American news

[RiversideGator]

Now the latest is the USA supports the establishment of an Islamic based government, with its own tyranical controls.

What evidence do you have of this?

The noble cause is to solve the problem without war as that is the much more difficult thing to do.

How could you have solved the problem of Saddam Hussein without war?

Consider also this article which cites evidence of a Saddam and Al Qaeda link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...05/981wymiq.asp

[Snowguy716]

Try talking to the people that go over there and fight in Iraq for 7 months of the time. One of my best friends is a Marine and he has already spent 7 months over there. He was literally the one kicking down doors in Fallujah when they attacked the city. 5 of his good buddies over there died in a week. He's seen dead bodies all over.. blood and guts of "civilian" Iraqies spilled all over the street. He watches as some friends are getting called back for a 3rd time.. as some don't come back. He goes back over for 7 more months in 2 weeks. He'll be missing a 2nd Christmas and a 2nd wedding anniversary.

He thinks about nothing more than winning the lottery and buying himself out of the military.

He knows very well that the war is not about Saddam Hussein or democracy. He believes he's fighting in Iraq to secure a steady supply of oil in the U.S. This is not becuase of hte media or the "evil liberals" or anything except having been there on the front lines, fighting the war. All that stands between the U.S and a cheap supply of oil from a new ally in the middle east are these relentless insurgents that will always replace their dead faster than we can give them losses.

That's why he gets so disgusted when he sees chicken hawks driving around in their hummers and Ford Excursions with "God Bless W" and "Support the troops" on their bumpers.

The truth is, we got ourselves into a huge mess.. and it's to the point now that if we leave, civil war will start in Iraq and George Bush will have egg all over his face. He has no exit plan because he has no idea what the hell is going on over there. He sees no end to the attacks. He'll just keep the troops in until a democrat gets elected in 2008 and he can leave office and the public eye for a while, while the new president cleans up the massive mess that htis one has created.

[RiversideGator]

One of my best friends is a Marine and he has already spent 7 months over there.

I salute his service.

He thinks about nothing more than winning the lottery and buying himself out of the military.

Soldiers in all wars grumble and complain. This is not a modern phenomenon. The opinons of this one Marine are not representative of the service as a whole though as most soldiers support Bush and his policy and recognize the progress that is being made in Iraq.

He believes he's fighting in Iraq to secure a steady supply of oil in the U.S.

Then why didnt the US simply seize the oil fields in the South of Iraq and leave the rest of the country to fight it out amongst themselves?

That's why he gets so disgusted when he sees chicken hawks driving around in their hummers and Ford Excursions with "God Bless W" and "Support the troops" on their bumpers.

So now only those people who served in the military get to have an opinion on foreign policy and war policy? This would disqualify 99% of liberals and ensure Republican victory from now on. Whatever happened to the civilian control of the military? And calling names like chickenhawk isnt much of an argument.

He'll just keep the troops in until a democrat gets elected in 2008 and he can leave office and the public eye for a while, while the new president cleans up the massive mess that htis one has created.

The last Democrat President, Clinton, is on record supporting this war and supporting the ouster of Saddam and his wife, Hilary, voted for it as did many other Dems. What makes you think a Democrat President would do any different?

[Snowguy716]

I never said that only those that served in the military can have an opinion about this country's foreign policy.

But how dare someone stand around and call for the deaths of more American soldiers without making one ounce of sacrifice themselves while they live comfortably in their suburbia world driving their hummers and other gas guzzlers.

People treat this war as if it was a bastion of freedom being brought to the middle East. First of all, "unifying" the three geographically separated religious factions in Iraq is bad policy. Look to Yugoslavia for an example of what happens when different groups of people that hate each other are forced to live together under one government.

Also, I'm not so sure the morale for this war is good because intelligence was twisted and we were rushed to war. No matter what other excuses you can come up for this war, the issue that the democrats voted in favor of the war on was trusting our intelligence agencies and their claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when they voted on attacking Iraq. Even the president has admitted that there weren't any WMDs and he responded by saying "But isn't it a good thing that we got Saddam?" Yeah, it's great. But if it was about bringing freedom, then why aren't we in Niger, Iran, North Korea, Haiti, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, Chechnya, Georgia? They have no oil to offer us!

Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we attack Pakistan?

You look at wars like WWI and II... they were a noble cause. And while I don't dismiss hte fact that Saddam Hussein tortured and killed, and abused his power.. I see George Bush doing the same things.. getting Americans killed and abusing his power as commander in chief. While the details aren't nearly as grisly, fighting fire with fire when it comes to tyrannical governments is not hte best solution.

