From here.
And if that means I'm full of flag-waving bullshit, so be it, for I could not love my country as much as I do did I not love honor more.
+++
A bunch of terrorists who were forced to jerk off in front of a woman will get over it. A guy burnt to a crisp and hung from a bridge will not.
Nobody seems to be able to keep their eye on the ball anymore.
Edited By GORDON on 1086756066
I'm not ashamed that I love my country.
-
71-1085092892
I didn't find this link until after I made the main page update.
More flag-waving bullshit from a Viet Nam vet.
More flag-waving bullshit from a Viet Nam vet.
I am not condoning what happened to the Iraqi prisoners...however, I think it is vitally important that in my head I have these matters in proper perspective...
Saddam had Iraqi men, women and children put to death in human meat grinders on a daily basis...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Saddam had people thrown off of 3 - 4 story buildings, while their relatives were forced to watch...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Saddam had people's tongues cut out, limbs chopped of, and even beheaded, while their families were forced to watch...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Saddam's sons, as well as other Administrators and military personnel raped and sodomized Iraqi girls, some as young as 8 years old, on a daily basis...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Saddam's regime indiscriminately put to death millions of Iraqi citizens on a daily basis, during the term of his brutal dictatorship, as evidenced by the mass graves recently uncovered in various parts of Iraq...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Terrorists recently exploded several car bombs in Baghdad, killing 17 innocent Iraqi children and several dozen innocent Iraqi citizens...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Terrorists have been killing American/Coalition soldiers on a daily basis since we sent our troops, many of whom gave their lives on Iraqi soil, used US taxpayer dollars to liberate the Iraqi people...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
Four Americans were killed in Fallujah, their bodies were burned, mutilated, drug through the streets and hung on a bridge...while Iraqi people cheered and stoned the bodies...
NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...
AND NOW, A FEW IRAQI PRISONERS HAVE BEEN HUMILITATED (poor babies)... A PAIR OF WOMENS UNDERWARE PUT ON THE PRISONERS HEADS, A FEW NAKED PHOTOGRAPHS... AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE ENTIRE ARAB COMMUNITY GO BALLASTIC... GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
As I said, I don't condone what happened to the prisoners... but, until the Iraqi's and the Arab Community gets their act together, I wish the American news elite would stop being part of the problem and stop using this story to the benefit of the Arab community.
I DON'T WANT MY PRESIDENT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE ARABS FOR ANYTHING! WE ARE AT WAR!
Well, glad I could help 
The one point missed, however, is that it isn't just humiliation. Currently, the MPs (or whoever) in Iraq are under investigation for murdering their prisoners, beating them to death.
The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
The one point missed, however, is that it isn't just humiliation. Currently, the MPs (or whoever) in Iraq are under investigation for murdering their prisoners, beating them to death.
The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I think what you are seeing is the balancing of the population to the media's apparent lack of symmetrical outrage to the torture of Americans. Surely even you can see the lack of balance of reporting in the "traditional" news outlets?TheCatt wrote:The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
-
71-1085092892
As I already stated on the front page, there is ample evidence to suggest we don't care about prisoners in our own country, either. There is no flag-waving, here. It's generalized indifference we feel to those who have (supposedly) committed crimes.TheCatt wrote:The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
Maybe it's just a mindset we have about people labeled "prisoners." We care less about prisoner abuse than we do about people being snatched off the streets and burned alive. Then the media tells us we're thinking about the wrong things, that we should "impeach" Rumsfeld over this, and it all smells terribly political.
That still doesn't excuse it.Vince wrote:TheCatt wrote:The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
I think what you are seeing is the balancing of the population to the media's apparent lack of symmetrical outrage to the torture of Americans. Surely even you can see the lack of balance of reporting in the "traditional" news outlets?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Ah, gotcha.GORDON wrote:TheCatt wrote:The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
As I already stated on the front page, there is ample evidence to suggest we don't care about prisoners in our own country, either. There is no flag-waving, here. It's generalized indifference we feel to those who have (supposedly) committed crimes.
Maybe it's just a mindset we have about people labeled "prisoners." We care less about prisoner abuse than we do about people being snatched off the streets and burned alive. Then the media tells us we're thinking about the wrong things, that we should "impeach" Rumsfeld over this, and it all smells terribly political.
