i hate to say it

[TheStang00]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Yeah if a murderer came through my town and killed 1800 people, I'd shrug it off. It's not that many people could've been worse.

difference is these people come from all over the country, we have over 300000000 people... guess how many we lost in wwII, puts this one in perspective real quick.

my deal is this, we know he had them at one point in time... i mean he used them. so where did they go? maybe with all the build up for months before the war they all got sent to syria... you never know. we didnt know who he was planning on giving them too. and i dont think you can compare school of the americas to anything that happens in the middle east, people there welcome and support it. its a much bigger thing over there in a country whos gov't doesnt care about it, and may even support it and fund it.

[tenguzero]

difference is these people come from all over the country, we have over 300000000 people... guess how many we lost in wwII, puts this one in perspective real quick.

Sorry, but ONE is too many. Yeah, don't worry though, it's only 1800 people. Oh, and don't forget the other 194 from ally countries, and the spouses/children/parents that have lost a spouse/parent/child. Whether you agree with the war or not, I think we ALL support our fellow countrymen over there because at the heart of it they are just people doing their jobs -- I don't agree with the management, their methods, and their reasons behind that job, but I sure as hell don't fault the workers. That being said, I invite you to greet those close to any one of the 1800+ American casualties of this war so far, and tell them that the person important to them was merely one in 300,000,000. You know, really put it in perspective for them.

[TheStang00]

yup... trying to act like i said they dont matter... thats sad. i obviously support them from what ive been saying, i have multiple friends i the military, some in iraq right now. ones in falujah. so to say i dont care about them is dumb, but you dont agree with the management? theyve only conducted the most succesful military take over in history. the reason its painted so poorly is because of how far reaching the media is nowadays. im saying to do what we've done only losing that many soldiers is remarkable and we are lucky, thats a very low number. now if you disagree with why we are there, well thats a different issue alogether.

what you guys need to understand is that half of a war is the propaganda war, and quite frankly we are losing that war rediculously bad. mostly because a lot of our own media is negative about us. you hear almost nothing positive from them. since we are losing that war it makes the actual fight look worse, and while it isnt good, it isnt quite as desperate as it may seem. we are in no danger of losing the war. we got democrats over here (kennedy) screaming at the top of their lungs that our president is a liar... during wartime! thats unacceptable.

[lazysmurff]

to quote the greatest movie of all time...

"youre out of your element donnie"

look kid, you obviously feel very strongly about this, and your obviously biting the party line very hard. but the facts remains thus:

our government told us 3 things:

1: Hussien had WMD
2: Hussien harbored terrorists
3: Hussien was at the helm of a rouge nation that could attack the USA at any moment and cause serious harm

but those claims fell through.

Bin Laden celebrated his removal from power.

No WMD were ever found, nor is their any evidence that they got shipped elsewhere. chances are he actually destroyed them when he was told to, or (more likely) had used them all up.

and come to find out (suprise) he didnt exactly put up much of a fight. big scary military eh? hmph.

so when these reasons for war fell through our government had a big change of heart. we werent there to strong arm another country, we were there to give its people democracy, and to help fight a much broader war on terror.

well, where the fuck did that democracy go? what happened to it? oh wait, analysts missed the fact that people over there might ACTUALLY WANT TO LIVE UNDER ISLAMIC LAW imagine that. someone doesnt want our help in defining where their country goes.

and terrorism has only gotten worse. terrorist organizations are having better luck recruiting soldiers than our military, and the number of attacks has sky rocketed.

we've accomplished nothing. almost 2000 coalition soldiers have died for absolutly nothing. a friend of mine came back missing a leg. another will never get a good nights sleep again.

dont sit there and tell me we should just accept these losses because "its not that much". at one point vietnam had a casuality total of "only" 2000.

