Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[bellevegasj]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Ok, if we run this great propaganda machine, why do you think the tape of the Marine shooting the insurgent in the mosque is all over the news? We want people to see the truth, even when it not in our best interest or when facts are twisted and used against us. We put up with the latter because of our respect for the former. Don’t you find it interesting that Al Jazzera would not show the tape of Margaret Hassan being shot but did air the tape of the Marine shooting the insurgent at the mosque.

Every bit of news you receive from our government is slanted and has been censored. I personally know 2 guys in the AirForce that worked on that team. They said that it jaded every bit of information they ever saw after that. They're probably just traitor flip-floppers though, right?

Yes, other countries do it too and yes, Al J does it as well. Why would you think your government doesn't? You can't be that naive.

[BillA]

M
you object to reasoned debate ?
or just prefer denigrating propaganda ?

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I’m still baffled by the “liberal” view of this war. We go in and remove an undisputedly evil dictator and the “liberal” complain. Some how in your twisted minds the Iraqi’s were living in a benevolent, peaceful and plentiful paradise. Then America stepped in and ruined paradise. What a twisted view of the world you have.

Hey, woah! I'm one of those liberal types and I don't have that view at all.
I didn't think we should have invaded (still don't). Not because Saddam was such a great guy but because it was pretty clear that it was going to be a mess. Because we hadn't been attacked by Iraq and I didn't see it as our job to give up American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives) and treasure to rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam. Our leadership presumed the Iraqi people would be so happy they it would be the liberation of Paris from the Nazis all over again. Also, opening a second front when we didn't need to constituted "taking our eye off the ball" in the "war against terror". Who knows what might have happened at Tora Bora without this distraction. We might even have the SOB who did attack the US. I want him in a cell a lot more than Saddam - and GW says he "doesn't think about him much".

I'm also pretty sure that we thought that Iraq had WMDs because we sold them (or the makings) to him. Some day Dick Cheney and Halliburton are going to get caught on this one - although likely not while there's a Republican majority in Congress. Think they're willing to go after one of their own? I don't.

So there's my "twisted view of the world".

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by miladiou

not very constructive, but i need to say it

Lothar you are such an #@$$#@#
i feel better

Sorry if I struck a nerve, but it is true. The neo-liberals have complete turned their back on some fundamental liberal ideals. Like freedom, democracy, human rights and using power to help the little guy get justice.

I guess I am a through back to the Democrats like Kennedy and Roosevelt, guys who believed in a robust foreign policy and were willing to stand up for the fundamental principals of this nation. It would be nice to see a Democrat with balls again. Hell we might be able to win an election once that happens.

Originally Posted by bellevegasj

Every bit of news you receive from our government is slanted and has been censored. I personally know 2 guys in the AirForce that worked on that team. They said that it jaded every bit of information they ever saw after that. They're probably just traitor flip-floppers though, right?

Yes, other countries do it too and yes, Al J does it as well. Why would you think your government doesn't? You can't be that naive.

I know a guy who has a friend, whose sister’s boyfriends, cousin is an Airman who cleans the toilets on a base where they have a public affairs officer...Sorry, but no...That gives you no credibility. On the other hand, I have real credibility.

The only thing that ever is censored is footage or information, which could be tactically or operationally useful AT THE TIME. A Marine shooting an apparently injured and unarmed man still made the news, there was no attempt to cover that up or censor it. If there were anything, you would not want public to see it would be that incident. There is a free press in this country and believe me the press knows it is a Constitutional right.

You are only naive if you think the press is interested in the truth and "the man" is trying to suppress the truth. I remember listing to the news on shortwave during the first weeks of the war when the news was reporting on how we were bogged down, in a quagmire etc...When in truth we where killing bad guys and moving on to the next objective so fast that we had to finally slow down so our logistics could catch up. My team chief was wondering what war they were reporting on. The news just wants you to tune in, buy the newspaper or click on their website and they need to say something dramatic to do it. I would challenge you to look at the reports that came out during the first three weeks of the war and compare that with what you know now. I think you will find that the two are very different. You should also consider that no reporters are complaing about cenorship.