Well, the main difference I can think of between our prisons and the ones in Iraq is that our prisoners have gone through a court of justice, and are convicted of a crime, not just accused or suspected criminals.
(Although, I guess some peeps are in prison prior to trial? Or are they in county jails or such?)
It's not me, it's someone else.
-
71-1085092892
I do believe people are held in prisons prior to trial, sometimes.
Another thing to note is that these aren't even plain vanilla prisoners, they are POW's. There isn't the same urgency to wring information out of someone who knocked over a gas station than there is to find out where that guy planted the bomb when he was caught near the train station.
I see a difference, and that may mean I'm callous to human life. Personally, if I could prevent the death of 100 civilians on a train by using pliers to crush the testicals of the guy who hid the bomb, I wouldn't hesitate. Would not enjoy it, but to me it's a pretty easy decision.
Another thing to note is that these aren't even plain vanilla prisoners, they are POW's. There isn't the same urgency to wring information out of someone who knocked over a gas station than there is to find out where that guy planted the bomb when he was caught near the train station.
I see a difference, and that may mean I'm callous to human life. Personally, if I could prevent the death of 100 civilians on a train by using pliers to crush the testicals of the guy who hid the bomb, I wouldn't hesitate. Would not enjoy it, but to me it's a pretty easy decision.
Your total inability to differentiate between these two things boggles my mind. I've seen you post. I know you're not stupid. Still looking for another rational excuse.TheCatt wrote:Vince wrote:TheCatt wrote:The point that bothers me is people are are terribly upset by the hung corpses, or the beheading, yet refuse to acknowledge that our people are under investigation for killing people in their custody. The lack of symmetrical outrage signifies only the disregard for lives that are not those within our own country.
I think what you are seeing is the balancing of the population to the media's apparent lack of symmetrical outrage to the torture of Americans. Surely even you can see the lack of balance of reporting in the "traditional" news outlets?
That still doesn't excuse it.
No one is excusing abuse of POW's. If there were things done wrong (as there appear to have been), then most Americans want to see to it that those that broke the rules are punished.
Most people are just frustrated that the media has locked on to this story reporting it over and over for the first week while there was nothing new to report, while we are seeing our media outlets NOT report much (if at all) on the mutilations and beheadings of non-combatant American civilians by these ass-holes.
At any rate, no one is saying that soldiers that broke the rules should be given medals or something, so shut the fuck up.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
(Although, I guess some peeps are in prison prior to trial? Or are they in county jails or such?)
County lockup until after your trial. I confirmed that with a phone call.
Personally, if I could prevent the death of 100 civilians on a train by using pliers to crush the testicals of the guy who hid the bomb, I wouldn't hesitate.
I understand your thinking: The needs of the many... I'm also pretty sure Catt is implying he wouldn't stoop to the levels of the "bad guys" by using their tactics. I'm torn a bit.
While it would bring me no pleasure, I do not believe humans are capable of resolving violence without violence...yet. In fact, I believe the threat of violence keeps most people and governments in check.
If I were old and Chinese I'd say, Death is to Life as War is to Peace. Can one exist without the other? hehe
Anyway, I do not condone the actions of these morons that beat the prisoners, nor do I condone the media's arrempts to turn it political by trying to finger bigger players that most likely weren't involved. I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld didn't tell London to get gangbanged in front of the prisoners. Now I wouldn't be shocked if someone saw something and turned their backs to it, like the dozen Congressmen who ignored this issue when they were told about it months before it became news (most were Dems, not being a dick, just pointing out the irony), but should the media be witch hunting those people? Shouldn't we leave this to the people whose jobs it is to enforce the law? I'm sure Richard Jewel would agree with me.
I also think the media reporting about how MI operates is like Forest Gump writing a thesis on quantum physics.
Its interesting how the media has reported this war. I have to wonder how WWII would have been reported by today's media. Perhaps the Nazis were innocent victims of Republicans? I mean they didn't do anything Saddam hasn't done. And imagine the outcry due to all of the innocent civilians killed.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
Its interesting how the media has reported this war. I have to wonder how WWII would have been reported by today's media. Perhaps the Nazis were innocent victims of Republicans? I mean they didn't do anything Saddam hasn't done. And imagine the outcry due to all of the innocent civilians killed.
