarily
The media, and people like Fonda, and the polititions running the war from Washington. did more to defeat us then the NVs ever did in the feild
We got wipped because of the support the north was getting from CHina, Russia, and others in the region. Tet, '68 was the beginning of the end in vietnem. Drediock, I am not disrespecting the troops bro, I lost my favorite Uncle in vietnam. He was a gallant fearless soldier and then turned medic. He gave his life for a fallen soldier. It's not about who would have fought and won, it's about the place and time one chooses to battle! I support 100% our war in Afghanistan, because I believe it was the right choice and the right time. IRAQ is not, was not, and ultimately will be bad for America as a country! I support our troops in IRAQ right now, I just don't believe it was a smart move in the bigger picture!
Frankly, I am surprised to see so many who still say that vietnam was winnable. Blame Fonda, the media, hippies, whoever! Vietnam turned into a war of attrition and those type wars truly are never winnable.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Maybe a typo maybe not but why would Sadam let the US disband his army BEFORE the invasion?
Well, he wouldn't. Sorry for not explaining myself well.
"recuritment for Police and Army is higher than Pre War Iraq."
You have a factory employing 100 employees. There is a change of ownership, and all 100 are laid off. The new owners change their mind and try to hire them back.
The owners then issue a press release that says that hiring at the factory is at a higher level than before the change of ownership. Whoop-dee-do right? It obfuscates the fact that the owners apparently made a mistake by laying them off in the first place.
Kind of ties into the, "What the heck was the occupation strategy anyway?", arguement we've been having.
-
we won the war in vietnam... 95% of all roads were safe... over 95% of villages were in control of the local militia... there had not been a major offensive by the north for years and they were wupped... we threw away the victory by not supporting the south who were beating the north in every engagement and chasing em back into laos..
All we had to do was keep supplying them with arms and money for a little longer... we were all but pulled out anyway..
It is shameful how our politicians abondened them... at one point the south was down to 1 bullet per man per day. Even at that they threw back the northern troops several times before being over ran.
Our troops and Abrams have nothing to be ashamed of. Our politicians should live in infamy.
A very good book on the subject is "A Better War" by Sorley.... it explains how Abrams turned the war around and won it.
lazs
-
it was a rather easy question, a simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice. no need for a rummy reach around on the issue.
two gulf wars and maneuvers in afghanistan, and still nada between the lot of you. so i'm off the mark in saying that often the most verbose here have a tenuous connection at best.
vietnam, a sorrid colonial sister tea party. read the letters minh set to truman in '45.
-
Originally posted by Torque
for most here the war is in the abstract. how many of these zealots do you think actually have had or have family over there, in either of the gulf wars, i'm guessing none...
Ok Torque I'll bite. While the only family member I've had over there being my uncle.....I have many other "brothers" over there that I pray for their safety every night. I've volunteered to go along time ago but have yet to hop on to a rotation
IMHO Having imediate family serving abroad is tough but I allways remember we all volunteered knowing we could be put in harms way. Just because somone has family in the military or has had the tragedy of losing somone does not make their voice any more Right or wrong than the next person. Where's there's somone saying "I hate the war because my father's their the troops need to come home" there's somone else saying "I'm proud of my husband and he's proud of what he is doing, I can't wait for him to come home"
Further the war effects EVERYONE not just those serving. Keep in mind in your reply that in January I hit 10 Years Time in Service Active Duty.
-
Originally posted by Torque
it was a rather easy question, a simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice. no need for a rummy reach around on the issue.
two gulf wars and maneuvers in afghanistan, and still nada between the lot of you. so i'm off the mark in saying that often the most verbose here have a tenuous connection at best.
vietnam, a sorrid colonial sister tea party. read the letters minh set to truman in '45.
No family members here but several friends and other people I know between the 2 Gulf wars.
so what?
While I personally do not know anyone who has died in either
I've known friends the have died for various reasons and I've had close family members die.
Cant say one death is less painfull then the other.
In any event is still doent give you any kind of monopoly on the opinion on the war.
Nor does it make your views or opinions any more valid then anyone elses.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
We got wipped because of the support the north was getting from CHina, Russia, and others in the region. Tet, '68 was the beginning of the end in vietnem.
Sorry about jumping on your previous post, but the thread is about Iraq, and since the one you rather ambiguously responded to was also about Iraq and mentioned policies followed in Somalia and Vietnam to bolster his Iraq argument, you can see how I may have misconstrued.
However, to follow the VN tangent, in 1967 the effort of the NVA and VC aganist SVN and USA and Allies, (incl Aussies IIRC) was about on its last legs, as recalled by NVA generals.
They conceived of Tet because they believed that they could snatch victory from defeat. The anti war movement in the USA showed them a way to do it and they thought that if they could make a big enough splash in the news and bolster the college demonstrations, the USA would withdraw. It worked perfectly even though militarily Tet was a victory for SVN/USA. Tet virtually destroyed the VC. After '68, the VC virtually dissappeared as a fighting force in the feild.
We didn't lose by attrition, we lost because we weren't sufficeintly united behind the cause.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry about jumping on your previous post, but the thread is about Iraq, and since the one you rather ambiguously responded to was also about Iraq and mentioned policies followed in Somalia and Vietnam to bolster his Iraq argument, you can see how I may have misconstrued.
However, to follow the VN tangent, in 1967 the effort of the NVA and VC aganist SVN and USA and Allies, (incl Aussies IIRC) was about on its last legs, as recalled by NVA generals.
They conceived of Tet because they believed that they could snatch victory from defeat. The anti war movement in the USA showed them a way to do it and they thought that if they could make a big enough splash in the news and bolster the college demonstrations, the USA would withdraw. It worked perfectly even though militarily Tet was a victory for SVN/USA. Tet virtually destroyed the VC. After '68, the VC virtually dissappeared as a fighting force in the feild.
We didn't lose by attrition, we lost because we weren't sufficeintly united behind the cause.
Yup Tet was a MAJOR military defeat for the NVA but was an even bigger strategic victory.
Same thing in Iraq is happening now. Terrorists try big pushes around major news events (IE elections, those and ours) to grab headlines and promote an image of dispair in Iraq. In many ways they are winning the "PR" war but losing the combat half.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we won the war in vietnam... 95% of all roads were safe... over 95% of villages were in control of the local militia... there had not been a major offensive by the north for years and they were wupped... we threw away the victory by not supporting the south who were beating the north in every engagement and chasing em back into laos..
All we had to do was keep supplying them with arms and money for a little longer... we were all but pulled out anyway..
It is shameful how our politicians abondened them... at one point the south was down to 1 bullet per man per day. Even at that they threw back the northern troops several times before being over ran.
Our troops and Abrams have nothing to be ashamed of. Our politicians should live in infamy.
A very good book on the subject is "A Better War" by Sorley.... it explains how Abrams turned the war around and won it.
lazs
Lazs consider Custer in the valley of the little bighorn, troops down to nothing per man, ultimately the sentence of death, it sucked to be a trooper there, it's very easy to say that some politician didn't provide for that soldier by ensuring that he at least had enough ammunition to kill any who tried to kill him. The sad fact about war is that politics generally is the reason for war and logical human thinking is the victim!
