Distorted Coverage in Iraq?

[happybrew]

Iraqi bishop says it's not as the press says it is.

happybrew

[GutshotApe]

What? The media is biased?? I'm SHOCKED! :shocked:

It is a sad commentary on our society when a large portion of the media and much of the Democrat party seems to want the US...their own country...to fail in Iraq. :depressed:

[ 09-24-2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[2LEYS]

You mean to tell me that the liberal media is twisting a Republican led war in order to make the President and country look bad in order to get the democrats back in office????? :whazzup: :shocked:

I am just shocked!! I don't think I will ever beleive anything CNN says again!!!!

[crabbait]

Oh yeah, things are just ducky in Iraq. everything is going just right and all according to plan!

I hear ya CB...these guys sound like broken records
Yeah GSA the media is biased alright just look at Fox News

[ 09-25-2003, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[lingslayer]

Stew and CB,
Could it be that maybe it was far worse under Saddam than even we suspected? That living there "pre-war" was so horrible that current conditions are a vast improvement?

That's how I read it. And it doesn't really surprise me. His sons were monsters (raised in his image) that terrorized their own people. The Iraqi people lived in real fear of their government and its leader.

The Dems will never endorse the freeing of the Iraqi people, just because they hate GW.

I suppose the next thing you will try to tell me was the Taliban was all for human rights.

Millions of people are better off for our actions, and all you can do is slam the prez.

That is the saddest part of all.

Sheesh!

Jamie

[ 09-25-2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: lingslayer ]

It's not that ling it's just the old worn out BS about the liberal biased media.I mean come one it's over done and over rated. Fox News is just as biased to the right as conservatives say CNN and CBS are biased to the left.
Who is fair and balanced?

[ 09-25-2003, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Thumper]

I'll tell you what's fair and balanced --- 50,000,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan now have a chance to live in freedom. Thank God for George Bush. :smile:

[Straydog]

Gimme a break!!

They find one article quoting one person with such earth shaking, detailed accounts as "things are getting better" and the mainstream media is distorting the truth and some of you use that one article to condemn the whole media world that is reporting otherwise??
:blush:

There are no specifice examples to dispute anything the mainstream media is telling us, just one man's opinion that "things are getting better" and all of a sudden we are being lied to by a liberal mainstream media. Further, you inflate that to mean the Dems. and media don't want success in Iraq. That is pathetic, folks.
Find any little straw you can and grasp that baby for all it's worth, even if that is very little.

I wish my customers we so gullable and easy!

[ 09-25-2003, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[roadsend]

lingslayer
"I suppose the next thing you will try to tell me was the Taliban was all for human rights"

Didn't some nearby Democrat senator make a comment about Osama b L. building day care centers?

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by lingslayer:
Millions of people are better off for our actions, and all you can do is slam the prez.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There may come a time when Iraqis will largely agree that they are better off than they were before. However, I'm not sure that's the issue. Personally, I don't particularly care whether Iraqis are better off than they were last year. There are a lot of countries where people have crummy lives, and it's simply foolish to think that we can fix it. While the Fox News Idiots refuse to discuss it, this country is teetering towards an economic crisis of historic proportions, a direct result of the tax cuts enacted by Bush. The war on Iraq is conveniently diverting people's focus from the internal crisis that is brewing.

The beauty of the War in Iraq from the administration's viewpoint is that it pushes other issues out of the public's consciousness.
Are you aware of the recent statement by the Congressional Budget Audiitor? It was front page news. No? Well, I guess that demonstrates my point. See it here if you'd like a refresher. They said the the budget deficit is too big for us to grow out of.

Last I checked, the President's job was to make sure that Americans are better off than they would be otherwise. Except for those at the very top of the income/tax cut scale, it seems pretty debatable as to whether that is the case. It is the opinion of a very large number of economists that we are in a very grave position, and the President and his team continue smoking the "Tax cuts for the rich" dope that got us here.

But, it's a free country. You are free to keep supporting and voting for someone who demonstrably is not taking care of your interests.

Or, you can vote for General Clark in 2004.

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Thumper:
I'll tell you what's fair and balanced --- 50,000,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan now have a chance to live in freedom. Thank God for George Bush. :smile:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Speaking of "broken record" ...