The Nazis clearly wanted to dominate Europe, and were atetmpting to take over other countries. Iraq has tried nothing like this in over a decade, when they were promptly stomped.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I really vented here, so Catt don't think I'm attacking you. I just started responding and started opening up to a lot of thoughts I've had about this whole topic. I felt like writing it all down, so I did. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions, I'm just stating mine.
Even back when they were stomped the first time people bitched saying it was none of our business. The job never got finished because of political bullshit on ALL sides.
So what changed in 10 years?
-Saddam was using his oil for food money to buy weapons, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam's people, outside of the Sunnis, were suffering and starving, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam was still murdering his own people, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam was committed to the extinction of the Kurds, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam did use money to try and get bigger and better weapons, including WMDs, nobody disputes that. Although, there has been talk about what types he tried to get.
-Saddam went out of his way to block UN weapons inspectors at every turn, nobody is disputing that. (See Sidenote #1 at the bottom)
-Saddam laughed off 17 U.N. resolutions condemning him and was shocked when the U.S. followed through with its promise of military action, nobody disputes that.
-Saddam lied to the world about everything, nobody disputed that...except for the WMD issue.
-France, Germany, and Russia were the countries that did not want Saddam removed. All had financial motivations for not removing him and nobody disputes that.
-Saddam paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a reward for their sacrifice, nobody disputes that.
-Terrorists found safe haven in Iraq, nobody disputes that. Although, ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam have been questioned.
I didn't realize the statute of limitations had expired on Saddam and Iraq's crimes.
I need to call all the law enforcement agencies in the world and tell them that they've got to stop arresting people for crimes they committed in the past. Had Ted Bundy not been caught until today, we'd have to let him go because his crimes were committed so long ago.
Ok, joking aside, nobody disputes that Saddam and his children and his friends and government were murderers, right? Then the crime of murder which is enforced planetwide and has no time limit should have been enforced against them. So there's that justificiation too.
So again, what changed?
-Terrorists parked two 747s into the WTC and killed 3000 innocent citizens.
-There was a democrat in the White House.
And let's talk about that democrat's term. He bombed a fucking hospital and killed women and children in an attempt to kill terrorists which was itself an attempt to divert attention away from his own political scandals. Where was the media to condemn him? Where were all the liberals to march and protest and call him a Nazi? Where's the media outrage over that incident like there is over this "wedding"?
How about Bosnia? There's been talk of war crimes there. There's been talk that the U.S. killed women and children. Where was the media? Why wasn't that "war" splashed across our papers and TVs nightly and what a horrible man our president was because he was sending our troops to die?
What was his justification for that military action? Saving lives.
Apparently, Iraqi lives mean shit when compared to Bosnians.
Look, I'm sure GW loved the chance at hitting the guy who tried to whack his dad. I'm also sure he wanted to finish the job for his dad. I'm also sure a lot of his motives have been politically motivated. I'm also sure that certain companies got contracts because they're part of the good ol' boy network.
However, I'm also sure that a bad guy and his cronies are gone. I'm also sure that a terrorist network has gotten fucked up. I'm also sure that the Arab world saw that the U.S. can kick their asses. I'm also sure that a lot of Iraqis are thrilled Saddam is gone. I'm also sure the Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are thrilled Saddam is gone.
A lot of good is being done over there whether liberals want to admit it or not. Are bad things still happening? Yes. Could things have been done differently? Possibly. If we stick our heads into the sand and ignore all real problems, do they go away? No. Can talk solve all problems? No.
200 years of no progress in a region where everyone's existance is defined by a religion they're fanatical about is not going to be remedied overnight. However, I would bet you ANYTHING that if Kerry wins the White House, the media coverage of Iraq will start getting more positive almost immediately.
As Vince said, that's the most frustrating thing. Why can't the media report things fairy and let people make their own choices based on that? No, they have to try and sway everyone. Think about how much negative news over the war you've been exposed to as opposed to all the good things that are happening over there, like the rebuilding efforts or Iraqis that are living better lives now.