-
Originally posted by Torque
for most here the war is in the abstract. how many of these zealots do you think actually have had or have family over there, in either of the gulf wars, i'm guessing none...
My son is there now, fighting insurgents in the Ramadi area. He is on his second tour of Iraq, following a tour in Afghanistan. And yes, he is fighting, he is infantry, a Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne.
dago
-
Never met a commie yet that didn't understand war as a diplomacy by it's most expedient means.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The majority of the US peopel feel the war in Iraq is not going well, therefore, the war is not going well. Raise your hand if your smarter than the majority of the US people.
Raise your hand if you think the US people really know what is going in Iraq, when all they have to base their opinions on is the sensationalistic coverage of the negative events in Iraq by a biased media that ignores the huge majority of the progress and improvements.
-
See Rule #7
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Skyrock,
Read JBA's post about this interview in this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165005&pagenumber=1
It's very informative and from what I hear very truthfull about the end to the war then.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Silat? Yo Lew?
:huh
-
Originally posted by NUKE
it's a complete success
wow so .. all we have to do, to make Us so successful again is to blow up 30 american civilists a day.
rgr got it.
anyone else want to be successful ? :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I am smarter than the majority of American people. I am in the top 2% statistically.
I'd be willing to bet that every single person who posts here and supports the war is smarter than the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are sheep but think they're not.
Thank god, NUKE. I have been waiting for some guidence, (SP?). This war was based on the pretext of Saddams possession of and intent to use WMD's on the USA. Those WMD's were never found and the pre-war intelligence was found to be faulty if not outright lies. Therefore, the war is now being fought for what reason? To bring democracy to the middle east? To fight terrorist in thier own backyard? See, thats where I get confused. There is not only no battle plan, there is no solid reason to fight this war. Maybe you could clear that up for me. The Bush administration is doing a poor job of making this clear, IMHO.
Oh, I agree one hundred percent with the sheep comment. I take it youre not a sheep?
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
See Rule #4
Actually, your total lack of understanding on what happened in Vietnam surprised me as well SkyRock. Just out of total curiousity, what exactly is your opinion based on? A teacher? A book maybe? Some movie? Please, enlighten me. It's just unreal how off base you are on this.
Seriously. No flame intended.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Lazs consider Custer in the valley of the little bighorn, troops down to nothing per man, ultimately the sentence of death, it sucked to be a trooper there, it's very easy to say that some politician didn't provide for that soldier by ensuring that he at least had enough ammunition to kill any who tried to kill him. The sad fact about war is that politics generally is the reason for war and logical human thinking is the victim!
:lol That was a joke right? :rofl
Cause about the only connection you can make between Custers last stand and Nam is that Custers last stand was a battle of attrition.
About the only thing that would have been accomplished if they had more ammo is in providing the indians with more ammo after the battle was over
-
custer? custer lost on tactics and firepower and manpower.... His men died with lots of ammo.. It was a tactical and intel blunder of the highest order..
To compare the little bighorn to the vietnam war is beyond silly..
To compare the vietnam war under Abrams to the iraq situation is prudent.
skyrock... you really need to read some books on the vietnam war that don't stop or, gloss over what happened after 1969.. I would suggest "A Better War" by Sorrley who is much more qualified to talk about it that we are.
If we abondon the iraqi's to the outside terrorists and muslim extremists... we will be repeating history... throwing away the victory and selling the iraqi people down the river. We need to be building their police and military and withdrawing troops while supplying the iraqui's with weapons and training.
We promised all that to the vietnamese and we sold em down the river because of politicians who were afraid of the same kind of no patience dolts who would compare these wars with..... with... the friggin little bighorn!
lazs
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Actually, your total lack of understanding on what happened in Vietnam surprised me as well SkyRock. Just out of total curiousity, what exactly is your opinion based on? A teacher? A book maybe? Some movie? Please, enlighten me. It's just unreal how off base you are on this.
Seriously. No flame intended.
Actually, my only statement was that vietnam turned into a war of attrition.(always bad for the soldier and usually the product of politics) I never said who was at fault, or that we didnt win every battle, just simply that it ended up being a meat grinder and very frustrating to those who were serving over there. The comment was in response to someone saying that if we would have stayed, there would have been success. I'm not even saying that isn't true! Just simply stating that many "small" "regional" wars end up the same way! Which is why a powerful country like the US has to be very selective where we send troops. Lebanon, Somalia, vietnam, Korea, there is a long list of conflicts that turned into unwinnable bloodbaths for whatever the reason! Most who have responded to my comments have drug the debate into "my cluelessness" or "lack of understanding" of the war in vietnam. I understand very well what happened in Vietnam as I am well read on the subject, not to mention the personal involvment my family had to deal with! Turning a countries people against a war is called military tactics. It was a tactic we used very well against Germany in WWII. We also use those same tactics in our military today. We drop leaflets, use radio, whatever it takes to help our cause. The north used the same tactics to "bleed" the US into withdrawl. Saying that the media lost the war is simple politics and is irrelevant! That is saying that Americans are helpless little sheep that can't judge a situation and come to a conclusion. After it was all said and done the war in Vietnam cost the US over 50,000 dead and economically burdened and generationally divided. The divide still exists to this day as witnessed by the responses on this board!
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Thank god, NUKE. I have been waiting for some guidence, (SP?). This war was based on the pretext of Saddams possession of and intent to use WMD's on the USA. Those WMD's were never found and the pre-war intelligence was found to be faulty if not outright lies. Therefore, the war is now being fought for what reason?
In Oct 2002, the US Congress passes a law giving the President authority to take action in Iraq.
Several reasons other than WMD's are listed. Saddam killing his own citizenry, Firing on coalition aircraft patroling no-fly zones, Kuwait war booty not being returned to Kuwait, and information and repatriation of Kuwait war prisoners are listed.
Those are the legislatively listed reasons. Along with that is the thought that a working democracy run by Muslims in the heart of Islam could by advantagous.
And Skyrock, follow this link (http://http://www.vwam.com/vets/tet/tet.html) to information about NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap who planned, commanded, and later wrote about Tet and his reasoning behind the offensive.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
. The north used the same tactics to "bleed" the US into withdrawl. Saying that the media lost the war is simple politics and is irrelevant! That is saying that Americans are helpless little sheep that can't judge a situation and come to a conclusion. After it was all said and done the war in Vietnam cost the US over 50,000 dead and economically burdened and generationally divided. The divide still exists to this day as witnessed by the responses on this board!
and you don't think the North USED "Politics" as a strategy to sway the American Public and thus the American law makers against the war? You are saying it is Irrelevent? That is why you are clueless.
Involvment in American politics is our enemy's version of "leaflets" because we have the right of free speech in this country. Our enemies see this and use it to their strategic advantage when ever they can. If you don't beleive me look at holden's link. It will open your eyes and mind.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
custer? custer lost on tactics and firepower and manpower.... His men died with lots of ammo.. It was a tactical and intel blunder of the highest order..
To compare the little bighorn to the vietnam war is beyond silly..