[Artwo]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Or, you can vote for General Clark in 2004.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah, that would do us a lot of good voting in Clinton's military puppet (and not a very good one at that).

So, what was the deficit when Clinton left office ?

The way I see it, whether I agree or not with the way things are being handled in Iraq I need to support our president and troops for the job they are doing..............it's the American thing to do.

You think Iraq was bad, just wait until we have to put the thumb down on Iran since they are actively developing their nucular weapons program. This scares me tons more than any nutcase dictator (Sadaam) ever did.

[ 09-25-2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Artwo ]

[DanS]

just look what he did in Bosnia.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Tell us all about it, Artwo. What did he do in Bosnia?

[lingslayer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Silver Hilton:

There may come a time when Iraqis will largely agree that they are better off than they were before. However, I'm not sure that's the issue.

It seems to me that is exactly what this thread is about. That and whether one side of the press is reporting ALL the facts or just the one's that will get the candidate they endorse elected.


Personally, I don't particularly care whether Iraqis are better off than they were last year.


That's fairly obvious


There are a lot of countries where people have crummy lives, and it's simply foolish to think that we can fix it.

Crummy lives?? Torture, acid showers, having your wife kidnapped the day of your wedding, ***** and mutilated by the son of the man in power is "crummy lives"?
You have over simplified the issues of saddam's regime to the billionth power I think. As for the rest of those counties?? We'll get to them as time and money allows.


While the Fox News Idiots refuse to discuss it, this country is teetering towards an economic crisis of historic proportions, a direct result of the tax cuts enacted by Bush. The war on Iraq is conveniently diverting people's focus from the internal crisis that is brewing.


You should have been watching Fox News 5,6,8 years ago when they were reporting on the economic house of cards that slick willie built. Oddly enough the big 3 networks devoted far too little time to those issues IMO. Nearly two years before Bush was elected I learned we were headed for a recession of historic proportions. I worked for a liberal democrat economist at the time,... But we covered that on another thread.
The evidence was there then. Did your favoite media outlet inform you of this? Or did they report the garbage willie's spin doctors were offering up??


The beauty of the War in Iraq from the administration's viewpoint is that it pushes other issues out of the public's consciousness.
Are you aware of the recent statement by the Congressional Budget Audiitor? It was front page news. No? Well, I guess that demonstrates my point. See it here if you'd like a refresher. They said the the budget deficit is too big for us to grow out of.


Wars cost money. That is the way it is. One has to discern whether or not that cost is worth it.
I say that if it lowers the risk Americans take in terns of terrorist acts, and stabilizes the region in the long run, then it's worth it. Much of the middle east has been a brew pot for terroists and their anti American, anti Christian and anti Jewish sentiment for 1/2 of the last century or more.

Without adopting isolationist foreign policy and closing our borders to immigration, the only way to stop it was/is to take the war THEY WANT (jihad) to their own country and clean out the mess.


Last I checked, the President's job was to make sure that Americans are better off than they would be otherwise.


It is,... In the long term. Try to extend your vision beyond the partisan view.


Except for those at the very top of the income/tax cut scale, it seems pretty debatable as to whether that is the case. It is the opinion of a very large number of economists that we are in a very grave position, and the President and his team continue smoking the "Tax cuts for the rich" dope that got us here.


Like it or not, rich people and corporations employ the poor and middle class. Tax cuts free up capital for re-investment in business. When the economy stabilizes from the collapse of willie's house of cards, there will be room for additional taxation.
If you really want to see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, raise interest rates, like Carter did. Then the rich can get richer loaning to the poor, or by sitting back collecting investment interest that does nothing for business or the economy as a whole.

Predictions about the last deficit were the same. If willie had supported policies that promoted re-investment in the manufacturing sectors instead of standing so proudly on his surplus of tax money from service industries, we wouldn't be here now. Hopefully the American voter learned the foolishness of the quick fix, but we'll see.

Manufacturing of real goods is the only way to return our economy to a stable future.


But, it's a free country. You are free to keep supporting and voting for someone who demonstrably is not taking care of your interests.