So call it a "war for oil". Fine. Whatever. I don't see gas prices dropping. I don't remember Iraq threatening to cut off our supply. I don't seem to remember anyone being concerned about that after 9/11. Someone PLEASE explain to me how this war has helped the U.S. with their oil interests in the slightest!!! If all the Arabs, including the Iraqis, are so mad at us now, how did this help us? How was this a war for oil? What's the motivation? The "War for Oil" argument HAS to see the U.S. take and control land, specifically oil fields, from the Iraqis. That hasn't happened. It didn't happen during the first "War for Oil" and its not happening now.
But if it was about oil, why not just go to Argentina? We're on better terms with them. We could trade them massive aid and progress in return for them changing their government and developing their oil fields. It could all be done peacefully.
What could go wrong?
Bush would then face:
-Environmentalists calling him a world killer.
-More arab outrage because their power would be weakened.
-More people accusing him of being a corporate pawn of the oil companies.
-Outrage from the "left" in this country that believes communism is the A.N.S.W.E.R.
-The same rhetoric from liberals bitching about him worrying too much about the rest of the planet and not enough about the U.S.
-And a Michael Moore documentary about how he pussed out and didn't do enough after 9/11.
So call me a flag waving brain washed idiot. Whatever. I KNOW we're the good guys. Our country might not act the best, but our intentions are the best. When I see liberals saying "he's not my president" or saying the constitution is a piece of shit or talking about how we should turn communist or saying we should all live in huts, I can't help but think they're a bunch of loud fucking morons with ZERO experience in the real world (like Martin Sheen has a fucking clue how real American families live) who don't know real oppresion thanks to the U.S. military and war.
And last I checked, 70% of the American public didn't think conservatives or moderates were slanting the news to their political agenda, yet they do believe the news is slanted. So if Conservatives and Moderates aren't doing the brainwashing, who exactly is brainwashed...? Take a look at who's doing the slanting and who's believing it.
That's all for now.
Sidenote #1: Although, Hans Gruber or whatever that German jackass was called says his teams found nothing. I find it hilarious that the U.S. HAS found items that Saddam isn't supposed to have. The media will say we haven't found anything, and that's a lie. We have found weapons (missles, chem rounds, etc.) Saddam wasn't supposed to have and we've recently had chem weapons used against our troops, but in a shocking twist, the liberal media chooses to ignore those stories. (I also remember large amounts of cyanide and mustard gas being measured in the Tigress river.) I was reading an article a week or so ago that was linked from fark.com and in it was a weapons inspector (he was a European of some kind) who talked all about how all the world's intelligence agencies know where those WMDs went: Syria. Sorry, I'm rambling a bit on the WMD issue, but c'mon, EVERYONE agrees he had them. Since there's no proof of their destruction and we're finding other items that were "destroyed" still intact, doesn't that show that they're probably still around somewhere? We're talking about a guy who deceived the U.N. at every opportunity. Why would he all of a sudden start complying when he didn't even believe anyone would attack him?
The Nazis clearly wanted to dominate Europe, and were attempting to take over other countries. Iraq has tried nothing like this in over a decade, when they were promptly stomped.
Even back when they were stomped the first time people bitched saying it was none of our business. The job never got finished because of political bullshit on ALL sides.
So what changed in 10 years?
-Saddam was using his oil for food money to buy weapons, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam's people, outside of the Sunnis, were suffering and starving, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam was still murdering his own people, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam was committed to the extinction of the Kurds, nobody has disputed that.
-Saddam did use money to try and get bigger and better weapons, including WMDs, nobody disputes that. Although, there has been talk about what types he tried to get.
-Saddam went out of his way to block UN weapons inspectors at every turn, nobody is disputing that. (See Sidenote #1 at the bottom)
-Saddam laughed off 17 U.N. resolutions condemning him and was shocked when the U.S. followed through with its promise of military action, nobody disputes that.
-Saddam lied to the world about everything, nobody disputed that...except for the WMD issue.
-France, Germany, and Russia were the countries that did not want Saddam removed. All had financial motivations for not removing him and nobody disputes that.
