Shit hits the fan in Iraq

[Guest Vitamin X]

As for the war in Iraq, Kennedy called it Bush's Vietnam. He said Bush lied about nuclear weapons in Iraq and the country's link to al-Qaida. The war has alienated allies and made the fight against terrorism harder, Kennedy said. With Bush, he said, "truth is the first casualty of policy."

Sorry about your friend. But I truely believe he was killed for a worthy cause. Not only for the people of Iraq, but the entire free word.

 

Those are stupid and unsafe comments. A man with Kennedy's stature, needs to know calling this Bush's Vietnam can hurt morale with the troops, and give the enemy an idea we're weak and what they are doing is working. Many Vietnam Vets say the lack of support at home plaeyd a great role in losing the war. Also, a majority of troops believe in the cause they are fighting for, and many in Iraq, and those who have returned have talked about the progress that's been made in Iraq.

There was lack of support at home long before the war even started... What with Vietnam, correct me if I'm wrong here please, but the anti-war shit started AFTER the unnecessary (in their and my opinion anyways) deaths of the troops being brought there. When we first intervened, there was merely a meep heard since we were there to protect democracy in the free world, a huge cause at the time of the Cold War. So flash forward to March 2003. Bush flies full-force into a war that an overwhelming majority of the world opposed, and that literally millions of protestors voiced their anger against, so already there was a huge concern from the beginning about a lack of support. We go in, kick their ass, and even with the capture of Saddam, you still have people back here who don't see the reasoning for the war, and on TOP OF IT ALL, you have the fucking Commander in Chief making JOKES about his apparent "whoops no WMD's there, sorry all your friends got killed guys" line of thinking.

 

This is as close to Vietnam as we've come in the modern age, and it only seems to be getting worse. I want to hear some fucking good news come out of Iraq, not American corpses being dragged around town, and mosques being blown up.

[Vern Gagne 0]

You had a vocal minority against the war. Most people were in favor of the war, and alot of those still believe the War itself was right.

 

This from a solider in Iraq.

 

Houston.com

[Guest MikeSC]

A classmate and friend of mine was killed over the weekend in Iraq. Fuck this, Vietnam V. 2.0

It's a shame --- but if we cut bait and leave as you seem to want, they will kill us in 9/11 numbers.

As for the war in Iraq, Kennedy called it Bush's Vietnam. He said Bush lied about nuclear weapons in Iraq and the country's link to al-Qaida. The war has alienated allies and made the fight against terrorism harder, Kennedy said. With Bush, he said, "truth is the first casualty of policy."

Doesn't Ted have a woman to kill in his car or something? When has anybody taken a word that drunken lug has to say seriously?

There was lack of support at home long before the war even started... What with Vietnam, correct me if I'm wrong here please, but the anti-war shit started AFTER the unnecessary (in their and my opinion anyways) deaths of the troops being brought there. When we first intervened, there was merely a meep heard since we were there to protect democracy in the free world, a huge cause at the time of the Cold War. So flash forward to March 2003. Bush flies full-force into a war that an overwhelming majority of the world opposed, and that literally millions of protestors voiced their anger against, so already there was a huge concern from the beginning about a lack of support. We go in, kick their ass, and even with the capture of Saddam, you still have people back here who don't see the reasoning for the war, and on TOP OF IT ALL, you have the fucking Commander in Chief making JOKES about his apparent "whoops no WMD's there, sorry all your friends got killed guys" line of thinking.

Wow, seeking to be offended, are we?

This is as close to Vietnam as we've come in the modern age, and it only seems to be getting worse. I want to hear some fucking good news come out of Iraq, not American corpses being dragged around town, and mosques being blown up.

Iraq has a Constituion.

The vast majority of Iraqs aren't part of this.

Basic services are back on.

Resistance is only in a few small pockets.

 

Heck, I'd like good news --- but the mainstream media tends to do a bang-up job of ignoring good news and inventing problems where they do not exist.

and the US shot a rocket at a mosque, killing 40.

 

Ooh, i'm sure that will go over well with the Iraqis.

If they'll defile a mosque by SHOOTING at troops (funny how you missed that part of the story), then why in the hell should WE respect it?

-=Mike

[Guest SideFXs]

It’s a last desperate offence, from Shiite Muslims funded by Iran & Syria and the Sunni loyalists to Saddam. It is obvious they have been emboldened by certain American politicians who want to defeat Bush

[Guest MikeSC]

It’s a last desperate offence, from Shiite Muslims funded by Iran  & Syria and the Sunni  loyalists to Saddam.  It is obvious they have been emboldened by certain American politicians who want to defeat Bush

Shhh --- you're just accusing people of being unpatriotic.

