You, Sir, are No Winston Churchill.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:25 pm

"Weak Stomach" my ass.

That guy has been to Iraq four times?

How many times have you been there?

Pretty easy to play armchair general parked in front of Faux News, isn't it?

Weak stomach comment aside, everything I said is true. This is the best you can come up with? Truly disappointing.

Post by **Leisher** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:24 pm

"Weak Stomach" my ass.

That guy has been to Iraq four times?

How many times have you been there?

Pretty easy to play armchair general parked in front of Faux News, isn't it?

Several men and women currently stationed in Iraq have blogs in which they report that we're doing a great job there and Iraq is rebuilding with our help. They claim most Iraqis love us and treat them with respect. These blogs have been and are linked on our front page.

Why are their opinions any less valid?

Is it because you believe they're brainwashed by the military? Or do you simply believe a politician, who has more to gain by politicizing the Iraq situation and his involvement, is more credible?

And how hilarious is it that CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS have all been caught faking news, being biased, or running with opinion as news and yet you blast FOX News like it's the only news network that lies.

I'm not saying FOX hasn't been caught doing the same thing, I'm just pointing out your bias.

I'm sure my news viewing habits will now come into to question, so let me state that I do not watch local news as they are no better than muppets reading scripts and I generally watch CNN for quick news bits because it's the news channel closest on the dial to the other stations I watch.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:44 am

WWII Was a Failure

98-1151371563 · Post by **98-1151371563** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:48 am

Why are their opinions any less valid?

They are too close to the forest to see the trees. I am not saying they do not know what is going on, but they are not objective. Their survival depends on remaining positive. If they don't they end up like the Bill Paxton in Aliens.

There are also blogsby Iraqis who paint a much more realistic picure of what their lives and opinions are like then the U.S. soldiers could.

Why are the Iraqis opinions any less valid?

I'm not saying FOX hasn't been caught doing the same thing, I'm just pointing out your bias.

Good, because you know damn well Fox has been caught red handed making up stories and quotes about Presidential cantidates.

And you have just as much of a bias as I do, obviously.
That is hardly a revelation.

Personally I prefer a wide variety of news sources from a broad spectrum. Local Newspapers can be extremely informative in some cases, but you have to know how to look for the relevent stories amid all the garbage.

DictionaryDave · Post by **DictionaryDave** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:05 pm

Never mind that the coalition there at the pleasure of the existing, freely elected Iraqi government. Not quite, but similar to the way you are allowed to post here at my pleasure. And the same way the Iraqi government could ask American troops to leave the country, I could ban you from this forum whenever the mood struck me. See how this works? You don't OCCUPY my forum. You are here at my pleasure. The same way the US isn't occupying Iraq.

We invaded Iraqi we weren't invited.
Saying we are not currently "occupying" (to fill or perform the functions of an office or position i.e. Iraqi Army and Security forces) Iraqi is like shutting the barn door after the cow has already gotten out.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:06 pm

There are also blogsby Iraqis who paint a much more realistic picure of what their lives and opinions are like then the U.S. soldiers could.

Why are the Iraqis opinions any less valid?

What the fuck makes them more realistic?

DictionaryDave · Post by **DictionaryDave** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:13 pm

There are also blogsby Iraqis who paint a much more realistic picure of what their lives and opinions are like then the U.S. soldiers could.

Why are the Iraqis opinions any less valid?
What the fuck makes them more realistic?

He said the Iraqi blogs paint "a more realistic picture of what their (Iraqi) lives and opinions are like" then what a U.S. soldier could.
Not a more realistic picture of the overall situation in Iraq.

DictionaryDave · Post by **DictionaryDave** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:22 pm

"Weak Stomach" my ass.

That guy has been to Iraq four times?

How many times have you been there?

Pretty easy to play armchair general parked in front of Faux News, isn't it?
Goddamnit, I might not be there, but I think I've got a decent enough grasp of world history, geography, & logic to get a real good idea what it's like.

Just cos one dude starts talking like its the Apocalypse over there ain't sufficient reason to believe that all of our efforts are utterly worthless. I ain't been to Cannae, either, but I've got a good idea what the battle there was like.

I agree you shouldn't base your opinion on one man's perspective.

However, unless you go over you will never truly understand what it is like over there.

"And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more into the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help." -Good Will Hunting

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:24 pm

They are too close to the forest to see the trees. I am not saying they do not know what is going on, but they are not objective. Their survival depends on remaining positive. If they don't they end up like the Bill Paxton in Aliens.

Just like the survival of your political beliefs depend on you staying negative on what's going on over there. Ditto for those politicians and their parties who have chosen to make that a part of their re-election platform. That road does go both ways you know.

That's not an attack on you, I'm just pointing out that your logic there applies to everyone in ALL situations. At some point we need to take somebody's word over another and I'd rather take it from people who are there every day.