-Saddam paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a reward for their sacrifice, nobody disputes that.
-Terrorists found safe haven in Iraq, nobody disputes that. Although, ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam have been questioned.
I didn't realize the statute of limitations had expired on Saddam and Iraq's crimes.
I need to call all the law enforcement agencies in the world and tell them that they've got to stop arresting people for crimes they committed in the past. Had Ted Bundy not been caught until today, we'd have to let him go because his crimes were committed so long ago.
Ok, joking aside, nobody disputes that Saddam and his children and his friends and government were murderers, right? Then the crime of murder which is enforced planetwide and has no time limit should have been enforced against them. So there's that justificiation too.
So again, what changed?
-Terrorists parked two 747s into the WTC and killed 3000 innocent citizens.
-There was a democrat in the White House.
And let's talk about that democrat's term. He bombed a fucking hospital and killed women and children in an attempt to kill terrorists which was itself an attempt to divert attention away from his own political scandals. Where was the media to condemn him? Where were all the liberals to march and protest and call him a Nazi? Where's the media outrage over that incident like there is over this "wedding"?
How about Bosnia? There's been talk of war crimes there. There's been talk that the U.S. killed women and children. Where was the media? Why wasn't that "war" splashed across our papers and TVs nightly and what a horrible man our president was because he was sending our troops to die?
What was his justification for that military action? Saving lives.
Apparently, Iraqi lives mean shit when compared to Bosnians.
Look, I'm sure GW loved the chance at hitting the guy who tried to whack his dad. I'm also sure he wanted to finish the job for his dad. I'm also sure a lot of his motives have been politically motivated. I'm also sure that certain companies got contracts because they're part of the good ol' boy network.
However, I'm also sure that a bad guy and his cronies are gone. I'm also sure that a terrorist network has gotten fucked up. I'm also sure that the Arab world saw that the U.S. can kick their asses. I'm also sure that a lot of Iraqis are thrilled Saddam is gone. I'm also sure the Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are thrilled Saddam is gone.
A lot of good is being done over there whether liberals want to admit it or not. Are bad things still happening? Yes. Could things have been done differently? Possibly. If we stick our heads into the sand and ignore all real problems, do they go away? No. Can talk solve all problems? No.
200 years of no progress in a region where everyone's existance is defined by a religion they're fanatical about is not going to be remedied overnight. However, I would bet you ANYTHING that if Kerry wins the White House, the media coverage of Iraq will start getting more positive almost immediately.
As Vince said, that's the most frustrating thing. Why can't the media report things fairy and let people make their own choices based on that? No, they have to try and sway everyone. Think about how much negative news over the war you've been exposed to as opposed to all the good things that are happening over there, like the rebuilding efforts or Iraqis that are living better lives now.
So call it a "war for oil". Fine. Whatever. I don't see gas prices dropping. I don't remember Iraq threatening to cut off our supply. I don't seem to remember anyone being concerned about that after 9/11. Someone PLEASE explain to me how this war has helped the U.S. with their oil interests in the slightest!!! If all the Arabs, including the Iraqis, are so mad at us now, how did this help us? How was this a war for oil? What's the motivation? The "War for Oil" argument HAS to see the U.S. take and control land, specifically oil fields, from the Iraqis. That hasn't happened. It didn't happen during the first "War for Oil" and its not happening now.
But if it was about oil, why not just go to Argentina? We're on better terms with them. We could trade them massive aid and progress in return for them changing their government and developing their oil fields. It could all be done peacefully.
What could go wrong?
Bush would then face:
-Environmentalists calling him a world killer.
-More arab outrage because their power would be weakened.
-More people accusing him of being a corporate pawn of the oil companies.
-Outrage from the "left" in this country that believes communism is the A.N.S.W.E.R.
-The same rhetoric from liberals bitching about him worrying too much about the rest of the planet and not enough about the U.S.
-And a Michael Moore documentary about how he pussed out and didn't do enough after 9/11.
So call me a flag waving brain washed idiot. Whatever. I KNOW we're the good guys. Our country might not act the best, but our intentions are the best. When I see liberals saying "he's not my president" or saying the constitution is a piece of shit or talking about how we should turn communist or saying we should all live in huts, I can't help but think they're a bunch of loud fucking morons with ZERO experience in the real world (like Martin Sheen has a fucking clue how real American families live) who don't know real oppresion thanks to the U.S. military and war.