Edit: You know what's REAL ironic --- these same people who complained about how barbaric WE were in Vietnam and how we should leave --- do they take ANY blame for what the Communists did when they gained power there?

-=Mike

...Only fighting Ted Kennedy ever did was to beat Mary Jo Kopechne to the bank of the river

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Edit: You know what's REAL ironic --- these same people who complained about how barbaric WE were in Vietnam and how we should leave --- do they take ANY blame for what the Communists did when they gained power there?

If you're talking Americans, I don't really think it was the barbarism of the US troops that motivated most of the people who wanted to pull out of Vietnam. It had something more to do with the 58,000 dead Americans.

[Guest Brian]

In the end, the policy makers could have cared less about the millions of dead Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians (or those that were driven into the US-supported Khmer Rouge death camps because of the bombings). I'm sure the legacy of bombings (and killing) on Vietnamese soil are far more harmful than what the Communists did.

[Guest SideFXs]

It’s a last desperate offence, from Shiite Muslims funded by Iran  & Syria and the Sunni  loyalists to Saddam.  It is obvious they have been emboldened by certain American politicians who want to defeat Bush

Shhh --- you're just accusing people of being unpatriotic.

Edit: You know what's REAL ironic --- these same people who complained about how barbaric WE were in Vietnam and how we should leave --- do they take ANY blame for what the Communists did when they gained power there?

-=Mike

...Only fighting Ted Kennedy ever did was to beat Mary Jo Kopechne to the bank of the river

Yeah!

 

And this 9/11 commission. These SAME certain politicians, that are complaining that we did not do enough to preempt the events of 9/11, are criticizing the preemptive actions President Bush took in Iraq!

 

And Teddy Kennedy's dad wanted to appease the Germans, when he was Ambassador to England, in 1937. Old Joe even praised Hitler. Not fighting, kind of runs in the family. B.O.P's (hint the first word is Bay).

 

Brian, your comments are the typical inverted liberal point of view. Blame America. But, you are from England, judging from your current time. Don't worry we will help save liberals from England, again, from this threat.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And this 9/11 commission. These SAME certain politicians, that are complaining that we did not do enough to preempt the events of 9/11, are criticizing the preemptive actions President Bush took in Iraq!

 

Actually, no.

 

Democrats are angry because the war in Iraq has detracted from the war on terrorism. Al Queda is, always has been, and always will be a more dangerous threat to us than Iraq ever has been and ever will be.

[Guest MikeSC]

And this 9/11 commission. These SAME certain politicians, that are complaining that we did not do enough to preempt the events of 9/11, are criticizing the preemptive actions President Bush took in Iraq!

 

Actually, no.

 

Democrats are angry because the war in Iraq has detracted from the war on terrorism. Al Queda is, always has been, and always will be a more dangerous threat to us than Iraq ever has been and ever will be.

You are aware that Al Qaeda is very much in Iraq right now, aren't you?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Indeed, but they weren't before we invaded Iraq.

 

...which further reinforces why Democrats are pissed about the war in Iraq.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Don't be a fucking prick, Jobber.

Shaddup. I'm just demonstrating what I was talking about when he made that comment, and why he was wrong to do so.

[Guest MikeSC]

Indeed, but they weren't before we invaded Iraq.

 

...which further reinforces why Democrats are pissed about the war in Iraq.

You really believe that, don't you?

 

The same Saddam that gave money to homicide bombers wouldn't DARE have Al Qaeda in his country.

 

Completely illogical.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Except there has been a plethora of evidence that states Saddam wanted NOTHING TO DO with bin Laden's organization, partially because bin Laden also wanted to kill him.

 

Hm.

[Guest MikeSC]

Except there has been a plethora of evidence that states Saddam wanted NOTHING TO DO with bin Laden's organization, partially because bin Laden also wanted to kill him.

 

Hm.

Evidence from the same sources of the WMD data?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Evidence from the same sources of the WMD data?

-=Mike

Which would be almost any intelligence organization worldwide, according to those who defend Bush's choice to take action on the WMD claims?

[Guest MikeSC]

Evidence from the same sources of the WMD data?

                -=Mike

Which would be almost any intelligence organization worldwide, according to those who defend Bush's choice to take action on the WMD claims?