I believe he is. And I will thank you.
Jamie

[ 09-25-2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: lingslayer ]

[DanS]

Tax cuts free up capital for re-investment in business

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah, when the cut is given to lower-income people. It's a simple economic fact that the less disposable income one has, the more money they put back into the economy when they get a tax cut.

The wealthiest tend not to put that money back into the economy.

[Artwo]

DanS,
I retracted my Bosnia statement, we dan debate that at another time.

JK

[Hoosier Daddy]

Everyone's coverage is distorted when they don't say what WE think they should say. Liberal or conservative, doesn't matter. If they don't agree with you, they are distorted or slanted. End of story.

[DanS]

Truer words were never spoken, Hoosier. True, that.

[lost_sailor]

"News" has been distorted throughout human history. It's hard to find people who know EVERYTHING and are able to communicate EVERYTHING.

News is a business, bottom line is what sells advertising. Here's one alternative . (See what you call "liberal media" NOW :smile: )

[lingslayer]

Originally posted by DanS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> Tax cuts free up capital for re-investment in business

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah, when the cut is given to lower-income people. It's a simple economic fact that the less disposable income one has, the more money they put back into the economy when they get a tax cut.

The wealthiest tend not to put that money back into the economy. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wealthy people are looking to build assets, not necessarily liquid ones. They usually go for long term secure (blue chip) returns. These come from real goods and manufacturing investments.

But that is another thread. With the exception that American companies may be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq.

Jamie

[id. painter]

Last night Gallop Poll results in Iraq.
63% of the Iraqi people believe they are better off now (after war) than they were before. Even with the water and other problems still to be worked out. The living conditions are secondary to the fear of Sadam. id. painter

[DanS]

Was this a phone poll?

[Cool Texan]

id, you sure on that? the poll i saw said that 63% of AMERICANS said that...havent seen the Iraqi people poll.

[happybrew]

Let's see. The Vatican opposed the war. They raised amny concerns about it. The head Catholic guy on the ground in Iraq, talking about a situation involving U.S. troops, the same troops the Catholic Church said shouldn't invade, says that the media is not being truthful, that the situation is different than the media is reporting, and that it's an effort to discredit the U.S. I think I'd certainly take this as an unbaised source. First they say one side is wrong, then they say the other side is wrong. They don't have an axe to grind with anybody.

happybrew

[Hogback]

I have a question. Is it my duty as an American to send my children or grandchildren to free people from an evil they won't free themselves from?

[id. painter]

Polls are a tricky deal and can be very misleading. I think I stated it right ,,, not 100% positive I herd it right ,,, kids yelling dogs barking ect... But that is what I thought it said. id. painter

[Cool Texan]

id,

I found this...

But nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...oll-usat_x.htm

Cant find any polling of the Iraqi's though. I'd love to see it though. Gallup's web site mentions polling in Baghdad, but didnt give any details. So who knows.

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Hogback:
I have a question. Is it my duty as an American to send my children or grandchildren to free people from an evil they won't free themselves from?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If I remember correctly, they tried to free themselves from it, and we stood back and let them get slaughtered.

happybrew

[freespool]

Compaired to the VietNam war,I'd say the news media is playing it fairly straight. So now after thumbing our noses at the UN,and finding no weapons of mass distruction,we are stuck with the mess. And being the ones that started this thing it is our obligation to fix it,with little or no help from the rest of the world. We as Americans can show our apprieciation to our president on election day next Nov.2004.

[Thumper]

You betcha Freespool! Glad you finally got it right!!!

[Silver Hilton]

[quote]Originally posted by lingslayer:

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:

[qb]
There are a lot of countries where people have crummy lives, and it's simply foolish to think that we can fix it.

Crummy lives?? Torture, acid showers, having your wife kidnapped the day of your wedding, ***** and mutilated by the son of the man in power is "crummy lives"?
You have over simplified the issues of saddam's regime to the billionth power I think. As for the rest of those counties?? We'll get to them as time and money allows.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So, how much is it worth for us as a country to end these wrongs? How much shall we spend? Ultimately, those expenses have to be paid as taxes. And the rich, we have decided, should pay less of those. So that means you and me. Or, more likely, our kids.