To compare the vietnam war under Abrams to the iraq situation is prudent.
skyrock... you really need to read some books on the vietnam war that don't stop or, gloss over what happened after 1969.. I would suggest "A Better War" by Sorrley who is much more qualified to talk about it that we are.
If we abondon the iraqi's to the outside terrorists and muslim extremists... we will be repeating history... throwing away the victory and selling the iraqi people down the river. We need to be building their police and military and withdrawing troops while supplying the iraqui's with weapons and training.
We promised all that to the vietnamese and we sold em down the river because of politicians who were afraid of the same kind of no patience dolts who would compare these wars with..... with... the friggin little bighorn!
lazs
Lazs you are correct about the ammo, I should have said rifles and or support and better strategy!
As far as patience goes, you are still under the assumption that the offer to the south was a strategically correct offer to make! It wasn't. The problem with fighting a bigger "war" on a smaller front is that the idealogy of that type of strategy is flawed! Why on God's earth would a country pick one SE asian country to make a stand against such a bigger conflict as the "war" against commmunism? Proper logic would have one to consider killing the actual nest of hornets, not going around to flowers and killing them one by one. If you can't afford to attack China and Russia, then the offer to south vietnam was stupid to begin with.
Now lets get back to IRAQ. If you can't (politically and/or economically) afford to eliminate all the tyrants that might pose a threat to the US, then why pick IRAQ? That should be the debate, why IRAQ? We chose correctly in hitting Afghanistan. Why go from there to IRAQ. The second choice should have been Saudi Arabia, if we were attacking countries that truly were a threat to us.(15 of the 9/11 fellas were from there). What about Lebanon, Syria, Iran, all of which support organizations that have publicly declared war on the US and it's citizens. And please don't reply with how bad Saddam was to his people. That would be a totally different debate all together. My question is "How good of a strategic decision was going into IRAQ?" based on the strategy to fight the islamic terrorist threat!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and you don't think the North USED "Politics" as a strategy to sway the American Public and thus the American law makers against the war? You are saying it is Irrelevent? That is why you are clueless.
Involvment in American politics is our enemy's version of "leaflets" because we have the right of free speech in this country. Our enemies see this and use it to their strategic advantage when ever they can. If you don't beleive me look at holden's link. It will open your eyes and mind.
It is irrelevant because it is a given in military strategy to plan for this kind of warfare. If the US is so vulnerable as to be swayed by media and actors to give up on a war while it is in progress, then our strategy for fighting wars must change! Basically, we are vulnerable to this strategy as it has been proven that regional conflicts that aren't concluded in a short and timely manner, usually end up putting us in a far worse position than before they are started. I am not clueless as to how effective the North were in using this strategy, just amazed at how many who have replied are still in the blame game.
-
Vietnam was lost politically not militarily and the left would like to see the same thing happen in Iraq. The outcome of a preciptious withdrawal would no doubt be similar. Southeast Asia became an abattoir in the wake of our departure. So much for the left's vaunted but, alas, historically maleable concern for human rights.
The fact that we defeated and occupied a country of 25 million with a loss of 2000 lives to this point is astounding and unprecedented. A loss of five times that many on the way to Bagdad alone would have surprised no one. Remember? The possibility of chemical weapons being used on american troops, house to house fighting in bagdad. The word "quagmire" was used by a mainstream media outlet during the sandstorm that briefly impeded progress to Bagdad.
Most of the media has put the worst possible construct on everything that has happened there from day one. This and the rediculous histrionics emmanating from Congress gives the terrorists strength and hope. These people are not fighting the US military, they are acutely aware they cannot win that confrontation. They are trying to demoralize the american electorate to effect political outcomes. They have had considerable success to this point even probably changing the outcome of the election in Spain.
(...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is only one goal; those who want people to worship the lord of the people, without following that doctrine, will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (UBL quotes several short and incomplete Hadith verses, as follows): "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad."
-- Usama Bin Laden, Dec. 2001
Bin Laden was here alluding to our flaccid responses in the wake of a multitude of insults. He also reveals here, incidently, his objective: conversion of everyone to his faith. The restoration of the Caliphate.
We better be the strong horse in this deal or the repercussions will ring down through generations.
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
It is irrelevant because it is a given in military strategy to plan for this kind of warfare. If the US is so vulnerable as to be swayed by media and actors to give up on a war while it is in progress, then our strategy for fighting wars must change! Basically, we are vulnerable to this strategy as it has been proven that regional conflicts that aren't concluded in a short and timely manner, usually end up putting us in a far worse position than before they are started. I am not clueless as to how effective the North were in using this strategy, just amazed at how many who have replied are still in the blame game.
Your post is self-contradictory.
You claim we should use irrelevant information to change our strategy.
If it is important enough to change strategy then it is not irrelevant.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In Oct 2002, the US Congress passes a law giving the President authority to take action in Iraq.
Several reasons other than WMD's are listed. Saddam killing his own citizenry, Firing on coalition aircraft patroling no-fly zones, Kuwait war booty not being returned to Kuwait, and information and repatriation of Kuwait war prisoners are listed.
Those are the legislatively listed reasons. Along with that is the thought that a working democracy run by Muslims in the heart of Islam could by advantagous.
Hmmmm, See thats the point. You take away the inevitable catastrophic holocaust that saddams WMD's were going to bring, and you lose most of the support for the war. We have not lost 1 aircraft to saddams antique air defenses. Most of the middle eastern muslim countries have ruthless dictators who kill those who oppose them. Pakistan, saudia arabia and Kuwait. They are not kind and gentle dictators. They are not democratic. DO you think this democracy is going to spread to Saudi and Kuwait? Hell no. You know why? Because the US is not going to chance having our supply of oil cut off by some extremest ayatollah who won the election. Face the music, we are in Iraq to capture its oil fields and install a US oil interest friendly govt. there.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Hmmmm, See thats the point. You take away the inevitable catastrophic holocaust that saddams WMD's were going to bring, and you lose most of the support for the war. We have not lost 1 aircraft to saddams antique air defenses. Most of the middle eastern muslim countries have ruthless dictators who kill those who oppose them. Pakistan, saudia arabia and Kuwait. They are not kind and gentle dictators. They are not democratic. DO you think this democracy is going to spread to Saudi and Kuwait? Hell no. You know why? Because the US is not going to chance having our supply of oil cut off by some extremest ayatollah who won the election. Face the music, we are in Iraq to capture its oil fields and install a US oil interest friendly govt. there.
Explain Lebonon, Egypt, and Lybia then?
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your post is self-contradictory.
You claim we should use irrelevant information to change our strategy.
If it is important enough to change strategy then it is not irrelevant.
No, Holden, I am saying to debate it as a strategy is irrelevant because we both and everyone else knows it is a part of military strategy. In other words, if we both agree that trying to sway an opponents civil population and political climate is a military strategy, then it is irrelevant to argue it. It is settled.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
No, Holden, I am saying to debate it as a strategy is irrelevant because we both and everyone else knows it is a part of military strategy. In other words, if we both agree that trying to sway an opponents civil population and political climate is a military strategy, then it is irrelevant to argue it. It is settled.