There are also blogs by Iraqis who paint a much more realistic picure of what their lives and opinions are like then the U.S. soldiers could.

Why are the Iraqis opinions any less valid?

Uhm, you're way off your own point here. This started by you posting a politician's word about Iraq as gospel, I simply countered that the every day troops probably have a better view, but if you want to debate this point, fine.

I'll start by pointing out I didn't say U.S. troops who blog try to paint a picture of day to day life for the typical Iraqi. They simply state what jobs we have completed like running water, electricity, schools, etc. and how they are treated by the Iraqis they encounter.

As for those Iraqi blogs, there are several that are pro-U.S. and the job we're doing. Are their opinions less valid than ones who think the U.S. should have left by now? (Keep in mind that there will be some natural anti-U.S. bias due to us being on their home turf, us being us, and the whole Islam factor.)

So taking this all into perspective and going back to the original point, I think that more likely than not, Christenson is playing politics rather than painting a realistic picture of Iraq.

Remember, no matter what political party is in power and no matter what action they take, they will claim Iraq is going well while everyone not in power will say it's not. Again, more reason to hear from those who are actually there and don't have anything to gain.

Good, because you know damn well Fox has been caught red handed making up stories and quotes about Presidential cantidates.

Well, I've already pointed out what you're trying to hammer home here, but since you posted a link, I might as well make a point about it, right? I think I would have picked something better than one guy's joke that went public. I mean, to counter, I'd probably pick something like an entire news staff conspiring to alter the outcome of an election with a fake news story like CBS did with the "memo about Bush's military service."

Yes, I know there are better ones you could have picked, I was just making a statement based on the one you did.

And you have just as much of a bias as I do, obviously.

Congrats on admitting you do have a bias. Being biased is a part of everyone's nature as a human being. Although, if I'm being totally honest, I wouldn't rate our political bias as being on the same level. You've aligned yourself more with one political spectrum than I'm willing to do. I mean, I never joined your forums and randomly posted anti-Clinton/Democrat jokes.

Local Newspapers can be extremely informative in some cases, but you have to know how to look for the relevent stories amid all the garbage.

You'll just have to trust me on this one, but local news sources should be trusted for local news only, and even in those cases, you should read with skepticism. Local news gets it's news from reading press releases, phone calls to PR people, and the AP Wire. Very little investigative reporting is done anymore. I have a lot of contempt for local news after seeing it in action for 5 years.

We invaded Iraqi we weren't invited.
Saying we are not currently "occupying" (to fill or perform the functions of an office or position i.e. Iraqi Army and Security forces) Iraqi is like shutting the barn door after the cow has already gotten out.

Well, the current Iraqi government, which is recognized by the major powers (even those against the war), wants us there now. So we are invited now.

Gordon's point is that an "occupation" is about forcefully imposing your will on the populace and we are not doing that. We are there as a force to help keep the peace while the new government gets on it's feet. Yes, initially we were invaders, but that role has changed.

We will leave peacefully without claiming an inch of land as our own. Even you have to admit that those are not the traditional rules for an "occupation".

I mean, the Japanese occupied large portions of Asia in World War II and they weren't exactly fixing roads and building schools.

DictionaryDave · Post by **DictionaryDave** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:59 pm

We invaded Iraqi we weren't invited.
Saying we are not currently "occupying" (to fill or perform the functions of an office or position i.e. Iraqi Army and Security forces) Iraqi is like shutting the barn door after the cow has already gotten out.
Well, the current Iraqi government, which is recognized by the major powers (even those against the war), wants us there now. So we are invited now.

Gordon's point is that an "occupation" is about forcefully imposing your will on the populace and we are not doing that. We are there as a force to help keep the peace while the new government gets on it's feet. Yes, initially we were invaders, but that role has changed.

We will leave peacefully without claiming an inch of land as our own. Even you have to admit that those are not the traditional rules for an "occupation".

I mean, the Japanese occupied large portions of Asia in World War II and they weren't exactly fixing roads and building schools.

First,I support the war in Iraq. I kind of have too. Regardless, I would anyway.

Second, I think part of the problem for some people is their inability to understand in military terms what occupation means. Occupation for armies has changed as warfare has changed.
I just think the word occupation has such negative connotations to some people. People get to hung up on what a word has meant in terms of the past.
For instance, occupation doesn't have to result in the claiming of land but can result in concessions, staging or other benefits (security, safety, stability). Hell, the word occupy is part of the vocabulary used in military OPORDs.

98-1151371563 · Post by **98-1151371563** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:33 pm

Just like the survival of your political beliefs depend on you staying negative on what's going on over there.

You don't have a clue what my political beliefs are. You don't even know me. If you think you can extrapolate my political beliefs from the few posts I have made on here then you are deluding yourself.

I suggest you quit pretending you do.