So, we're supposed to believe that they're RIGHT on this --- but WEREN'T right on EVERYTHING else about Iraq?

 

This is the needle in the haystack that they got right?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, every intelligence agency in the world is full of bumbling fools then?

 

Because the justification for the whole CIA fuckup is "well, other intelligence agencies worldwide came to the same conclusion, so don't blame America or President Bush that other nations also thought Saddam had WMDs."

 

So, which is it?

[Guest MikeSC]

So, every intelligence agency in the world is full of bumbling fools then?

 

Because the justification for the whole CIA fuckup is "well, other intelligence agencies worldwide came to the same conclusion, so don't blame America or President Bush that other nations also thought Saddam had WMDs."

 

So, which is it?

If our intel is so bad that we were COMPLETELY wrong about WMD (though we know for a fact that Saddam HAD biological weapons as he purchased the "starter grms" for the program from us until 1989) --- how can we be sure of much of anything?

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

I'm sorry, you can't say the same intelligience groups that said "They have WMD" are now right when they give something that helps out another political side.

 

If they were wrong about WMD then it is entirely believable they were wrong about there not being any connection between Saddam and those terrorist assholes.

 

And I love how the world is now screaming "THEY NEVER HAD WMD" when up until they realized they might lose money with the monster out of power, they were all agreeing the weapons were there.

 

It's all political one way or another it seems.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm sorry, you can't say the same intelligience groups that said "They have WMD" are now right when they give something that helps out another political side.

 

If they were wrong about WMD then it is entirely believable they were wrong about there not being any connection between Saddam and those terrorist assholes.

 

And I love how the world is now screaming "THEY NEVER HAD WMD" when up until they realized they might lose money with the monster out of power, they were all agreeing the weapons were there.

 

It's all political one way or another it seems.

You know what I don't get:

 

How Al Jazeera ever got this "Arabic CNN" image? They are a tool for terrorists and have been since their inception.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They were originally painted by the US stations as "Osama bin-Laden's favorite television station," which normally implied something bad. But as those same stations had to depend on them more and more for footage of various events, to the point that US networks were bargaining equipment for the right to reair certain Al-Jazeera content, they just became known in everyone's minds as CNN/FNC/MSNBC's partner in the middle east.

[Guest MikeSC]

They were originally painted by the US stations as "Osama bin-Laden's favorite television station," which normally implied something bad. But as those same stations had to depend on them more and more for footage of various events, to the point that US networks were bargaining equipment for the right to reair certain Al-Jazeera content, they just became known in everyone's minds as CNN/FNC/MSNBC's partner in the middle east.

But they ARE tools for terrorists. They aren't in the same ballpark as legitimate news.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I get the impression that they only grew tremendously because Al Qaeda just happens to mail the tapes to them and there's a lot of people who want to see that.

 

I'm sure if he mailed them to Abu Dhabi TV instead or some other channel the same would have happened to them.

[Guest MikeSC]

I get the impression that they only grew tremendously because Al Qaeda just happens to mail the tapes to them and there's a lot of people who want to see that.

 

I'm sure if he mailed them to Abu Dhabi TV instead or some other channel the same would have happened to them.

By every account I've seen, Al Jazeera's coverage of the Iraqi fighting has not been a model of impartiality.

 

Keep in mind --- the moment one of the sheiks who allow them to go on the air disapproves of them, they are off the air.

 

There is no serious discussion. There is no serious debate. It is a joke. It is Soviet TV with mildly better production values.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By every account I've seen, Al Jazeera's coverage of the Iraqi fighting has not been a model of impartiality.

 

Keep in mind --- the moment one of the sheiks who allow them to go on the air disapproves of them, they are off the air.

 

There is no serious discussion. There is no serious debate. It is a joke. It is Soviet TV with mildly better production values.

        -=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

By every account I've seen, Al Jazeera's coverage of the Iraqi fighting has not been a model of impartiality.

 

Keep in mind --- the moment one of the sheiks who allow them to go on the air disapproves of them, they are off the air.

 

There is no serious discussion. There is no serious debate. It is a joke. It is Soviet TV with mildly better production values.

         -=Mike

Al Jazeera and Fox News aren't even in the same ballpark of legitimate news.

 

To equate them is beneath even you.

-=Mike

[Red Baron 0]

By every account I've seen, Al Jazeera's coverage of the Iraqi fighting has not been a model of impartiality.