Well what's not settled is the fact that the Democrat leadership does not see this. IMHO with all their talk of pull out it and failure it gives fuel to our enemies. Everytime a senator calls our soldiers "nazis" and says we run "gulags" all to further his politics it fuels our enemies.
It's far from settled, the left in this country does not understand this and under the guise of free speech continues to want to lose a war for political gain.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
As far as you making a strong argument, the idea of putting a democracy in IRAQ by force is about the most unintelligent strategy yet to come from this country!
Time will tell but..........
A clear majority have voted in the two prior elections and it is a very good bet a clear majority will vote in the next one.
That by definition is democracy.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well what's not settled is the fact that the Democrat leadership does not see this. IMHO with all their talk of pull out it and failure it gives fuel to our enemies. Everytime a senator calls our soldiers "nazis" and says we run "gulags" all to further his politics it fuels our enemies.
It's far from settled, the left in this country does not understand this and under the guise of free speech continues to want to lose a war for political gain.
Well gun again i will not indulge in the debate of rights and lefts, I will, however, debate the strategy of originally going into IRAQ and how we intend to get out! When preparing a military plan to invade a country, the leadership must always include in the plan strategies to fight the entire battle, which includes the enemies within ones own country! The best way to defeat the internal opposition is to be as honest to them up-front about what is going to happen in the upcoming war. This was the first military defeat in IRAQ. The fact that the intel was bad or misleading was the first major defeat in the IRAQ war for the United States.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Dago
See Rule #4
Wow! Not much of a debator I see! Let me be more clear on the definition of defeat. If the country was mislead, which is still in question, then it would have been the first defeat of the strategic plan for victory. As it is now, many in our own country feel as though they were mislead and that has turned into an internal distraction. One could argue that those that feel mislead should shut their mouths for the sake of the countries efforts in IRAQ, but that wouldn't be a democracy. The fact that there is even a question about the intel that led to the war in IRAQ suggests a pre-war strategy that was flawed.
I am suggesting to you that maybe the IRAQ people may never be able to defend their own democracy without the precense of US soldiers. If that turns out to be true, then one would eventually have to decide on how to get out! I believe that many of the IRAQI's want democracy. I'm not sold on the fact that they are capable of instituting long term democratic processes in IRAQ though. The tribal instincts in the region lend most scholars to believe that corruption and in-fighting would prevent a true democracy from ever flourishing in IRAQ!
-
Skyrock, did you read about NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap?
What do you say about what the top General of the NVA reasons for Tet?
You can either agree with me or be wrong.
-
Then why do you keep babbling about defeat?
First: about the "mislead" question, I don't think we were mislead intentionally but like many I do believe the intelligence was flawed. That does not spell defeat, a word you just seem to love to use as it casts a negative light on the administration and the efforts of our military.
Second: I do not have a clue if Iraq will be able to maintain a democracy in the future, religious sect differances and the clan nature of the Arab society pose significant issues just as it does in Afghanistan.
But, it has worked in other Arab countries and is possible in Iraq. Regardless, we have not been defeated, and your attempting to use that word in the wrong context makes you look foolish.
dago
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Well gun again i will not indulge in the debate of rights and lefts, I will, however, debate the strategy of originally going into IRAQ and how we intend to get out! When preparing a military plan to invade a country, the leadership must always include in the plan strategies to fight the entire battle, which includes the enemies within ones own country! The best way to defeat the internal opposition is to be as honest to them up-front about what is going to happen in the upcoming war. This was the first military defeat in IRAQ. The fact that the intel was bad or misleading was the first major defeat in the IRAQ war for the United States.
It is not a military defeat if it is not fought by the military, it's a POLITICAL defeat and one of many handed out by both sides of the isle.....you know the left and right wich you don't want to talk about....they are the ones who fight the political fights......not the military.
One can assume we were mislead but the proof is not there, then all you are left with is an assumption.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Skyrock, did you read about NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap?
What do you say about what the top General of the NVA reasons for Tet?
You can either agree with me or be wrong.
I am/was already aware of that read and have read extensively about the entire war especially the 68 offensives. My Uncle was killed near Hue in May of that year, so I had a particular interest in the Tet and following offensives. In my opinion, VietNam was a bad decision from the start! In no way shape or form was the country of VietNam and all her citizens ever worth 50,000 americans.
Generally, we as a country fare far better when our might is brought about upon those who attack us first. Seems that history has proven that the american public generally does not last long behind any war that is fought as a preventative measure ie.. Korea, VietNam, and possibly IRAQ!(especially if the death tolls start to rise) For some reason Americans eventually fall placid and revert back to the old "only go to war if we have to" feeling about war! So, again, I make the statement that the US must be very wise when approaching these type of situations, such as the new threats we face and what regions to neutralize, as a world power. It is never easy being the big dog!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It is not a military defeat if it is not fought by the military, it's a POLITICAL defeat and one of many handed out by both sides of the isle.....you know the left and right wich you don't want to talk about....they are the ones who fight the political fights......not the military.
One can assume we were mislead but the proof is not there, then all you are left with is an assumption.
Not once have I said that the military lost or was defeated. Let me make it more clear, it was a more of a defeat for the american people! The truth is ultimately what will decide how we look at IRAQ!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
This was the first military defeat in IRAQ.
Originally posted by SkyRock
Not once have I said that the military lost or was defeated. Let me make it more clear, it was a more of a defeat for the american people! The truth is ultimately what will decide how we look at IRAQ!
maybe you should read what you type?????? Either way I think you either:
A. don't beleive the BS you are trying to sell
or
B. Are completly in the dark about American politics
This entire thread was started as sarcasm to the charge that democrats are trying to lose the war in Iraq for political gain by their cut and run speech as of late. Maybe you havn't read the first 4 pages and just chimed in when you felt it appropriate but that is the topic of conversation.
This defeat that you say you never said but did say a few posts up and then rephrase that it was a defeat for the American people is being CAUSED by American people for political gain reguardless of the costs. You can spout proofless statments about being misslead but it's simply baseless and without merit. The "defeat-speech" is provable and clearly documented.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
cut and run???????? We got wipped by the war of attrition bro! I don't know how old you are but you can read the history!
Originally posted by SkyRock
Not once have I said that the military lost or was defeated.
Usually, when one gets "whipped by the war of attrition" one suffers a military defeat.
Your debating skills need some polishing.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Many countries are unable to have a Democracy based on their culture, views of religion, and tribal loyalties. I ask this question "Do you believe that the IRAQI people are capable of having a truly democratic society without an eventual civil war?" That is without any american troops there. If your answer is yes, then we found a winner in the clueless department. If your answer is no, then how long should american troops stay in IRAQ?
It's possible for the Iraqi people to have a democratic society I think. The average Iraqi probably wants pretty much the same things that you and I want. The lights to work, a future for the kids, being able to go to the market without being shredded by some loony bomber, the usual. The issue is getting political power into the hands of the average Iraqi. I think individuals that conclude that people are rendered incapable of or disqualified from democracy by religeon, culture or tribal affiliation are mistaken. I'd probably say "clueless" but I'm trying to be more circumspect with indiscrimate use of perjoratives this year. For an intresting piece on that very topic you might consult a recent Hitchens article in Slate here (http://www.slate.com/id/2128193/). He's a recovering Trotskyite but I consider his take on the situation to be fairly despositve.