There's a lot of countries to fix. I hear China is pretty brutal. North Korea certainly abuses it's people. India has mass ethnic riots that are tolerated and encouraged by the ruling majority. Saudi Arabia has a legal code that is absolutely medieval, and a non-elected ruling family that is corrupt and venal. Burma is swell, as is Thailand. Did you know the Thai police have executed 3000 people this year alone, without benefit of trial?

The list is long, my friend. How long, in our own currently struggling economic state, can we spend 200 billion a year on regime changes? Where do we start? Who do we not do? Can we do France? :shocked:

My point is simply when we're looking at countries to fix, that I'd prefer that the US be at the head of the list. We are facing massive problems, and surely we owe at least as much responsibility to our own citizens as to Iraq. I'd like one of the economies we're rebuilding to be our own. I think that means greater fiscal responsibility, the current lack of which Bush shares equally with Congress.

Last thought, my prior post was written after too many cups of coffee, and I apologise for it's overly strident tone. Too close to fightin' words for my own taste. I disagree with you, but I don't dislike you.

[Hogback]

Happybrew
Its all politics and not worth the lives of Americans IMHO. The reason the people you write about were killed is because of the policys of our government. Do you want to give the life of one of your family members to free these people and just as they are about to be liberated the big shots decide to quit? Its happened to many times in the past. No disrespect intended Happybrew and I understand how you feel I used to feel the same way. But not now.
Randy

[happybrew]

You're right. It is all politics. That's why I posted something from someone removed from those politics. The press was wrong about the progress of the war. The Administration was wrong about the presence of WMD's. Would I be willing for my kids to go to war? An equally valid question is whether I would be willing for them NOT to go to war. The fact of the matter is we cannot trust the Administration, nor can we trust the press. Both sides have distorted the facts. In the absence of accurate facts from either side, it becomes impossible to make a truly informed decision. Whatever decision we make is one that has been manipulated by someone.

As a matter of principle, I think that freedom is a good thing, and security is a good thing. I believe that being a good neighbor often means making a sacrifice for the good of your neighbor, so that your neighbor might have freedom. As long as the cause is not intrinsically unjust, I would have no problem with my kids serving. In this case, in the absence of accurate information from either side, reasonable people can have valid disagreements. One person may oppose, and the other may support our involvement in Iraq, and neither be making a bad decision. Were the press to behave in a more responsible manner, this could change, and one person be definitely in the wrong in this case.

We have a free press precisely because it is essential to our liberty, however with freedom comes responsibility. The press has abdicated their reponsibility to report facts, and instead reports spin. When the press exercises their freedom but abdicates their responsibility, this is as detrimental to the functioning of a free society as a government that inhibits their freedom.

I say a pox on both their houses. While I don't know that the Administration deliberately misled the American public about WMD's, they were certainly wrong, and this makes them incompetent at best. The media has spun the facts to support their politics, and this makes them manipulative at best. And we, the American public, waste our time jumping to one side or the other and shouting at the other side, lending credence to and perpetuating the whole absurd situation we find ourselves in. We need competence, and we need honesty, and we do not have it in our institutions. Lacking those, we will slowly sink to the status of a second rate power. Given the state of corruption and incompetence in the rest of the world, I find this frightening. How will we be able to fend off the wolves and lead the sheep of this world if our power declines as a result of incompetence and dishonesty?

happybrew

[Stratocaster]

I watched Bob Arnot(MSNBC) reporting from Iraq, and learned of some "good" that was going on over there. I was quite surprised because i read newspapers and watch a little of all networks and this stuff is very under reported. Whether intentional or not, i do not know. Soldiers were rebuilding schools, painting, welding playing with the local children. Power is getting restored more and more everyday. Schools are starting in october, teachers are being trained. The police forces are getting built, oil is flowing at over 1.6 million barrels a day. I would like a more balanced report from Iraq, but i guess if it bleeds it leads. Good?