The World Wars were a noble cause because the country made sacrifices. Food was rationed, auto factories were turned into arms factories.. the country came together as a unified nation and supported the cause because it was noble.

The fact that over 50% think attacking Iraq was a bad idea now says a lot about this war. Sure, the case to attack Afghanistan and even Iraq at first was strong because the country was still in shock over the tragedies that occured on 9/11.

But i've never seen such contempt held by a group of people like our current administration that exploits national tragedy like 9/11 for political gain.

In the world of 2005, Republicans represent the politics of anger, hostility, arrogance, and a me-first attitude.

I truly believe the democrats in this country have a lot of anger towards the republicans and many democrats do support the war effort. But when the day is done, I believe democrats represent the politics of equality, compassion, empathy, and selflessness. We are all Americans, and therefore every decision we make will affect one of our kin in a certain way. We need to think about that when we make rash decisions to march into war.

[Ruso]

I never said that only those that served in the military can have an opinion about this country's foreign policy.

But how dare someone stand around and call for the deaths of more American soldiers without making one ounce of sacrifice themselves while they live comfortably in their suburbia world driving their hummers and other gas guzzlers.

People treat this war as if it was a bastion of freedom being brought to the middle East.  First of all, "unifying" the three geographically separated religious factions in Iraq is bad policy.  Look to Yugoslavia for an example of what happens when different groups of people that hate each other are forced to live together under one government. 

Also, I'm not so sure the morale for this war is good because intelligence was twisted and we were rushed to war.  No matter what other excuses you can come up for this war, the issue that the democrats voted in favor of the war on was trusting our intelligence agencies and their claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when they voted on attacking Iraq.  Even the president has admitted that there weren't any WMDs and he responded by saying "But isn't it a good thing that we got Saddam?"  Yeah, it's great.  But if it was about bringing freedom, then why aren't we in Niger, Iran, North Korea, Haiti, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, Chechnya, Georgia?  They have no oil to offer us!

Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?  Why didn't we attack Pakistan?

You look at wars like WWI and II... they were a noble cause.  And while I don't dismiss hte fact that Saddam Hussein tortured and killed, and abused his power.. I see George Bush doing the same things.. getting Americans killed and abusing his power as commander in chief.  While the details aren't nearly as grisly, fighting fire with fire when it comes to tyrannical governments is not hte best solution.

The World Wars were a noble cause because the country made sacrifices.  Food was rationed, auto factories were turned into arms factories.. the country came together as a unified nation and supported the cause because it was noble.

The fact that over 50% think attacking Iraq was a bad idea now says a lot about this war.  Sure, the case to attack Afghanistan and even Iraq at first was strong because the country was still in shock over the tragedies that occured on 9/11.

But i've never seen such contempt held by a group of people like our current administration that exploits national tragedy like 9/11 for political gain.

In the world of 2005, Republicans represent the politics of anger, hostility, arrogance, and a me-first attitude.

I truly believe the democrats in this country have a lot of anger towards the republicans and many democrats do support the war effort.  But when the day is done, I believe democrats represent the politics of equality, compassion, empathy, and selflessness.  We are all Americans, and therefore every decision we make will affect one of our kin in a certain way.  We need to think about that when we make rash decisions to march into war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Sure I support Bush's War, I dont have to fight it"

Snowguy pointed one of the key issues about a real moral hipocrecy: "We defend democracy, only when it is convenient.

That was the case in Iraq. Who cares about other tyrannies? They do not have oil or anything that might help us.

RiversideGator: There is a reason for the soldiers to complain, they are the ones fighting, they are the ones waiting for some person to exploit anywhere, anytime. The ones that do not complain are the ones that live easily at home, or the ones in power, the ones that organize the war, but are not in it. It is erronously believed that liberals are just evil and hate the army, whereas the ones that support war are the real patriots, the ones that support the soldieres. The fact is that only few really think about the lifes of each of those fighters ,who, because of economical difficulties, ignorance or just a gullible desire to contribute with something, become victims of violence. I am against war not only for the innocent iraqis, but also because of the innocent americans . The world is crazy....

[pvenne]

It is obvious from this discussion that "unbiased" news is news with a political slant similar to yours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow, you have got to be the smartest man on earth!!!!! teach me more, teach me more!!!!