As far as how long american troops might need to be there in some number irrespective of outcome, one might ask the same of Korea. What's it been 55 years or so? The answer is as long as it takes.
If we fail to conclude the work that has been started here and allow the possibility of an Al Queda state in the region we will be required to do it over again with a much higher expenditure of blood and treasure.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe you should read what you type?????? Either way I think you either:
A. don't beleive the BS you are trying to sell
or
B. Are completly in the dark about American politics
This entire thread was started as sarcasm to the charge that democrats are trying to lose the war in Iraq for political gain by their cut and run speech as of late. Maybe you havn't read the first 4 pages and just chimed in when you felt it appropriate but that is the topic of conversation.
This defeat that you say you never said but did say a few posts up and then rephrase that it was a defeat for the American people is being CAUSED by American people for political gain reguardless of the costs. You can spout proofless statments about being misslead but it's simply baseless and without merit. The "defeat-speech" is provable and clearly documented.
I stand corrected! I shall state here further that I do not intend to claim the foot soldier lost the war!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Usually, when one gets "whipped by the war of attrition" one suffers a military defeat.
Your debating skills need some polishing.
Again my words were poorly chosen! I state here further that I do not intend to claim the foot soldier lost the war!
-
Originally posted by Casca
It's possible for the Iraqi people to have a democratic society I think. The average Iraqi probably wants pretty much the same things that you and I want. The lights to work, a future for the kids, being able to go to the market without being shredded by some loony bomber, the usual. The issue is getting political power into the hands of the average Iraqi. I think individuals that conclude that people are rendered incapable of or disqualified from democracy by religeon, culture or tribal affiliation are mistaken. I'd probably say "clueless" but I'm trying to be more circumspect with indiscrimate use of perjoratives this year. For an intresting piece on that very topic you might consult a recent Hitchens article in Slate here (http://www.slate.com/id/2128193/). He's a recovering Trotskyite but I consider his take on the situation to be fairly despositve.
As far as how long american troops might need to be there in some number irrespective of outcome, one might ask the same of Korea. What's it been 55 years or so? The answer is as long as it takes.
If we fail to conclude the work that has been started here and allow the possibility of an Al Queda state in the region we will be required to do it over again with a much higher expenditure of blood and treasure.
TY Casca foir your choice of "choice" words!
Al-Queda state in region???(WMD's?) I am of the opinion that every dollar spent and every ounce of blood spilled in that country would have been better put to use securing our homeland!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
TY Casca foir your choice of "choice" words!
Al-Queda state in region???(WMD's?) I am of the opinion that every dollar spent and every ounce of blood spilled in that country would have been better put to use securing our homeland!
eventually they will be on our doorstep using our very own freedoms against us. Their goal is an islamic world starting with an islamic state in Iraq to feed over into the borders of other countrys in the region. Then expanding to Europe and other continents as well.
To veiw the war in Iraq as just a single conflict and not a stepping stone to a much greater struggle is a very simplistic and narrow minded view. Our enemies view this as a 100 year war of attrition in wich they have allready fought the first 25 years.
-
heat + sand = glass
we have a bunch of nukes lying around don't we ?
I want the US to do a scientific experiment to see how many nukes it will take to turn that whole region into a sheet of glass :) only took 2 to get the Japanease inline and they weren't even very big compared to the new stuff we have... We keep developing all these new weapon systems and bombs, lets use this stuff, no sense in making it if we won't use it.
-
Originally posted by Senator McCarth
Why gollly be jeebuzz! I said the same exact dang thing fifty odd years ago!
"eventually they will be on our doorstep using our very own freedoms against us. Their goal is communist enslavement starting with a communist takeover in Korea and Vietnam to feed over into the borders of other countrys in the region. Then expanding to Europe and other continents as well.
To veiw the war ....as just a single conflict and not a stepping stone to a much greater struggle is a very simplistic and narrow minded view. Our enemies view this as a 100 year war of attrition in wich they have allready fought the first 25 years."
You make me and the rest of the Republican party proud gunslinger! If you should ever desire to do more create postings on the web please contact the party chairman. We could use more proper Americans such as you in gathering all of the names of those who don't think like us. And we could sure use help in preparing more camps!
Sincerely,
Sen Joe McCarthy
Hey nice shades account, sorry to dissapoint but I'm not a republican.
"If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly - according to how it appeals to us - in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices, God permitting, are a large step directly towards that goal.
So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:
The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will ... jump at taking power.
There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
My raising this idea - I don't claim that it's infallible - is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic State, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.
Some people really have no vision.
Want to read the rest google “Letter from Zawahri to Zarqawi”
-
skyrock... it is obvious that you have no idea what happened in vietnam with the possible exception of knowing what happened up till 1968.
leave politics out of it... fine with me. the war was won by about 1970 by any means that you wish to gauge a war.
The South lost the war after we pulled out because we reniged on our promise for support. that could easily be considered a political thing tho.
Abrams won the vietnam war by using indiginous forces to form milita and local police and to go after supply routes and he never cared about body counts... only about destruction of supplies and supply lines and he realized that indiginous peoples could ferret out the enemy better than we could..
Iraq was is won right now too using... Abrams tactics... we are using them as we speak... we are training and supplying... And, just like vietnam... victory is ours (our politicians) to throw away.
None of this has anything to do with the little bighorn in any way... your clarification just shows that you know less about either the little bighorn or vietnam or the iraq war than we had at first suspected.
It may or may not be a good thing to pick Iraq for our fight but... it seems central and we had a good enough reason and... it is good training for the troops and and and... except for cost... it is pretty cheap... we lost very few soldiers for the amount of experiance we are getting.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you guys are funny. You are looking at the Iraq war as a failure, when it's a complete success and is a world changing historical event.
20 years from now, you guys are gonna be great examples of how wrong and ignorant people can be.
And Viet nam was winnable and the Liberals lost that one right?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
eventually they will be on our doorstep using our very own freedoms against us. Their goal is an islamic world starting with an islamic state in Iraq to feed over into the borders of other countrys in the region. Then expanding to Europe and other continents as well.
To veiw the war in Iraq as just a single conflict and not a stepping stone to a much greater struggle is a very simplistic and narrow minded view. Our enemies view this as a 100 year war of attrition in wich they have allready fought the first 25 years.
Gunslingr it has been going on much longer than that fella!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Gunslingr it has been going on much longer than that fella!
I'm just talking about RECENT history IE the last couple decades. Islamic fundamentalist want to take over the world.
TO me this is no different than German Circa 1935 or so, if we had the benifit of hindsight we could have stopped it then but didn't. This time is different. We have a clearly defined enemy that is opposed to freedom and tolerence. They are religious fascists of the worst kind.
What kills me is when I hear the comparison of insurgants and terrorists in Iraq to freedom fighters. They are nothing of the sort because they do not fight for freedom they fight for oppression. They fight for tyrany, NOT freedom. I'd like to quote the works of somone else:
There is the perception that fanatical insurgents bubble like oil from the Iraqi sands. Yet, having traveled in Iraq for nearly half a year, I have seen little real desert, and true fanatics are rare.