My political beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with "staying negative". I call them as I see them and if the calls happen to be negative then so be it.

More to the point, ignoring the negative aspects of what is going on is as counter-productive as you can get. If you really want to see Iraq succeed as a nation then you are going to have to face the negative at some point.

The violence is not diminishing. They are not in their "last throes". The only plan that the Republicans are putting forward is that we continue to use our troops as an easy target of opprotunity over there so the terrorists are too occupied killing them to attack us here.

Is that the course you think America should stay on?

I don't and a lot of Americans agree with me, including Republicans.

I want to see new ideas, not the same old rhetoric.

I'd probably pick something like an entire news staff conspiring to alter the outcome of an election with a fake news story like CBS did with the "memo about Bush's military service."

So in other words you would blow off a major news outlet blatently smearing one side during an election cycle with fake stories and quotes. You blow it off as "one man's joke" dispite the fact it was posted on their News page and the offending reporter was never disciplined. You are obviously only blowing it off because you supported their "side"... but it never occured to you that the media shouldn't be taking sides like that did it?

When has another news outlet ever done that as a "joke" as they claimed? Examples anyone?

I would LOVE to see you prove that the "entire (CBS Evening News) staff" conspired to alter the outcome of an election. That would be quite the story if it were true. Too bad it isn't. They did run a story without properly checking their sources, a mistake to be sure, but nothing whatsoever like what you describe. And nowhere near as bad as what Fox tried to do.

I think you are just parroting Rightwing Urban legends.

Well, the current Iraqi government, which is recognized by the major powers (even those against the war), wants us there now. So we are invited now.

How convenient. The government that we helped create and sponsored wants us there. Were you suprised?

Too bad the majority of Iraqi people don't feel the same way as the US sponsored government.

Edited By biteme on 1158626079

98-1151371563 · Post by **98-1151371563** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:35 pm

You've aligned yourself more with one political spectrum than I'm willing to do

What a load of crap. You should read yourself sometime.

98-1151371563 · Post by **98-1151371563** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:43 pm

There are also blogsby Iraqis who paint a much more realistic picure of what their lives and opinions are like then the U.S. soldiers could.

Why are the Iraqis opinions any less valid?
What the fuck makes them more realistic?
He said the Iraqi blogs paint "a more realistic picture of what their (Iraqi) lives and opinions are like" then what a U.S. soldier could.
Not a more realistic picture of the overall situation in Iraq.

In my opinion, the most realistic picture of the overall situation in Iraq must include the actual views of the Iraqi people themselves. Somehow I think their 60 million opinions might be at least as important as our 130,000.

If they don't think their lives are better having our troops in their streets that should be taken into account... IF we were actually there for their benefit.

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:35 pm

In my opinion, the most realistic picture of the overall situation in Iraq must include the actual views of the Iraqi people themselves. Somehow I think their 60 million opinions might be at least as important as our 130,000.

2 opinions per Iraqi?

population: 28-29 million.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:50 am

In my opinion, the most realistic picture of the overall situation in Iraq must include the actual views of the Iraqi people themselves. Somehow I think their 60 million opinions might be at least as important as our 130,000.

If they don't think their lives are better having our troops in their streets that should be taken into account... IF we were actually there for their benefit.

Quite a few have given their opinion. They elected a gov't. That gov't wants us there.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:52 pm

In my opinion, the most realistic picture of the overall situation in Iraq must include the actual views of the Iraqi people themselves. Somehow I think their 60 million opinions might be at least as important as our 130,000.

If they don't think their lives are better having our troops in their streets that should be taken into account... IF we were actually there for their benefit.
Quite a few have given their opinion. They elected a gov't. That gov't wants us there.

A true liberal brain will never be able to process that statement, so don't expect a rational response. I never got one when I said it a while back.

98-1151371563 · Post by **98-1151371563** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:24 pm

A true liberal brain will never be able to process that statement, so don't expect a rational response.

Is that your idea of a rational response?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:44 pm

A true liberal brain will never be able to process that statement, so don't expect a rational response.
Is that your idea of a rational response?

Regardless, the gov't elected by the citizens of that place wants us there. I fail to see the issue. Leaving before reasonable stability has been achieved is condemning that place to a clusterfuck of epic proportions. How do you suggest we proceed?

98-1151371563 · Post by **98-1151371563** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:56 pm

A true liberal brain will never be able to process that statement, so don't expect a rational response.
Is that your idea of a rational response?
Regardless, the gov't elected by the citizens of that place wants us there. I fail to see the issue. Leaving before reasonable stability has been achieved is condemning that place to a clusterfuck of epic proportions. How do you suggest we proceed?

I reject the idea that the place will fall apart if we leave, so long as the Iraqis have a police and military at least as large as our 130,000 troops.

Which they predict will be by next year.

Once they have those troops, our staying would cause more violence then it would prevent.