[bellevegasj]

I retract my statement. You are that naive.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bellevegasj

I retract my statement. You are that naive.

If you have never served and you have not been to Iraq...how would you really know what ground truth is. I have the benefit of experience what do you bring to the conversation that backs your assertion. At least I have a lot credibility.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Hey, woah! I'm one of those liberal types and I don't have that view at all.
I didn't think we should have invaded (still don't). Not because Saddam was such a great guy but because it was pretty clear that it was going to be a mess. Because we hadn't been attacked by Iraq and I didn't see it as our job to give up American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives) and treasure to rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam. Our leadership presumed the Iraqi people would be so happy they it would be the liberation of Paris from the Nazis all over again. Also, opening a second front when we didn't need to constituted "taking our eye off the ball" in the "war against terror". Who knows what might have happened at Tora Bora without this distraction. We might even have the SOB who did attack the US. I want him in a cell a lot more than Saddam - and GW says he "doesn't think about him much".

I'm also pretty sure that we thought that Iraq had WMDs because we sold them (or the makings) to him. Some day Dick Cheney and Halliburton are going to get caught on this one - although likely not while there's a Republican majority in Congress. Think they're willing to go after one of their own? I don't.

So there's my "twisted view of the world".

Honestly, I was well received going into Basra. Smiles and waves from everyone who lined the streets. I would post the pictures but you guys still won’t believe it. so why bother.

GW is correct about Osama. It would be nice to have him but he is not the center of gravity in this war on terrorism. I'm an advocate of the Che treatment myself...just make him disappear and then have him show up in a sallow grave 20-30 years from now when he is insignificant geopolitically.

As to Halliburton, please name another company that could have preformed the services Halliburton preformed. Personally, I was happy to see their chow halls get erected once we started phase four ops. Finally, we could get good meals, showers etc... The truth is that no other companies exist with Halliburton’s capability.

[killernoodle]

Many other companies could put up the facilities that haliburton did, but they still didnt need to price gouge the shit out of the US people...

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by killernoodle

Many other companies could put up the facilities that haliburton did, but they still didnt need to price gouge the shit out of the US people...

Name a few

[superart]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

GW is correct about Osama. It would be nice to have him but he is not the center of gravity in this war on terrorism. I'm an advocate of the Che treatment myself...just make him disappear and then have him show up in a sallow grave 20-30 years from now when he is insignificant geopolitically.

I disagree. He is a major financier and organizer of terrorist activities. As well as a figure that attracts more members. With him out of the picture, El'quida will be far less able to conduct their operations.

We have been giving him the "Che Treatment" for a long time (part of it is Clinton's **** up). And see where that lead to?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

As to Halliburton, please name another company that could have preformed the services Halliburton preformed. Personally, I was happy to see their chow halls get erected once we started phase four ops. Finally, we could get good meals, showers etc... The truth is that no other companies exist with Halliburton’s capability.

I'm sure Northrop Grumen, Lockheed Martin, or some other PMC that I'm not aware of could have managed.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

I disagree. He is a major financier and organizer of terrorist activities. As well as a figure that attracts more members. With him out of the picture, El'quida will be far less able to conduct their operations.

We have been giving him the "Che Treatment" for a long time (part of it is Clinton's **** up). And see where that lead to?



I'm sure Northrop Grumen, Lockheed Martin, or some other PMC that I'm not aware of could have managed.

Che was put in a hole. Clinton never gave Osama the Che treatment. Osama is now on the run and ineffective at supplying the things you mention. He is a non player now. The bank rollers all live in Iran now.

Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin don’t have ANY personnel support capability. Those two might be able to supply plane captains and civilian mechanics...oh that’s right they already do

[Brians256]

As a mild supporter of the action in Iraq (I have some serious reservations about the odds of success due to factors outside Iraq), I have to say that Lothar seems to be responding quite politely compared to the level of invective directed at him.