[pvenne]

The job of the media is to present the facts and allow the public to make sense of it. The job of the media is not to tell people what they should think. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well as much as I agree that the media "should" do as you say, the fact is that the "job" of the media is just like every other job, in that its main purpose is to make money. Extensive studies have been done to show that although there exists biases to different degrees in certain news shows, the main motivation is profit, and so it is really the biases of corporate sponsors that sneek in, not those of the news stations themselves. Most people probably knew this already, But I just thought I'd add it for discussion anyway.

[pvenne]

Indeed, "American News Outlets" is almost an oxymoron. Infotainment is not news. Speculation is not reporting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"infotainment" is not a word used by many. out of curiositym have you read the book "entertaining ourselves to death"? I think its by the guy who coined the term "infotainment"...but that's really all news is, you're right.

[colin]

I've sort of given up on the media for reporting national issues after watching years of purely biased and sensationalist journalism.

While conservatives have their Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio swine, we liberals have our Amy Goodman (too left even for me sometimes), John Stewart and Al Franken.

PBS and NPR I think genuinely do try their best to not put a spin on news, but it's difficult when there are actual human beings with opinions and political slants of their own who are writing the stories.

A couple of notable facts on Iraq War coverage in this country now though:

- Scenes or images of dead or wounded soldiers, or those who have been shot are not allowed on American television.

- Images of returning coffins coming off of airplanes are not allowed on American television (remember that they were during Vietnam and many regard this as a catalyst for the switch in public opinion).

If you're interested in the history of how the media has dealt with the Middle East, and how the American government has dealt with the media dealing with the Middle East, check out a CD called "The Fire This Time."

Just a thought.

[pvenne]

Air America (like Rush Limbaugh) is more news commentary than news coverage.

The Iraq War is a noble endeavor.  We have freed millions from a tyrannical dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.  As for the casualties, I hear about them on the news every day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you are right that saddam was a tyrannical ruler and we have freed many from him. but he never murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people...the kurdish people are of Iranian descent, which makes them persian, not arab. And although I suppose you could say they were Iraqi people, inhabitants of the middle east don't classify themselves on the basis of state citizenship (and this was even more true in the 1980s when the masacre with poison gas took place).

[pvenne]

What evidence do you have of this?

How could you have solved the problem of Saddam Hussein without war?

Consider also this article which cites evidence of a Saddam and Al Qaeda link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...05/981wymiq.asp

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1.) you stop S.H. without a war by taking care of him when we had the chance to in the early 1990s.

2.) A "link" between al-qaeda and S.H. doesn't imply that S.H. had anything more to do with 9/11 than you or me. In case you aren't aware, the whole reason Usama hates America is because Kuwait chose the U.S. over AL-Qaeda to help push Hussein back into Iraq....to suggest that they are now on the same side is a bit far fetched, other than in the sense that they both are enemies of America. You need to know the intricacies of the Saddam-Bin laden relationship and how it evolved into what we have seen in the past 4 years a bit better to really draw any meaningful inference from the S.H.-Al-Qeada link...it didn't justify war. however, his noncompliance DID justify war, IMO.

[pvenne]

He knows very well that the war is not about Saddam Hussein or democracy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i understand where you are coming from. but maintaining a steady supply of oil from the mid east has been u.s. policy for decades. so now the war is about that, AND about democracy, which in the long run will help the whole oil situation anyway. I agree this isnt a good war, but it is totally in line with u.s. policy.

[pvenne]

The opinons of this one Marine are not representative of the service as a whole though as most soldiers support Bush and his policy

i've always found this sort of argument amusing. why do you think soldiers support bush: is it because he is their commander in chief and they are trained and brainwashed to support him no matter what he says, or is because they have an objective standpoint and can all see what a good job he has done? the answer is obvious. there has not been a war in history where soldiers have disagreed with and/or not supported the president this far into a conflict. it has only been two years, so you cant say viet nam or any of the world wars, because these were much loinger and it took a while for people to see that war was horrible and wish they could get out of it.

[monsoon]

there has not been a war in history where soldiers have disagreed with and/or not supported the president this far into a conflict. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not correct.

There was Vietnam. Soldiers, especially ones who were drafted, did not support that war by over whelming majorities.

Iraq has become another Vietnam. Talk to soldiers privately and they don't support the war in Iraq just like the one in Vietnam. The big difference. There is less freedom of expression now than there was in the 60s & 70s.

[pvenne]

That is not correct. 

There was Vietnam.  Soldiers, especially ones who were drafted, did not support that war by over whelming majorities. 