[TheStang00]

this is nothing like vietnam. for one these people do want a democracy, just based on islamic law rather than christian law like ours. sadam did harbor terrorists. al zarquaiwi or whatever has come out and said that this is the most important battle in the war on terror and we must be defeated. so why would they say that and celebrate sadams removal? dont you see that another friendly nation in the middle east would be a big blow to the terrorist networks. one less nation for them to do what they want in and orchestrate attacks on us from. the democracy over there isnt going as smoothly as everyone would like. they hit one snag, and that over womens rights, kind of pathetic but still a snag, but regardless its going to get worked out eventually. but they are deciding on there government. it looks more like a confederacy right now though. i have friends that have come back from iraq and said that the iraqies love them over there and when they watch the news they say its nothing like that over there, that goes back to the propaganda thing. the reason they can recruite so many people is because of all the negative media, the name of that damn thing is slipping my mind, but that news channel in the middle east. that thing is practically a terrorist organization itself, all they do is report negative propaganda about us. there was a story i heard about a muslim man in the over there that got sick of the U.S. because of everything he saw on tv, so he decided to go to iraq and fight against us. when he got there he saw everything that was going on and realized that the news was wrong and it wasnt like it was being reported. so he went and found a american reported and told him his story...

[tenguzero]

That whole "media bias" thing has got to be the saddest, most tired excuse in the book. Yeah, the media is biased because they always talk about casualties, always talk about losses, never show the bright side of things, etc. Guess what? The media has ALWAYS done that. That's what they do. Why do you think your average nightly news broadcast is probably 80% murders, abductions, fires, earthquakes, rapes, robberies, and catholic school closings? Because the bad news is what sells. Do I think this approach sucks? Of course I do -- but it's what people are tuning in for. Nobody likes the thought of someone getting in an accident on the highway, but that doesn't stop them from slowing down and gawking. Same with the war. Sure, the media hounds on all the casualties, failures, uprisings, etc. But they also don't hesitate to eagerly broadcast the latest threat-level change, which "questionable" country is being shunned for developing nuclear capabilities, and up-to-the-minute terrorist situations. If anyone is biased, it's the people hooting and hollering about it. Why, because the media isn't editing out Bush's speech hiccups? Because they don't praise actions taken during the war? Because they make a stink about detained journalists? Because they spew propaganda? Well that's kinda too bad, I guess.

Until the day comes when I turn on the evening news and start seeing a deluge of stories about rescued puppies, 6 year-old good samaritans, heartwarming stories of loved ones reuniting, and people saving little old ladies from burning buildings -- next to ONLY negative stories about Iraq, then maybe I'll start to buy into this whole "bias media" thing. Until then, I don't doubt they'll continue with business as usual, and the business that sells is skyrocketing gas prices, problems in Iraq, Michael Jackson situations, and the latest unprovoked police beating. Oh, and just because a network tags themselves with a label like "Fair and Balanced," doesn't mean they are -- it just helps them sell their product to you.

And the media isn't any more far reaching now than they were 40 or 50 years ago. The big difference in media between then and now, is the proliferation of the internet -- and on the internet, EVERYTHING has a say. If anything, people are forming their opinions LESS from what the media says, and more from how they FEEL. Because no matter how they feel, they'll find a sympathetic outlet online. So call me crazy, but any threat of "propaganda" -- both government OR media perpetrated -- really died out with the Cold War.

[TheStang00]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

So call me crazy, but any threat of "propaganda" -- both government OR media perpetrated -- really died out with the Cold War.

well your pretty damn crazy. of course they report deaths and stuff. thats not what im talking about, im talking about all the shit about how the president is a liar and we are doing the wrong thing. and the bold faced lies about ours troops purposely killing innocent civilians... the list goes on and on. whens the last time you heard someone on the news say we are doing a good thing over there. if you look back at wwII news footage you will see positive propaganda from our side. you will not see any nowadays. you wont see anything that says americans are wrong for doing something or other and they deserve to be killed... you see that stuff now though. so you say the media doesnt cover more eh? there were a countless number of events in wwII that if were covered in the news would have outraged countless numbers of people. guys shooting random people, that shit happened, just no one heard about it. someone once said that if there was a television camera on dday that the president would have been out of power within a month.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by TheStang00

well your pretty damn crazy. of course they report deaths and stuff. thats not what im talking about, im talking about all the shit about how the president is a liar and we are doing the wrong thing. and the bold faced lies about ours troops purposely killing innocent civilians...

Dude - what TV shows are you watching?

I watch TV, and news everyday, and I don't hear that shit.

Maybe in some pundit show, but those are OPINIONS man. Don't equate it with news. People who ALREADY have a side are the ones that listen to that garbage either way.