In an effort to be culturally sensitive and almost compulsively polite, we've mangled the meanings of words like "martyr" and "suicide" to such a degree that we're using them to label mass murderers. While American and foreign media collectively increase the suffering of babes through their current fashion of cynicism, others seem to have a case of "parents' guilt." Unable to give the Iraqi suffering the undivided and ameliorative attention it requires, reporters instead rush at any sign of distress and hyper-focus on the negative. In the process, they create more problems than originally existed, shoveling out body counts and masquerading them as reports
...
The enemy's operating practices for overcoming delivery and timing problems speak volumes about their predatory nature. They use human bomb delivery devices—the mislabeled "suicide bombers"—who become organic elements of primitive weapon systems. They call these temp workers "martyrs," in a shameless exploitation of the naïveté and narcissism of certain young men. The "martyrs" allow themselves to be used as targeting and acquisition systems. More than just "allowing" they actually see the act of mass murder as the fulfillment of a glorious plan.
Particularly among fanatics, there seems to be an intentional misappropriation of meaning in the liberal misapplication of labeling words. Let's start with the BIG ones: suicide bombers and martyrs. Suicide is a term that should evoke empathy, if not sympathy, for a lonely and despairing act. A distressed soul, harboring a crushing, agonizing lebensmude, weary of the strain of a terrestrial existence, perhaps seeking mere relief, or just an end to psychic pain, may be contemplating suicide. If this person straps a bomb to his or her chest and walks out into the solitude of the desert and detonates, they would then be properly called a "suicide bomber." But when the media reports every day on "suicide bombers," they are talking about different people.
A fanatic who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a market crowded with women and children, then detonates a bomb that is sometimes laced with rat poison to hamper blood coagulation, is properly called a "mass murderer." There is nothing good to say about mass murderers, nor is there anything good to say about a person who encourages these murders. Calling these human bomb delivery devices "suicide bombers" is simply incorrect. They are murderers. A person or media source defending or explaining away the actions of the murderers supports them. There is no wiggle room.
Calling homicide bombers martyrs is a language offense; words are every bit as powerful as bombs, often more so. Calling murderers "martyrs" is like calling a man "customer" because he stood in line before gunning down a store clerk. There's no need to whisper. I hear the bombs every single day. Not some days, but every day. We're talking about criminals who actually volunteer and plan to deliberately murder and maim innocent people. What reservoir of feelings or sensibilities do we fear to assault by simply calling it so? When murderers describe themselves as "martyrs" it should sound to sensible ears like a rapist saying, "she was asking for it." In other words, like the empty rationalizations of a depraved criminal.
The word martyr is derived from the word "to witness." It is used to describe a person who is killed because of a belief or principle. Given the choice to recant, martyrs chose instead to face their murderers and stand in witness to their beliefs. True martyrs do not kill themselves, but stand their ground and fight in the face of death to demonstrate the power of their convictions, sometimes dying as a result, but preferably surviving.
The only martyrs I know about in Iraq are the fathers and brothers who see a better future coming, and so they act on their beliefs and assemble outside police stations whenever recruitment notices are posted. They line up in ever increasing numbers, knowing that insurgents can also read these notices. The men stand in longer and longer lines, making ever bigger targets of themselves. Some volunteer to to earn a living. This, too, is honorable. But others take these risks because they believe that a better future is possible only if Iraqi men of principle stand up for their own values, for their country, for their families. These are the true martyrs, the true heroes of Iraq and of Islam. I meet these martyrs frequently. They are brave men, worthy of respect.
...
In Mosul, the enemy has two main faces: The Former Regime Elements (FRE), and the extremists. The extremists here in Mosul can be divided into five groups—more or less—one of which would be the local chapter claiming affiliation with the so-called Al-Qaeda gang.
The goals of the FRE and the extremist gangs are at stunning variance. In fact, they mostly hate each other, often kill one another, and work together only as needed. If the Coalition and new Iraqi government were not here, conveniently located as a central target, the FRE and other terrorists would almost certainly be at war with each other.
The main goal of the FRE is simple: under the former regime, they were in charge. They want to be in charge again. In Saddam Hussein's regime, the Cynic's Golden Rule—"He who has the gold, makes the rules"—worked both ways: "He who makes the rules gets all the gold." The FRE bandits made the rules and controlled the gold. They have an understandable nostalgia for the good old days. They liked being in charge. They despise the prospect of people they once persecuted, such as the Kurds, suddenly acquiring any voice whatsoever. It’s not as if the FRE are totally disenfranchised, but more that they are no longer in complete control.
Whether or not someone might agree with the FRE, there is little dispute that these people have rational goals. Yet rational does not imply tenable in a newly democratic Iraq. This situation is not burdened with nagging grey areas where battle-scarred former combatants can work to some diplomatic compromise. This is an either/or situation. If the new democratic system takes hold, mathematics dictates that the FRE are not going to be in charge; they are outnumbered two to one. The FRE are Sunni Ba'athists while the majority of Iraq is Shia. The FRE is trying to destabilize the new government while simultaneously leveraging their position. Their primary strategy for both is to use violence against government officials and the civilians who elect them.
The FRE—being essentially rational but also essentially brutal—are simple to understand. They are serious, often deadly, but are not fanatical in the degree of their personal commitment to the cause. If they die, they will not regain control. It's a fact here on the Iraqi battleground—though seldom mentioned—that the majority of FRE insurgents are climate-sensitive. They almost never attack when it's cold, raining or even muddy. As a rule, if conditions are such that the Little League baseball game back home would be canceled due to inclement weather, these FRE insurgents will stay home and wait for the skies to clear.
Of the two groups, the more intractable and irrational enemy wraps their rebellion in a flag of fundamentalist fervor. Although the press routinely lumps all of these similar groups under the banner "Al-Qaeda" (whatever that really is) there are actually five main extremist groups operating in Mosul. They have common ground. Some members seek fulfillment in apocalyptic visions of a world at war, wherein everybody except them—or even including them—dies. In other cases they see the war shaping a new world, one that is entirely Islamic. The word "extremist" is not an overstatement for them.
These extremists are irrational, dangerous, often highly emotional, and cannot be trusted with large weapons. Every day, they kill innocent people in Iraq. The FRE and most of the Iraqis tend to hate the extremists, realizing that if the Coalition were to leave, they would face the full wrath of these fanatics alone.
-Michael Yon
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm just talking about RECENT history IE the last couple decades. Islamic fundamentalist want to take over the world.
TO me this is no different than German Circa 1935 or so, if we had the benifit of hindsight we could have stopped it then but didn't. This time is different. We have a clearly defined enemy that is opposed to freedom and tolerence. They are religious fascists of the worst kind.
What kills me is when I hear the comparison of insurgants and terrorists in Iraq to freedom fighters. They are nothing of the sort because they do not fight for freedom they fight for oppression. They fight for tyrany, NOT freedom. I'd like to quote the works of somone else:
Dead on target sir! BTW the VAST majority of insurgents in Iraq are NOT Iraqis! They are middle eastern border jumpers recruited in hostile countries and make their way across the Iraqi border illegally with the help of smugglers and the Syrians.