Iraq has become another Vietnam.  Talk to soldiers privately and they don't support the war in Iraq just like the one in Vietnam.  The big difference.  There is less freedom of expression now than there was in the 60s & 70s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I made a reference to vietnam above. My point is that vietnam is not iraq...it was more extensive, had much heavier casualties, and was much longer. My point being that when people say that the troops agree with the president and support him, it is likely because Iraq has not become a true vietnam yet (in terms of numbers and the draft)...so they are trained to support the pres, its not that they really support him..otherwise it would be a more balanced view, somewhat like theo verall public. But when people say that the troops support bush overwhelmingly, it is a misleading fact. They have to because thats what theyre trained to do (he is their leader, after all). to not support your pres and go into war for him anyway would leave a sense of pride deeply trampled on...to kill you need a sense of purpose and the feeling that you are doing the right thing...to not support bush (no matter what he says) would be to deny yourself these feelings and then soldiers wouldn't be able to kill and feel they were doing the honorable thing. does anybody that doesn't have any personal grudges on here agree with me. to those who have taken it upon themselves to disagree with my every word, we already know your opinion. vietnam started off this way too, it was only after the truth became aparent that soldiers started rethinking their purpose in the war.

[Viper]

That is not correct. 

There was Vietnam.  Soldiers, especially ones who were drafted, did not support that war by over whelming majorities. 

Iraq has become another Vietnam.  Talk to soldiers privately and they don't support the war in Iraq just like the one in Vietnam.  The big difference.  There is less freedom of expression now than there was in the 60s & 70s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I talk to several dozen a day. The majority support the war. Vietnam it is not. That is simply what war protestors want it to be thinking it gives them leverage.

How exactly is here less fredom of expression now? You will have to go deep into explaining that one becuse no new laws restricting the first amendment are in place and in fact, there are more forms of communication now and accessibility to them than ever before.

[RiversideGator]

wow, you have got to be the smartest man on earth!!!!! teach me more, teach me more!!!! hysterical.gif hysterical.gif hysterical.gif

Ahh, he's back.

There was Vietnam. Soldiers, especially ones who were drafted, did not support that war by over whelming majorities.

monsoon: There is no draft today. Everyone who is in Iraq volunteered. And, do you have a poll to support your statement that the soldiers in Vietnam (who also were mostly volunteers) didnt support that war?

Iraq has become another Vietnam.

In what way?

Talk to soldiers privately and they don't support the war in Iraq just like the one in Vietnam.

Again, please provide evidence rather than conclusory statements. This is false also.

My point is that vietnam is not iraq...it was more extensive, had much heavier casualties, and was much longer.

pvenne: You are completely correct.

[RiversideGator]

why do you think soldiers support bush: is it because he is their commander in chief and they are trained and brainwashed to support him no matter what he says, or is because they have an objective standpoint and can all see what a good job he has done? the answer is obvious.

I dont believe that conservative brainwashing is part of basic training. So, the answer must be the latter. The soldiers are those who actually have to do the fighting and dying and they largely support the war and Bush. Of course you can find some who do not, but on the whole soldiers and sailors are much more likely to support the war, Bush and the Republicans than the general population. I can provide polling data if requested. This is a well known fact among political analysts. Another benefit they have is the soldiers dont listen the negative national media while they are in Iraq and they see first hand the progress that has been made.

[Ruso]

As I said before, the reason why these soldiers volunteered are many. Economic problems, ignorance, or simply wanting to "help".

But, RiversideGator, you said before that it was common for them to complain. Of couse, eventually they realize they have been used for unworthy reasons.

The similarities with Vietnam are in the methods used by the iraqies, and, in my opinion, that they were both wars in which the USA had nothing to do. Wars commited because of merely individual interests.

Of course Vietnam was longer, but just give it some time. I am sure that in 5 years many will have no answer to the neverending conflict, and Bush will be judged harshly by history. I do, however, hope this does not happen. (Maybe will all get drafted in a few years, lol)

As said by Bush himself: Shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice....