[ 09-27-2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[Hogback]

Happybrew
I appreciate your response. On the WMD debate I believe the reason the admin. used that as a reason for going was the fear factor. The real suprise for them was not finding what they know is there because they know what was sold and by whom. I think thats why I am reluctant to risk the lives of anyone's children at this time in history. The western governments have been playing both ends against the middle over there for years. It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario." The trouble is we have switched sides so often almost everyone is our enemy. If we had some responsible domestic energy policies we could change or foreign policies to those not driven by oil and IMHO save lives on both sides.
Respectfully Randy

[happybrew]

Originally posted by fisherdan:
I watched Bob Arnot(MSNBC) reporting from Iraq, and learned of some "good" that was going on over there. I was quite surprised because i read newspapers and watch a little of all networks and this stuff is very under reported. Whether intentional or not, i do not know. Soldiers were rebuilding schools, painting, welding playing with the local children. Power is getting restored more and more everyday. Schools are starting in october, teachers are being trained. The police forces are getting built, oil is flowing at over 1.6 million barrels a day. I would like a more balanced report from Iraq, but i guess if it bleeds it leads. Good?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow. Great article. Sometimes I wonder if Al-Jazeera owns the major networks here.

happybrew

[DanS]

No happy, it's like this. Dead and blown up soldiers sell 6.374% more papers than stories about rebuilding a school and power plant. So much for balanced news..........

[WheresMyBobber]

If you have a true interest in this subject, you might consider reading the book "Weapons of Mass Deception".

Granted, it has a liberal twist. But it also gives some interesting facts on how our government manipulates the media and world perception of the US. Our current administration is very gifted in this area. The US is more concerned about "perception" rather than how we really deal with other countries. Unfortunately, perception is reality for most people. All is not what it seems.

I have friends in other countries, and they get much different coverage of the realities of the war in Iraq than we do. And it isn't pretty.

[dawhunt]

Far as I'm concerned they should have turned that country into a parking lot along with afganistan
there not worth the life of another american !!
Bob

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by DanS:
Dead and blown up soldiers sell 6.374% more papers than stories about rebuilding a school and power plant. So much for balanced news..........

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And any hint of scandal, whether it's a president jumping an intern or a president mired in a war quagmire is far easier to write than a balanced analysis.

Worse, more people will read or watch the scandal story than will read the analysis. We can blame the news stations, but the real issue is that too many Americans don't want to think. We want easy, quick, simple answers to problems that aren't easy, simple, and quick to solve.

[dampainter]

well guess we won`t see saddam any time soon wonder who we are going after next? prez wants what? 87 BILLION to rebuild iraq? [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Thumper]

Such figures are a bit misleading. It's kinda like the horrible economic impact of hurricanes, which "cost" billions of dollars to the people and communities who are impacted, but generate the same amounts of new business and wages for the beneficiaries who sell building supplies, sand bags, etc. More like re-distributing money than actually losing it.

Yes, that's $87 billion in taxpayer dollars. But most of that money comes right back to American corporations (owned by most of us one way or the other in our 401k plans) and their employees. Wars do that --- they stimulate the economy. More re-distributing.

So that brings the total likely cost in Iraq to $250-300 billion (much of that being recycled right back to Americans of course), or about $1,000 or so for each American. And, of course, we have lost some lives, and those are not a trivial cost.

But we also lost 3,000 lives on 9/11 to start this whole thing off. We are not the bad guys here.

Is it worth it to spend $1,000 per American and suffer the loss in lives of perhaps 300 coalition troops and tens of thousands of innocents in those countries, all to save 50,000,000 human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan from a life of horror, and to probably make the world a whole lot safer in the long run?

Remember, we have not had a major stateside terror attack since 9/11. Something is working, and it is saving U.S. lives. Do you really think the terrorists would have just left us alone for two years without everything we have done to beef up our security and carry the fighting to them?

You get to decide all this heavy stuff next November.

[ 09-29-2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[El-Kabong]

Sorry, your conclusions are not founded.

"But we also lost 3,000 lives on 9/11 to start this whole thing off. We are not the bad guys here."

The Iraqis didn't have anything to do with 9/11 it was a bunch of Saudis. The White House (in press briefing by Scott McClellan on Sept 17th in response to a question about the Iraq 9/11 connection said

"...You're right, if you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim.... "

"Remember, we have not had a major stateside terror attack since 9/11. Something is working, and it is saving U.S. lives. Do you really think the terrorists would have just left us alone for two years without everything we have done to beef up our security and carry the fighting to them?"