 

Keep in mind --- the moment one of the sheiks who allow them to go on the air disapproves of them, they are off the air.

 

There is no serious discussion. There is no serious debate. It is a joke. It is Soviet TV with mildly better production values.

         -=Mike

Al Jazeera and Fox News aren't even in the same ballpark of legitimate news.

 

To equate them is beneath even you.

-=Mike

what is legitimate news?

 

CNN?

 

[Guest MikeSC]

I get the impression that they only grew tremendously because Al Qaeda just happens to mail the tapes to them and there's a lot of people who want to see that.

 

I'm sure if he mailed them to Abu Dhabi TV instead or some other channel the same would have happened to them.

Update time:

 

Arab TV networks accused of fueling violence in Iraq

Mon Apr 12, 2:04 PM ET  Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

 

BAGHDAD (AFP) - The US-led coalition and its Iraqi allies accused the Arab world's two biggest television news stations of fanning anti-US sentiment and sectarian violence in Iraq (news - web sites) with their reporting.

 

"Anti-US sentiment has been heightened by Al-Jazeera and other anti-coalition media reporting" on the closure of a Shiite radical newspaper and the siege of the insurgent bastion of Fallujah, the coalition's deputy director of operations, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, told a news conference.

 

"We have reason to believe that several news organizations do not engage in truthful reporting," coalition civilian spokesman Dan Senor said.

 

"In fact it is no reporting."

 

Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and its Dubai-based rival Al-Arabiya, have been providing graphic images of the devastation and casualties in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah during fierce fighting between US forces and insurgents last week.

 

Al-Jazeera has also been giving significant prominence and airtime to supporters of Shiite radical leader Moqtada Sadr, who is wanted in connection with the murder of a rival cleric last year.

 

Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya have also been the exclusive broadcasters of several videotapes of foreigners kidnapped by insurgents in Iraq.

 

Iraq's National Security Advisor Muaffaq al-Rubaie, a Shiite, lashed out at what he called "false reports" by both channels Sunday that he resigned from the council in protest against fighting between US troops and Sadr's supporters that has left many civilians dead in Baghdad and the south.

 

"I am so upset and so angry about what has been reported on Arab media and television about my resignation," Rubaie told a press conference in Baghdad.

 

He said he left his position in the council which is legislative in nature to take an executive post as national security advisor as part of the transfer of power by the US-led coalition to a caretaker government on June 30.

 

"I warn the Arabic media: Iraq's patience has reached its limit and they will regret what they are doing," said a visibly angry Rubaie.

 

He accused both channels of inciting violence between the country's ethnic groups with their reporting.

 

"This media is not happy with the end of the sectarianism in Iraq with the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), so they lie, lie and lie," said Rubaie.

 

He warned both television stations and other "irresponsible" Arab media that they would be shut down and banned from reporting from Iraq if they did not change their ways.

 

"All they have to do if they want to continue working in Iraq is to abide by the international and basic rules of reporting and refrain from using these facts and semi-facts to incite sectarian violence," he said.

 

But Al-Jazeera, which has been in hot water many times before regarding its reporting in Iraq, insists on its professional standards.

 

"Al-Jazeera is regularly the BUTT of criticism, often misplaced," spokesman Jihad Ballout told AFP.

 

The widely viewed channel is merely "reporting events objectively, which cannot possibly please everyone," he said.

 

"Al-Jazeera is not in the business of politics. It is a professional news outlet ... which is neither with nor against anyone."

 

Ballout said he hoped Rubaie would not carry out his threat to shut down the station's operation in Iraq, saying that such a move would "harm not just Al-Jazeera ... but also the Arab viewer and press freedom."

 

Al-Arabiya, which was banned from reporting in Iraq for more than two months at the end of November on charges on inciting murder, was not immediately available for comment.

 

But in a sign of Al-Jazeera's popularity, Japanese reporters slammed their diplomats in Jordan Monday, saying that they were left with reports by Al-Jazeera and other Arab media as the sole source of news about three Japanese hostages held by insurgents in Iraq.

 

"We end up getting our only news from Al-Jazeera," said Yoichi Koizumi, a reporter with Fuji Television News Network.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ia_040412180400

Well, a few people agree with my assessment, apparently.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

I honestly think that the most impartial news service is the BBC. Fox News is a total joke. Al-Jazeera is right there, in the middle east and although they don't have ties with terrorist groups, Bin Laden and co seem fit to mail them their video tapes (if those tapes can be believed to be currrent or actually authentic).