Just because it's called a "newschannel", don't mean diddly-squat.

[TheStang00]

oh well... to tell u the truth im sick of all of this shit... if it were up to me we would just pull out of everywhere on the globe and go back to isolationism... then when someone starts blowin shit up again we wont be there to stop them and when all the europeans come running for help we can just say i told you so.

[tenguzero]

Yes, I too am unaware of instances where members of the news media were blatantly and outright critical of the president or the progress of the Iraq situation -- UNLESS, of course, it was an opinion style show, in which case that's not so much "news" as it is a discussion forum. And what IS reported about controversial instances of American/Iraqi exchanges is hardly the media's opinion, it's just that it is what it is -- a controversy -- so they'll report on it, because again, controversy = popular.

[tenguzero]

Originally Posted by TheStang00

oh well... to tell u the truth im sick of all of this shit... if it were up to me we would just pull out of everywhere on the globe and go back to isolationism... then when someone starts blowin shit up again we wont be there to stop them and when all the europeans come running for help we can just say i told you so.

And there are probably a lot of people out there who might agree with you on that. Hell, there's days I'd like to just pack up and move out to some huge plot of land in Montana, put up a barbed wire fence, and go recluse. The catch is that the world is moving ever faster towards the inevitable -- a pinnacle point in the human community where globalization is the de facto scenario, and the internet is the living, breathing organism that ties it all together. On the one hand, we can't just throw our hands up and say "Whatever, let them do what they want over there, and we'll do what we want over here" because that's just ignoring the very issues that we'll have to face eventually if we're to move onto the next phase of civilization. On the other hand, you can confront the issues, which puts them on the table in front of us, and we're forced to deal with them. The concern lies in how we're dealing with them. A new society demands new methods of conflict resolution, and the old-school, "you hit me, I hit you back" approach just doesn't fly anymore. The people have access to too much information, and too many avenues of action to make the decisions about how this community should work. The media-blackouts, propaganda films, and heavy-handed "conform or else..." mentality of WWII times is pure BS, and the people won't buy into it. Why? Because they have a choice to do otherwise. See, the funny thing is, the people who believe in that outdated approach, like to say "Well, if it wasn't for this war or that conflict you wouldn't be able to enjoy the freedoms you have today!" What they don't realize is, by bashing on the people when they actually CHOOSE to utilize these freedoms, they're in actuality undermining the whole reason for the original conflict. If it's "wrong" for people to protest, and if it's "wrong" for them to exercise options that weren't available to them in the past, then why in the hell did we bother with any of that past conflict in the first place?

[TheStang00]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Yes, I too am unaware of instances where members of the news media were blatantly and outright critical of the president or the progress of the Iraq situation -- UNLESS, of course, it was an opinion style show, in which case that's not so much "news" as it is a discussion forum. And what IS reported about controversial instances of American/Iraqi exchanges is hardly the media's opinion, it's just that it is what it is -- a controversy -- so they'll report on it, because again, controversy = popular.

not so much media members saying those things, mostly politicians. of course it gets big air time though

[TheStang00]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

And there are probably a lot of people out there who might agree with you on that. Hell, there's days I'd like to just pack up and move out to some huge plot of land in Montana, put up a barbed wire fence, and go recluse. The catch is that the world is moving ever faster towards the inevitable -- a pinnacle point in the human community where globalization is the de facto scenario, and the internet is the living, breathing organism that ties it all together. On the one hand, we can't just throw our hands up and say "Whatever, let them do what they want over there, and we'll do what we want over here" because that's just ignoring the very issues that we'll have to face eventually if we're to move onto the next phase of civilization. On the other hand, you can confront the issues, which puts them on the table in front of us, and we're forced to deal with them. The concern lies in how we're dealing with them. A new society demands new methods of conflict resolution, and the old-school, "you hit me, I hit you back" approach just doesn't fly anymore. The people have access to too much information, and too many avenues of action to make the decisions about how this community should work. The media-blackouts, propaganda films, and heavy-handed "conform or else..." mentality of WWII times is pure BS, and the people won't buy into it. Why? Because they have a choice to do otherwise. See, the funny thing is, the people who believe in that outdated approach, like to say "Well, if it wasn't for this war or that conflict you wouldn't be able to enjoy the freedoms you have today!" What they don't realize is, by bashing on the people when they actually CHOOSE to utilize these freedoms, they're in actuality undermining the whole reason for the original conflict. If it's "wrong" for people to protest, and if it's "wrong" for them to exercise options that weren't available to them in the past, then why in the hell did we bother with any of that past conflict in the first place?

yeah... i know we cant do that. thats why im sitting here arguing about what is being done and what we should do and whatnot. but i really feel like that sometimes...