This war is a success except the media is determined to spin it into a negative. 2100 + Lives is a dear price to pay, but you better believe their count has been MUCH higher, a dictator has been toppled and people are voting in free elections. Interesting that the Sunnis who opposed the elections fiercely turned out to vote in great numbers as well as the Kurds who Saddam gassed (with weapons he never posessed, right?)
As for WMDs that was never as important for me from the beginning as getting that SOB Saddam. Had Bush Sr. said "F*** the UN"and went in and took that SOB out then we wouldnt have had to do it now. The WMDs are (in my opinion) probably stored somewhere in the vast deserts of Iraq, Iran or inside Syria. A criminal like Saddam who had posessed Gas weapons and USED them before the 1st gulf war in Iran and AFTER the 1st gulf war against Kurdish Iraqis will have a stash somewhere, whatever he had, he proved that he had the will to USE THEM.
Good Riddance Saddam! Sometimes you have to have the b***s to step up and do an ugly job... that's what we did and are continuing to do today so that no-one has to lose a city or cities to a nuclear armed Saddam 10 years from now.
BTW, I am not a Bush fan at all, this just happens to be the ONE thing I agree with him about. Maybe next election the Republican party will put a REAL republican on the ballot instead of "Pretenders To The Throne"
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Dead on target sir! BTW the VAST majority of insurgents in Iraq are NOT Iraqis!
Well, not entirely. The vast majority of the suicide bombers might be. All the deaths attributed to the Shi-ite police death squads seeking retribution against the Sunnis have to be counted as insurgent violence as well and all of that is indigenous as is Kurdish retribution, etc.
Depends on what one sees the violence as. If you're counting only some acts, say the acts of foreigners, yes. But the violence in Iraq overall is far more complicated than the sound bytes coming out of the White House indicate.
We caved into all the demands of Al sadr's and guess what: his guys are now murdering with impunity.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Iraq was/is the right war, at the right place, at the right time
it is a failure why? that it's borders are easier to cross than our sw border and that every Abu, Ayman or muja-wannabe who has a suicide wish to "kill the infidels" can easily cross them and fullfil their wish?
Iraq is going fine, we just need to move the battle to the borders and the center of the country would stablize - maybe into the counties which are supplying the cheekboness and their weapons. Can you say Iran? Syria?
so sorry this isn't just another 60 minute sitcom west wing war. Some things take time and the fortitude to see them through.
Well, that's a nice sentiment but no one in the world thinks we have enough troops to do what you're asking. You think merely smoking a nation or two with air power would make us safer from the orphans raised in hate schools by fruitcakes?
I am skeptical.
Sakai
-
saki... we did win in vietnam. we were pulling out. the South lost the war after we had won it because we reniged on our promise to supply them after we left.
It is much like korea in that respect. we won in korea and we let the south continue to hold their part of the country by our reduced presence and a lot of cash and supplies.
That is how Iraq should go... it can go either like vietnam or like korea. We are now using Abrams tactics in Iraq so it should go well...
We may not be able to tell the bad guys from the good in these countries (korea, vietnam, iraq) but the insurgent police and militia forces can... once the lines are drawn... be they original borders or a new one... the locals know who doesn't fit in and they can deal with him. There will probly allways be suicide bombers till radical islam is wiped out as a political force...
Everyone seems to think that seperation of religion and state is such a good thing for the U.S. but gives a pass to radical islam... hard to understand that thinking really.... like radical feminists asking for us to leave those nice radical muslim countries alone...
Oh well... politics makes strange bedfellows on both sides of the left and right I suppose.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
saki... we did win in vietnam. we were pulling out. the South lost the war after we had won it because we reniged on our promise to supply them after we left.
That is how Iraq should go... it can go either like vietnam or like korea. We are now using Abrams tactics in Iraq so it should go well...
Well . . .
I think if we had somne defined goals and could pull back and let the Iraqi govt. take over, sure.
There was no military win in Viet Nam or Korea (often seen as a draw, the communists have always portrayed it as a victory--they're still around to say it) and no way to win politically either. In fact, if the stated goal, to stop the spread of communism, is accurate, it was a loss. I'd be curious to see if you'd ever read Hal Moore's book and what you thought of his points at the end about the war generally?
Also, I'd be curious as to how the various elections and coups in Viet Nam which were fostered by the US to create a Southern State in opposition to unification (the 1956 accords?) informed your opinions?
There is no way to win a military victory in Iraq. You're pointing to a political and dilpomatic victory, I'd agree:
that's what we want.
Sakai
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power…
Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.
-
It wasnt the media it was the lies of the administration that lost the war.It was the administration tying the hands of the military.
Going to war on lies always comes back to haunt you..
-
Just a comment, but I do not see how anyone could trust the media anymore than they could trust the government.
-
Hi Drediock,
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
How wrong has it gone?
One of the complaints I hear the troops have is all you see on the media is what has gone wrong but not the positives that are being done and they are doing.
Not surprising. How often does the media present good news as news?
Funny, I was just thinking about exactly that point today. Our local gas prices are back down to the $2.03 level with hardly a peep from the local media. On a hunch, I did an archive search on the local paper and found that they've run roughly seven "Gas Prices Higher" stories for every "Gas prices Dip" story, and the stories about the prices going higher were further up front and got far more lineage. Exactly the same is true for stories about the economy "possibly" tanking, vs. economic reports showing improvement. The recent numbers showing a sharp increase in spending and consumer confidence also got predictably little mention.
In conversations I've had with troops who've been to Afghanistan and Iraq, they are uniformly (no pun intended) sick of the media only reporting the wicked exploits of the Jihadists. If an IED blows up, we all get to hear about it and watch the Al Jazeera provided video. Any success in rebuilding infrastructure, introducing democracy, feeding children, or even eliminating terrorists is either ignored or given hardly any commentary. One soldier even commented that he'd asked a journalist if he was going to file a report on his unit providing an Afghan village with a medical clinic, water pump, and school, for the first time ever. The reporter commented that even if he did file it, it wouldn't run, so he wasn't even going to bother. He half-jokingly said that if and when the Taliban blew the clinic up and executed the teachers, that he'd mention that his unit had helped build these things.
I can't help but wonder Is it:
A) that we have built a media culture that thrives on death, destruction, and pain, and which sees its job as to alarm, frighten, depress, or anger the public?
B) That we have a media so politically biased, that any story that might possibly be viewed as providing assistance or support, direct or indirect to the present administration, must be spiked on principle?
C) A & B
I'm trying to remember back to the 90s, was the reporting on Kosovo and Somalia also uniformly "All the bad news we can fit in print?" I seem to remember some occasional glimmers of light, but as far as I can tell, we seem to have created a media monstrously addicted to pain, self-loathing, victimhood, defeat, darkness, and cynicism. No wonder the mainstream media circulation is declining.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just a comment, but I do not see how anyone could trust the media anymore than they could trust the government.
Woo Hoo We Have a Winner !
:D
The only thing that could lose this war is the media.
And they are trying as hard as they can.
-
Originally posted by Flit
Woo Hoo We Have a Winner !