We didn't have any major attack before 9/11 since what 1942? (except for McVeigh, but we would have had to attack ourselves to get revenge for that one) so to say something is working is a highly dubious claim. Last report I heard about 9/11 was that it was in the planning stages for 5 years or more.

Those have been nice Bush Admin. talking points.

EK

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by El-Kabong:
We didn't have any major attack before 9/11 since what 1942? (except for McVeigh, but we would have had to attack ourselves to get revenge for that one)
EK

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dont forget, the Trade Center was bombed not all too long ago.

[WheresMyBobber]

The first bombing of the World Trade Center was plotted and materminded by Ramsay Yousef (spelling?) during the formative years of Al Qaida, and there was no Iraqi connection. Any Iraqi connection to the 9/11 attacks is extremely shaky and speculative, and hinges on one meeting that "may" have occured between Atta and an Iraqi Officer several months before the attack. But there is no real proof that this meeting ever took place.

An interesting side note is that Yousef was captured in Egypt after the bombing, and interrogated by the Egyptians before they turned him over to the US for prosecution. One of the first things Yousef needed upon his arrival to the US was medical care for burns to his scrotum. :shocked: Seems the Egyptians have unique interrogation methods!

[ 09-29-2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: WheresMyBobber ]

[Stratocaster]

e didn't have any major attack before 9/11 since what 1942?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">USS Cole, Marine barracks Beirut , US embassys in Kenya and Tanzania, etc. Of course this is off topic in relations to this thread.

[BrionLutz]

Thumper,

But most of that money comes right back to American corporations (owned by most of us one way or the other in our 401k plans) and their employees.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...not even Bush Jr's OMB makes that wild one &lt;grin&gt;. If you build a freeway, sewer plant, power plants, power distrubution system, phone system, school in Iraq with Iraqi labor, that's where the money is spent and stays. Assuming the multi-nationals make a profit...you could say 10-15% comes back as profit but remember that there is heavy Saudi ownership in Bechtel, Halliburton etc. so you lose about 90%...100% if you use the Cheney-Enron accounting system.

Be nice if that money was being spent on US schools, roads, power grid, sewer plants but Bush Jr has his priorities.

As for the 401K's, keep in mind that Cheney, has head of Halliburton wiped out the 401K and pension funds of Dresser when they did the merger, using the pension funds to pay for the bad deal...this is the one where Cheney overstated the value of Halliburton, Dresser employees lost it all and Halliburton stock tanked...Cheney has done his best to bail them out with the no bid billion dollar contracts in Iraq...but that won't repay the lost pension money.

Brion

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
But we also lost 3,000 lives on 9/11 to start this whole thing off. We are not the bad guys here.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I have seen no credible evidence that this is true. Can you share any?

[Steelhead Hound]

George Bush .....Good President I'll bet he wont get relected

[Jennie@ifish]

I edited out some personal comments that could upset some people. If anyone else sees some that I missed, please let me know.
Remember, attack the posters writing, not the poster personally.
This will help us to better get our ideas across. Above all, realize that you are probably not going to be changing anyone's mind with personal insults.
Thanks,
Jen

[roadsend]

Another example of distorted coverage from AP yesterday:

"KHALDIYAH, Iraq - In dangerous Euphrates River towns west of Baghdad, one soldier was killed Monday and three were wounded in separate roadside bombings. One of the blasts prompted a firefight backed by attack aircraft, tanks and helicopters as U.S. soldiers battled Iraqi resistance fighters for more than eight hours, U.S. officials said."

The Associated Press stoops pretty low on this one. To refer to these terrorists and criminals as "resistance fighters" like they are some sort of heroes demeans the brave coalition soldiers who are trying to bring peace and stability to this nation.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by roadsend:
To refer to these terrorists and criminals as "resistance fighters" like they are some sort of heroes demeans the brave coalition soldiers who are trying to bring peace and stability to this nation.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Interesting take.

