Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, May 19, 2004.
Check it out.
I definetly agree that the media, as well as people in general, tend to "view the world through a soda straw" and have bi-polar reactions to news and events. Everything is either really, really good, or really, really bad all depending on what is happening at that exact moment. Rarely is the whole picture ever taken into consideration.
how do you define awesome?
One that is accurate. One from someone that has been there. One that is not tainted in an attempt to get better ratings than the next competitor for advertising dollars.
Rumsfeld has been there too. Why don't we believe him?
Thanks for the article, BTTM.
One paragraph explains the doom/gloom that you read from the media news organizations.
If it bleeds, it leads. Nothing sells more news than stories of tragedies.
How many of you will watch the news if day in and day out, the news is... things are fine, electricity is still flowing in Iraq, running water is still being delivered, commerce is happening.
Because you choose not to believe him. Personally, I do believe him.
Good article, written by what sounds like a dedicated and honorable soldier. However, if military might was all we needed, the war would be over right now. Vietnam would be recorded in history as a US triumph. I've got no problem supporting the troops, but this is a mission I feel was undertaken for reasons other than building schools and making friends with Iraqis.
And I don't know where the 'expect 75% casulties' came from. Certainly not from the public pronouncements of the Bush administration. They were predicting 75% flower-throwing rates from the Iraqi populace - at least in the public sphere. Perhaps they were telling a different story to the troops, who knows. Those of us in the civilian world were told to expect little resistance, we'd be greeted as liberators, oil revenues would cover Iraqs reconstruction etc.
Have you seen this?
Yea, I can admit when someone is caught. Just like Clinton was caught. At least Rummy did not come back with "that depends on what the meaning of is is."
I don't believe everything out of his mouth that would be stupid, but on the subject of the situation in Iraq, yea, I believe him.
If they expected 75% flower-throwing rates, where were the military orders for flower vases? There were no orders for flower vases. There were orders for body bags and coffins though.
At least Clinton didn't murder anyone or give permission for someone to be tortured...
sorry. But there was nothing awesome about that. It came from someone who needs to justify why he is still following orders.
The most telling piece was where he talked about finishing the job they went to do. Yeah, that would be find weapons of mass destruction. They aren't there... Or have they not told the armed forces that. And to free the Iraqi people. But apparently that isn't the real agenda either, apparently tormenting them is why we are there, because that is what we are doing.
Well duh. It's a war, you expect body bags and coffins. As for the flower vase orders.... you don't really grasp the concept of hyperbole do you? Are you really trying to 'spank me' again by arguing that because the military didn't order flower vases the public wasn't told we'd be 'greeted as liberators'? Are you really trying to say that a lack of flower vase orders by the military proves something?
Typical Republican. Nothing like invoking the 'well Bill Clinton was worse' rhetoric when all else fails. Look, Rummy is a polititian before he's a soldier. Polititians lie. Rummy lied. End of story. I don't trust much of what comes out of his mouth these days, but that's just me. You only lie to me once before you've got a serious credibility problem. And yes, I have that problem with Clinton too, since I know you'll ask. Maybe you let people lie to you repeatedly before you lose faith. I don't.
Fine article, although I agree that the news covers the more negative, dramatic events of this war (and others), I believe there are many people who are not pessimists per se, but have seen a lot of bad decision-making by the administration in guiding this war, and worry about the seriousness of the consequences. By nearly all accounts, the US military, when left to do the jobs they are trained for, are an exemplary fighting force...but policy decisions of an overly ideological basis and poor resource allocation, has pushed us into this morass...
WAs anyone around a year ago when the war was the most wonderful thing in the world? Geesh... short memories...
I don't see how that proves anything.
He never did say "Iraq is an imminent threat". People really hate Rumsfeld and they are try to catch him on any little thing.
As for the marine's report, I think that it goes to the heart of the problem. Only the bad things in Iraq are being reported and the gloom and doom is repeated daily. I rarely see anything positive about Iraq being aired except on fox news.
It's from the '91 Gulf War. Part of his piece centered around the difference between "projections" and "reality." Long story short, people predicted the first Gulf War would be long-fought and bloody. Obviously it was quite different.
from the tail of the article:
what is the role of the intelligence officer?
What? Man, two days ago a serin artillery shell was used as an IED. Also two weeks ago they found Mustard Gas. See the thing that no one seems to understand is that Saddam's chemical shells look identical to the other non chemical shells. So. that being said. Go shift through the 3 - 4 million rounds that are stored in Iraq. Figure out which ones are chemical and which are not. Oh, and you have one year, and you have to battle insurgents at the same time.
They have found WMD"S. Not stockpiles, but, think about it. A drop of Serin can kill you, one drop. That was a gallon. How many thousands of people could that have killed. The WMD's are there, they will find them.
As for the article, you have completely missed the point. The point is how the media portrays only the negative.
No, no no, you miss my point. I don't trust them all 100% of the time. BUT, I do trust them in certain areas. I trusted Clinton, and got burnned. However, I do think that Rummy got caught in a twist of words. That is all.
Do you hear yourself? Who exactly did Rummy murder?
The fact that this guy works in intelligence should signal something to you as a reader immdiately. HELLO!? Thats MILITARY INTEL... personally I don't trust anything a spook tries to feed me exceptionally if its warm fuzzy news. This is like having a doberman who's licking your hands because his master told him to. Anyways, if anyone cared to read some of the UN or NGO reports on iraq you'd quickly realize that this war is fastly falling out of the intended path of the american planners. This year being an election year, these planted newsweek articles are no doubt republican attempts at trying to plug the loss of middle of the road republicans voters to the Dem Party. I'm not saying military action on iraq was completely unessary, I'm just saying please do it under a different banner then that of the United States of America. It would've been much better had we flown in there with a the blue UN flag instead of stars and stripes. If the US topples another soverign state, it looks bullyish. If the world does it, it looks justified. Since the the UN decided against going in to iraq then it was a damn good clue that we the US warmachine should not have stuck our pecker where it does not belong.
However**with that said
now that we are already there, pulling out would be a freaking disaster, so we gotta stay the course till the job is done. Till the nation of iraq is stabel and soverigen. Or until we can hand power to the UN to take over the reconstruction of iraq. Either way, this is the only reason why we must stanchly support our troops, because if we don't Iraq can turn in to another feudal state like Afghanastan.
Who trusts that government and its ghost writers? This sounds too much like Readers Digest.