And last I checked, 70% of the American public didn't think conservatives or moderates were slanting the news to their political agenda, yet they do believe the news is slanted. So if Conservatives and Moderates aren't doing the brainwashing, who exactly is brainwashed...? Take a look at who's doing the slanting and who's believing it.
That's all for now.
Sidenote #1: Although, Hans Gruber or whatever that German jackass was called says his teams found nothing. I find it hilarious that the U.S. HAS found items that Saddam isn't supposed to have. The media will say we haven't found anything, and that's a lie. We have found weapons (missles, chem rounds, etc.) Saddam wasn't supposed to have and we've recently had chem weapons used against our troops, but in a shocking twist, the liberal media chooses to ignore those stories. (I also remember large amounts of cyanide and mustard gas being measured in the Tigress river.) I was reading an article a week or so ago that was linked from fark.com and in it was a weapons inspector (he was a European of some kind) who talked all about how all the world's intelligence agencies know where those WMDs went: Syria. Sorry, I'm rambling a bit on the WMD issue, but c'mon, EVERYONE agrees he had them. Since there's no proof of their destruction and we're finding other items that were "destroyed" still intact, doesn't that show that they're probably still around somewhere? We're talking about a guy who deceived the U.N. at every opportunity. Why would he all of a sudden start complying when he didn't even believe anyone would attack him?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Your point (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be focused on media bias and reporting of Iraq.
My point is: What Iraq did did not justify war. You included a list of items that Iraq surely did, but I still do not find those items to be worthy of the war we are funding. Was the UN too light on him? Yes. Is media reporting biased? Yes. I just don't think that the war was worth fighting, that's all. I don't think they provided enough reason to go to war. Powell's UN presentation was impressive, but it was flawed with false intelligence (or just plain lies).
My point is: What Iraq did did not justify war. You included a list of items that Iraq surely did, but I still do not find those items to be worthy of the war we are funding. Was the UN too light on him? Yes. Is media reporting biased? Yes. I just don't think that the war was worth fighting, that's all. I don't think they provided enough reason to go to war. Powell's UN presentation was impressive, but it was flawed with false intelligence (or just plain lies).
It's not me, it's someone else.
Your point (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be focused on media bias and reporting of Iraq.
A large chunk is, yes. However, a person would have to be Helen Keller to not see the media bias in the reporting on Iraq. When's the last time 70% of Americans agreed on something not induced by a terrorist act? (FYI: For those not in the know, 70% of Americans polled said the news coverage of Iraq is liberally slanted.)
However, I would point out that a large portion of my venting was directed at liberals and those swayed by them who seem intent on ignoring facts of not only this war, but also of history (both recent and older) to further their own political agendas.
I have never before heard so many ridiculous lies spread about such a serious situation in my life. Its like all the Reporters from the National Enquirer and The Star are now reporting on world events instead of celebrity fluff. The fact that a lot of people believe exactly what they read on the web isn't helping matters either. When I get home tonight I'll be posting a few links that I meant to post last night that, well they're so fucking "out there" its unbelieveable. The conspiracy theories being thrown around make Michael Moore's films look like documentaries.
My point is: What Iraq did did not justify war.
I have no problem with that...with a stipulation, you should also then agree that Bill Clinton never had the justification to send troops to Bosnia and enter that war there.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Iraq did not do anything to justify war, this is ture.
Saddam did things to justify his removal from power by any means neccessary. To witness repeated attrocities and not take action when action is possible is to condone those attrocities. The opportunity came to remove Saddam, and we have done so.
This isn't about what the sovereing nation of Iraq had or had not done, this was about a criminal madman in power being removed from power. Different concepts, different rules.
Saddam did things to justify his removal from power by any means neccessary. To witness repeated attrocities and not take action when action is possible is to condone those attrocities. The opportunity came to remove Saddam, and we have done so.
This isn't about what the sovereing nation of Iraq had or had not done, this was about a criminal madman in power being removed from power. Different concepts, different rules.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"