[RiversideGator]

War/ # of U.S. Soldiers Killed/ Population Freed (approximate)/ # of People Freed Per

World War I (France) 115,000 39 million 339.13

World War II (France, Belgium) 116,991 48 million 410.29

1991 Gulf War (Kuwait) 472 2 million 8968.60

GWOT (Afghanistan) 223* 30 million 134,529.15*

GWOT (Iraq) 1,865* 26 million 13,941.19*

GWOT (Combined) 2,088* 56 million 26,819.92*

* On-going

[pvenne]

I dont believe that conservative brainwashing is part of basic training.  So, the answer must be the latter.  The soldiers are those who actually have to do the fighting and dying and they largely support the war and Bush.  Of course you can find some who do not, but on the whole soldiers and sailors are much more likely to support the war, Bush and the Republicans than the general population.  I can provide polling data if requested.  This is a well known fact among political analysts.  Another benefit they have is the soldiers dont listen the negative national media while they are in Iraq and they see first hand the progress that has been made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i didnt mean that conservative brainwashing was part of Basic training, just that soldiers obviously support their leader, no matter who he happens to be, democrat of republican...it just makes sense. I don't know if I'm right, and you could very well be right, but I think it would make more sense that the soldiers support bush because he is their civilian commander, that's all I meant. They fight for america, and the pres leads america, and bush is the pres...all I mean was that I bet they would support whoever was in charge. Again, i could be wrong, but thats what I would bet.

[monsoon]

War/ # of U.S. Soldiers Killed/ Population Freed (approximate)/ # of People Freed Per

World War I (France) 115,000 39 million  339.13

World War II (France, Belgium)  116,991 48 million 410.29

1991 Gulf War (Kuwait) 472 2 million 8968.60

GWOT (Afghanistan) 223* 30 million  134,529.15*

GWOT (Iraq)  1,865* 26 million 13,941.19*

GWOT (Combined) 2,088* 56 million 26,819.92*

* On-going

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Freed from what? The 2 million in Kuwait can't vote, women have no rights and face being beaten if they show their head in public. GWI freed no one, and in fact, make the lives of millions more miserable as the USA abandoned its allies in the area. (re Bush Sr. ) I would not call living under an Islamic dictatorship "freed".

Likewise, except for a few pockets in Iraq and Afghanistan most people live in fear of either the Taliban or Insurgency. And I will remind you the War on Terror is not a war as you can't declare war on a feeling. We did have a War in Afghanistan to go after the people that perputrated 9/11. And they even screwed that one of as non of the leaders of the Taliban were caught and Osama is still on the run. Now we have records crops of Opium being grown there making the drug problem worse than ever. Such lovely results.

And then we had a War to settle a personal vendetta of Bush Jr against Saddam Hussein but even Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It had nothing to do with the so called WOT, but is is being mis-labeled as that now because our chicken hawk president can't admit the truth about Iraq. And now if they do manage to settle on a Constitution, it contains a clause that states, that no law will be passed that counters Islam. A very disturbing development and most likely will mean that people will have less rights than under the secular govt of Saddam Hussein once the Clerics start vetting laws.

And I noticed on your list that you left out Vietnam and Korean. They, like the Iraq wars and Afghanistan don't look that good because like those wars, the USA is terrible at nation building. (Something that Bush jr promised he would not do)

[RiversideGator]

soldiers obviously support their leader, no matter who he happens to be, democrat of republican

Actually, most people in the military loathed Clinton much as he "loathed the military".

Freed from what? The 2 million in Kuwait can't vote, women have no rights and face being beaten if they show their head in public.

Would you rather live in Kuwait now or Kuwait under Saddam Hussein? Kuwait isnt perfect, but they arent finding mass graves there from the emir's government.

And I noticed on your list that you left out Vietnam and Korean. They, like the Iraq wars and Afghanistan don't look that good because like those wars, the USA is terrible at nation building.

I could very well have included South Korea as we also saved this country from communist tyranny. Would you rather live in South Korea with a growing economy and good living standards or North Korea with no freedom and famines? As to Vietnam, we had that won until the Democrats and the media ran Nixon out of office and the North invaded the South in 1975. With no American support, the South fell to the Communists.

As for nation building, ask the Germans and the Japanese how good we are at nation this.

[Ruso]

  As to Vietnam, we had that won until the Democrats and the media ran Nixon out of office and the North invaded the South in 1975.  With no American support, the South fell to the Communists.

As for nation building, ask the Germans and the Japanese how good we are at nation this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, It is the evil liberals's fault!The USA is only concerned about saving all those poor countries from evil. Bring them heaven....

[monsoon]

As for nation building, ask the Germans and the Japanese how good we are at nation this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sure they will give you quite an ear full over Iraq as they fortunately have access to better media than we do here in the USA. The question is, will you be listening as most of the supporters of Bush's wars would not be. They are happy to watch the glorious war news on CNN, ABC and Fox while munching on their freedom fries.