In all honesty I have never made the connection you have shared. Those fighting resistance (which from where they stand they are) are "resistance fighters" No romance associated with that in my perspective. :whazzup:

[Silver Hilton]

Roadsend, I don't get where "resistance fighters" is romanticising the Iraqi resisters. They are resisting our troops, and they are doing by fighting. I'm not sure where the propaganda value is there.

Further, I think labeling them as terrorists and criminals is probably not relevant. Some of them may be criminals from the time before the war. Some of them may have terrorist aspirations as well. But what they are right now is soldiers in a war. Calling the soldiers of the other side names like demonic, criminal, evil, etc has always been one of the hallmarks of extreme wartime propaganda.

They are soldiers, shooting at our soldiers. In wartime, that's what happens. Their leadership is evil, but the soldiers are not morally any different than our boys. People shooting at our boys comes with the territory when you invade another country.

[happybrew]

Originally posted by roadsend:
Another example of distorted coverage from AP yesterday:

"KHALDIYAH, Iraq - In dangerous Euphrates River towns west of Baghdad, one soldier was killed Monday and three were wounded in separate roadside bombings. One of the blasts prompted a firefight backed by attack aircraft, tanks and helicopters as U.S. soldiers battled Iraqi resistance fighters for more than eight hours, U.S. officials said."

The Associated Press stoops pretty low on this one. To refer to these terrorists and criminals as "resistance fighters" like they are some sort of heroes demeans the brave coalition soldiers who are trying to bring peace and stability to this nation.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Gotta love it. Only people who could do it better would be the North Koreans, who would add "glorious and patriotic" before "resistance fighters."

happybrew

[happybrew]

SH- It might be appropriate to call them "resistance fighters" if the war were still going on, however the war is over. The government of Iraq lost, and dissolved. The government and all its institutions collapsed. When that happened the war was over. A new government is in the process of being formed. It would be just as appropriate to call Al Queda, the *** or the Aryan Nations "resistance fighters" for their acts of violence against the United States government. The fact of the matter is, they have no "side" they are representing. Their "side" was defeated on the battle field, and refusing to surrender, was annihilated and dissolved. All that is left are various individuals who want to continue the conflict, and their actions are not on behalf of a governmental or quasi governmental institution, but on behalf of themselves as individuals, reflecting their personal rage against America. For AP to call them "resistance fighers" is to make the implication that they represent something other than their rage against America. That's the power of the press, when the label that they give to the perpetrator of an act of violence, two simple words, change the entire thrust of the story and affect how the American public views the current situation there. It's spin, it's done to manipulate our thinking, and it works.

happybrew

happybrew

[Thumper]

Next the press will be referring to them as "freedom fighters."

[crabbait]

Something you may have overlooked: They are doing their best to keep from calling them Guerilla fighters as that would bring back strong memories of you-know-where.

The Bushites are very concerned that someone will start to compare the quagmire we are mired in now with the one we were in 35 years ago. There are too many similarities to easily ignore and the outcome is likely to be similar as well.

Try doing an internet search on "Guerilla fighters" and you will see that they have cause for such concerns.

[Straydog]

HB,

You're certainly right about one thing, the power of the press does work. How else could anyone say this war is over......?

I guess it boils down to ones definition of "war" or how one views the results of what has happened in Iraq.

Thousands of troops in hostile territiories being shot at and being told they are staying for the long haul sounds like a war to me. I would be curious to know what those dodging bullets would call it.

Again though, you are correct in that Pres. Bush declared and the press repeated in big headlines, that the war was over. To many, that is all they had to hear...... :depressed:

[ 09-30-2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Stratocaster]

How else could anyone say this war is over......?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Come on, the war IS over. They are now an occupying force thats getting pot shotted at. There are NO major combat operations going on, just raids here and there and rebuilding. War is two able armies fighting head to head, thats not whats going on. Do they call the Israeli/Palestinian conflict war? No, because its not either. Setting off human bombs and setting booby traps is called terrorism not war. And finally Bush stated that "major combat operations have ended" and he was completely correct, so get over the "war" issue. Is is "is" and war is "war". And no im not minimizing the danger some of the patrolling troops are facing. Because its dangerous dosent mean its war.