Are there illegal actions happening in the military activity in Iraq? Well, I can just about guarantee it. However, that is due to my belief that the only way to ensure that there is no illegal activity is to have no human present (I have yet to meet a human who hasn't committed an illegal activity). The more people you get involved, the more likely you are to have some yahoo do something really bad such as killing innocent civilians or such. Does that condemn the whole action? No. Very good efforts are being made to keep human suffering to a minimum by the coalition forces all in the attempt to help stabilize a country and provide a better (more representative of the locals and providing more peace and prosperity) government.

Humans are a twisted race when taken as a statistical whole, and only slowly do we improve. Unfortunately, I believe that progress is only made by application of force. People do not generally respect anything but force. Sometimes you can get away with diplomatic means, but generally, diplomatic successes come from prior uses of more naked force.

BTW, force can be economic, military or informational. But I always mean an externally imposed force that is always resented by those receiving it (even if it helps them).

I believe that the US as a whole is dedicated to fair and legal actions, in spite of the actions of the few. It is not a question of whether horrible things will happen in a war; war is the ideal breeding ground for horror. The better question is whether the US should try to save Iraq from itself and from others all too eager to feed on its economic flesh (read about the profusion of corruption present in "Food for Oil" program run by France and Germany).

Are we doing it for economic reason? The US is losing money in this "deal".

Are we doing it for power? I don't know anyone who wants to annex Iraq or even stay near it any longer than it takes to get them stable.

Oh, I forget. We just want to enrich Halliburton and related companies while killing innocent civilians and spouting false propaganda.

Sheeze. All the evil neocons that I know of support prosecution of anything that is wrong while still continuing the effort to help Iraq.

[bigben2k]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

If you have never served and you have not been to Iraq...how would you really know what ground truth is. I have the benefit of experience what do you bring to the conversation that backs your assertion. At least I have a lot credibility.

I for one appreciate being able to read your comments: your point of view is as direct and honest as it can be (politics aside ).

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

I for one appreciate being able to read your comments: your point of view is as direct and honest as it can be (politics aside ).

Thanks! I think everyone spins a little but I try very hard to be intellectually honest.

[Blackeagle]

Originally Posted by bellevegasj

I retract my statement. You are that naive.

NO!


YOU have such a biased and distorted view YOU can't pause to consider any possible "truth" than what you choose to believe.

But such is all to often the case with the ultra lib mind set. And your, and milabiou's, abuse of a man who's been there on the ground in Iraq is dispicable. You've no back up to your chosen beliefs (The link to the UN was a sad & weak attempt at any real support of your position.) you are posting yet rail away aginst those who do. Which is the only way you can dismiss the reporting of the Marine shooting of that wounded Iraqi, yet claim our news is all censored.

[miladiou]

america is in trouble... :shrug:

[superart]

Originally Posted by miladiou

america is in trouble... :shrug:

What's new?

[BillA]

Originally Posted by miladiou

america is in trouble... :shrug:

and who is not ?
France ??

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by miladiou

america is in trouble... :shrug:

Comments like this are why I think every American once they turn 18 should be required to live in a third world dictatorship for a year.

[BillA]

no, they should be required to support themselves in a third world dictatorship for a year
and they should not have a vote until having spent 3 yrs service in some fashion
men and women - no service, no vote

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by unregistered

... no service, no vote

Been reading Heinlein, eh?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

no, they should be required to support themselves in a third world dictatorship for a year
and they should not have a vote until having spent 3 yrs service in some fashion
men and women - no service, no vote

It is interesting that you say this. Because the original idea was that citizens should have some stake in the government in order to participate visa vi property/land ownership.

In principle, I favor the compulsory service of some type. However, the pitfall is in generating two classes of citizen. How would you insure the non-voting class would be protected? We can see what ultimately happened to the Roman Republic.

[BillA]

sterilize the non-voting class

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Been reading Heinlein, eh?

LOL, Starship Troopers was/is required reading in the Marine Corps, no joke.

Originally Posted by unregistered

sterilize the non-voting class

Wow, Bill thats getting a little 1932ish

[BillA]

sooner or later, the population has to be addressed
and we MUST do first at home what we would then tell others to do

it does not have to be the violent scheme you allude to
implant a no-concieve chip at birth, deactivate it upon completion of service