:D
The only thing that could lose this war is the media.
And they are trying as hard as they can.
I don't think it's entirely the medias fault. I had a good thread that no one posted on a few days ago with a link about how the media get's their info in Iraq and how they tend to report it.
Basically it summs down to this. Enemy contact and significant events in Iraq a filtered to commands in SIGACTS or significant action messages. A SIGACT will read like this.
1 Car bomb in Mosul
30 injured
10 dead
2 US servicemen KIA
This get sent almost instantainiously all over the world through out the US military as they are happening. Military PAO offices then convert these little blurbs into readable sentences and feed them to the media in the green zone. Speaking of green zone that his were most of the media are. Except for big events like elections or the slightest chance that the US military harmed a hair on some family's favoirte goat, the media doesn't venture out of the green zone and doesn't get out and see for themselves all of the progress that takes place in Iraq. Starting up new schools or taking down 4 terrorists that lead to the capture of 16 more and a 10 ton weapons cache doesn't get reported because the reporters usually arent there and it isn't cost effective for major news organizations to send them and their support crews all over a war zone.
This guy does an excelent job of explaining it:
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/05/and-now-for-rest-of-story.html
-
Yon is great(I highly recommend everyone read his blog to find out what is really going on, Gates of Fire is Pulitzer stuff), but it does'nt change the fact that the majority of media puts out mostly a very negative outlook on whats happening over there.
We are winning this war in everyway but the media
-
Originally posted by Flit
Yon is great(I highly recommend everyone read his blog to find out what is really going on, Gates of Fire is Pulitzer stuff), but it does'nt change the fact that the majority of media puts out mostly a very negative outlook on whats happening over there.
We are winning this war in everyway but the media
While I don't disagree with that, but yon does a great job of explaining why we only hear what we hear. I've read about half of his blog this weekend and just the blog alone reads like a great book. It's one thing to hear it from somone that knows a little and an entirly other to hear it from somone that "walks the line". He doesnt suger coat it, and he definatly doesn't go into the political aspects of it wich is great. It's definetly opened my eyes up.
-
Rgr That
-
Lieberman Expresses Confidence in Iraq After Thanksgiving Visit (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177019,00.html)
Lieberman said he hopes President Bush's speech Tuesday night will give a clearer picture to the American public of the progress being made in the war.
"It's time for some details," said Lieberman. "He's gotta describe some of the progress that I saw there. It's gotta be realistic."
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Drediock,
=I can't help but wonder Is it:
A) that we have built a media culture that thrives on death, destruction, and pain, and which sees its job as to alarm, frighten, depress, or anger the public?
B) That we have a media so politically biased, that any story that might possibly be viewed as providing assistance or support, direct or indirect to the present administration, must be spiked on principle?
C) A & B
- SEAGOON
Hiya Seagoon.
I've come to the conclusion that the media isnt in the news buisness. Its in the misery buisness.
Its no wonder why so many people are being treated for depression or anxiety disorders. Whats the new too much and youstart to think what is there to be happy about?
Im thinking that over an extended period of time watching the news would have the same effect on some people as being told "your mother died" one day, "Your father died" the next day, and "your being fired" the day after that.
Cept instead of hearing personally to you very bad news over a short period of time. Your hearing impersonal bad news over an extended peroid of time.
Hmmmm.
Know any good lawyers?
Might make for an interesting lawsuit and news story itself.
Get whole groups of people suffering from depression and anxiety disorders and bring a lawsuit against all the major media outlets for pain and suffering and mental cuelty.
Now THAT would be news.
And certainly no less absurd then alot of the other lawsuits brought these days.
Hmmmmm
I like this idea.
I like this idea ALOT
-
Like they say, Airplanes land every day safely at JFK......the Media only reports on the ones that don't.
-
You know you have no life when the news' happy coefficient is the deciding factor for your own happiness (or whatever it's called).
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Like they say, Airplanes land every day safely at JFK......the Media only reports on the ones that don't.
true but that would be because airpane crashes are not part of the every day norm.
As I mentioned before this like gas prices dropping like a stone by in some cases more then a third should have drawn a hell of alot more attention then they have. or at least as much attention as they grabbed going up.
Communities and states continuing to rally to still help provide releif efforts to katrina victims should be grabbing some news in light of how the news covered the debacle over how it was handled during and in the immediate aftermath.
And schools being built, and systems being restored in areas that untill very recently were battlefeilds in the truest sence of the word should grab some news. Hell as far as Im concered that IS news
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
true but that would be because airpane crashes are not part of the every day norm.
As I mentioned before this like gas prices dropping like a stone by in some cases more then a third should have drawn a hell of alot more attention then they have. or at least as much attention as they grabbed going up.
Communities and states continuing to rally to still help provide releif efforts to katrina victims should be grabbing some news in light of how the news covered the debacle over how it was handled during and in the immediate aftermath.
And schools being built, and systems being restored in areas that untill very recently were battlefeilds in the truest sence of the word should grab some news. Hell as far as Im concered that IS news
Like I said earlier, I've been reading Michael Yon's blog as of late and he does a great job of explaining. The Main Stream Media (MSM) is not out in force in the fields of Iraq. It is not really cost efficient for them to do so They sit in the Green Zone and feed off of what the military PAO and what ever scandel might rock the world at that second. They usually only go out in the field for major events like elections. It's really sad. Yon did a whole series of posts from northern Iraq and it made that half of the country sound like anywere else. No terrorists, no car bombs, nothing. He even shopped around a city for an entire day without security, just an interpreter. I'm not saying there's no bias in the media when it comes to Iraq, I firmly beleive there's alot of journalists out there that think "how can I spin this to hurt Bush" before they write their stories. I just don't think they are interested in the lable of a "fox type news" or being "Right minded" if they report out of the norm on anything good in Iraq.
-
On another note. Was talking to a friend of the family who has a brother over in Iraq now and she asked him flat out how he felt about being over there.
Now I've met this guy but cant really say I "know" him.
Meaning I know him to see him and for us to say hello but he isnt ayone I know well enough to call friend or say we've hung out other then breifly at some gatherings
His responce I found rather interesting. I found it interesting because it came from a woman whom I personally know who is against the war
But she told it liek he told her. it wasnt presented or slanted or spun by any news media
He said he doesnt like being over there. nor does he particularly want to be over there. BUT that is the job he signed up for and as such thats what he is going ot do.
And after being over there he feels we should be over there and are doing the right thing by being over there.
in closing he said and I quote "You go over there and look at the faces of these people and THEN try to say we shouldnt be there".
What I found intereting was the complexity of his statement.
It is one that makes perfect sence to me but I'd be willing ot bet that if the media took this statemtn it would probably read somethign like
"Soldier states he doesnt want to be in Iraq"
And while that may technically be accurate it hardly would tell the whole story
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Like I said earlier, I've been reading Michael Yon's blog as of late .
Read your post on it earlier and breifly checked the site out.
I have it bookmarked and want to check it out farther.
Looked very interesting
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Read your post on it earlier and breifly checked the site out.
I have it bookmarked and want to check it out farther.
Looked very interesting
read the first post (the very bottom one) to the last. It is EXCELLENT!