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by TheStang00

this is nothing like vietnam.

youre right, it isnt. at least not yet. and i didnt say it was. i merely pointed to casualty total. i could very easily have said "the civil war had only 2000 casualties at one point".

but it does have some disturbing simularities.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

for one these people do want a democracy, just based on islamic law rather than christian law like ours.

1: they are actually aiming for a pretty loose federation, based largely in islamic law. thats hardly the democratic society that we were shooting for.

2: we arent based in christian law pal, time you and everyone else realized that.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

sadam did harbor terrorists.

yes he did. so does america, ireland, israel, saudi arabia, and about 75% of the countries in africa. it just all depends on your definition of terrorist.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

al zarquaiwi or whatever has come out and said that this is the most important battle in the war on terror and we must be defeated. so why would they say that and celebrate sadams removal?

i said bin laden, not this zarquawi guy. and where in what you said is him crying about saddam being ousted? hes not. Bin laden stated many MANY times that he would remove saddam from power. we just beat him to it.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

dont you see that another friendly nation in the middle east would be a big blow to the terrorist networks. one less nation for them to do what they want in and orchestrate attacks on us from.

oh, i see that. but one more war torn country without effective leadership and security forces is a huge "+" in that catagory. Iraq is the new terrorist university. what better place for trial and error. and the way talks are going, its not going to change in our life time.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

the democracy over there isnt going as smoothly as everyone would like. they hit one snag, and that over womens rights, kind of pathetic but still a snag, but regardless its going to get worked out eventually.

it actually has a lot more to it than just that little "womens rights" snag. which is actually a huge snag, when over 50% of your population cant vote its hardly democratic. and not owning property, or having reproductive freedom, or even a simple matter of dress. not to mention NON muslim people who happen to live there. this is a HUGE deal. not some pidly little snag.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

but they are deciding on there government. it looks more like a confederacy right now though.

yup. divided into three loosly organized regions. two of which have oil. the other doesnt. all of them unified against each other due to ages old seething hatred. if that doesnt spell civil war, i dont know what does. so much for stabalizing the region.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

i have friends that have come back from iraq and said that the iraqies love them over there and when they watch the news they say its nothing like that over there

and i have friends who come back and say its worse than what we are shown, and that iraqis hate our presence and wish we would leave. whats your point? my friends and your friends dont matter, nor do their oppinions. we can go round and round about it, so im cutting it off here.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

that goes back to the propaganda thing. the reason they can recruite so many people is because of all the negative media, the name of that damn thing is slipping my mind, but that news channel in the middle east. that thing is practically a terrorist organization itself, all they do is report negative propaganda about us.

its al jazeera, and calling it a terrorist network is going overboard by a ridiculous amount. sure, they arent sympathetic to americans, but neither is the BBC.

the reason terrorists have it made recruiting people has absolutly nothing to do with al jazeera. it has to do with angry young men seeing a christian nation attack a muslim nation under the guise of destroying the muslim laws and replacing them with our own brand what we think it right for them. remember. they dont call themselves terrorists. to them, they are freedom fighters. rebels. martyrs. etc.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

there was a story i heard about a muslim man in the over there that got sick of the U.S. because of everything he saw on tv, so he decided to go to iraq and fight against us. when he got there he saw everything that was going on and realized that the news was wrong and it wasnt like it was being reported. so he went and found a american reported and told him his story...

well isnt that sweet.

look, our friends, families, and neighbors are being blown to pieces in Iraq for what? what exactly is being accomplished over there? everything (and i do mean everything) is going wrong. every reason the american public has been given as to why we're invading Iraq has been either proven wrong, or not materialized. and all im saying is we told you so. you called us crazy back then. but we told you so.