CNN and Iraq

[AdD 1]

Does anyone else find it strange that the anchors on CNN (along with President Bush) refer to the people who shot down the chinook in Iraq as terrorists? Now correct me if I'm way out of line here, but when someone attacks a legitimate military target in a time of war, (and I quote the President "we are at war"), are they engaging in terrorism? I'm not in any way sympathetic to the resistance in Iraq, but branding all these people as "The Terrorists" is a predictable move by the administration to use the residual public anger over 9-11 to gather more support for a war that has gotten way out of hand. What do you guys think?

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[freeflir29 0]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. *shrug* Unfortunately, Iraq has now become what Afghanistan was in the 80's and Chechnya was in the 90's. Except it's not Russian soldiers dieing.

[mikkey 0]

Hold on, isn't CNN a leftists propaganda machine according to our "right wing club"? How come they are running the Bush spin? Fox makes it much easier, they just call the attackers "the bad guys" - much easier to digest and stops you from thinking how an invasion to stop alleged terrorism (which did not originate in Iraq) has resulted in a massive problem that starts smelling very "Vietnam/Afghanistan like".

I have not seen the "right wing club" celebrating the "success" in Iraq here on Talk Back lately. Maybe the number of body bags is even starting to worry them. I just feel sorry for the families of those soldiers killed.

BTW those "beat the French up" campaigners should read some transcripts from the debates prior to the war. The French were warning the US about exactly the scenario we are seeing developing.

I wish this is going to improve and the coalition gets this under control, but I am not too optimistic. Far too many weapons available in Iraq and easy border crossings, and far too many people who hate americans/westerners....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Hold on, isn't CNN a leftists propaganda machine according to our "right wing club"?

CNN has indeed toned down the leftist spin since realizing a year or two ago they were spinning themselves right out of the cable market.

Very un-amazingly, commercial enterprises like CNN will choose survival over political influence every time.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kai2k1 0]

and IF a left wing democrat is elected then they will spin to the left.

There's no truer sense of flying than sky diving," Scott Cowan

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Quote

Hold on, isn't CNN a leftists propaganda machine according to our "right wing club"?

CNN has indeed toned down the leftist spin since realizing a year or two ago they were spinning themselves right out of the cable market.

Very un-amazingly, commercial enterprises like CNN will choose survival over political influence every time.

All the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists. The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

All the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists. The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots.

As is the "right wing bias"

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

All the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists.

I don't understand what this statement proves by itself. Ted Turner is wealthy and seeks more, but do you claim he is not a left winger? I remember some of his statements sounding quite like a communist to me.

You can be be a capitalist and a left winger at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

Quote

The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots.

You are calling a lot of people idiots.

Bernard Goldberg, a self proclaimed liberal with 30 years experience at CBS news believes this myth. I could claim that anyone who doesn't believe in the left wing bias is an idiot, but I won't be so rude.

A quote from the book:

"Look Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in the news. All the networks tilt left," CBS NEWS President Andrew Heyward is quoted as saying. "Come on, we all know it -- the whole damn world knows it... If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it."

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

All the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists.

As you've stated yourself, being a capitalist doesn't preclude you from also being a liberal, so what's your point?

Quote

The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots.

If that's true, there are some mighty smart idiots out there.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots.

And the myth of a "right wing conspiracy" is believed by whom?

_________________________________________
Chris

[mikkey 0]

Well, you guys can continue to talk about left wing bias all you want when the facts don't suit you.

The growing number of body bags will unfortunately prove that the Bush & Rumsfeld spin has been total BS - no matter which angle Fox and Friends are going to put on it.

No matter how you look at it, this was was badly planned and it was based on some naive neo-con "grand strategy".

The war was justified to other Nations and the US public by distorting intelligence and there was no fu**ing plan or idea what to do once the main fighting stopped.

I was initially very supportive of the war because I believed what I was told regarding WMD's and I did not like Saddam anyway. I also thought that a government that unleashes "shock and awe" would know what to do once the main objective is achieved.

I am now pissed off as it gets more and more clear what really has been going on. And so are many other people. I think most open minded people do not like to be mislead by governments...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Well, you guys can continue to talk about left wing bias all you want when the facts don't suit you.

Holy shit! You have facts that demonstrate there is no left wing bias in American media? Please present them and end the ongoing controversy!

Quote

The growing number of body bags will unfortunately prove that the Bush & Rumsfeld spin has been total BS - no matter which angle Fox and Friends are going to put on it.

Nonsense. Please explain how the number of casualties relates to or determines the rightness or wrongness of this war.

Quote

The war was justified to other Nations and the US public by distorting intelligence and there was no fu**ing plan or idea what to do once the main fighting stopped.

Sure there was a plan -- and it is being carried out now. I think there have been some misjudgmnets along the way, but all in all we are still on the right path. There may have been mistakes made with intelligence, but I am not aware of any deliberate distortion. Are you?

Quote

I was initially very supportive of the war because I believed what I was told regarding WMD's and I did not like Saddam anyway.

He had them. He used them on a million people. And he jerked around weapons inspectors for years because he had nothing to hide, right? Hardly.

Quote

I am now pissed off as it gets more and more clear what really has been going on. And so are many other people. I think most open minded people do not like to be mislead by governments...

I certainly am not thrilled about everything the Bush administration has done, particularly in regards to foreign diplomacy, but I'll probably vote for him again -- and I'm still in the majority!

. . =(_8^(1)

[mikkey 0]

Quote

You have facts that demonstrate there is no left wing bias in American media? Please present them and end the ongoing controversy

That was not what I was saying. Read again. It seems you are calling anything that does not suit your views "left wing bias" no matter if it is fact or not.

Quote

Please explain how the number of casualties relates to or determines the rightness or wrongness of this war.

Again, I was not saying that. What I said is that the "Bush version" of what is happening in Iraq has been contradicted by what actually happens on the ground.

Quote

Sure there was a plan -- and it is being carried out now. I think there have been some misjudgmnets along the way, but all in all we are still on the right path. There may have been mistakes made with intelligence, but I am not aware of any deliberate distortion

It is a crappy "plan". The plan was based on a strategy by the "neo-cons" to secure the oil supplies and get an ongoing foot hold in the Middle East (and finish off Saddam who tried to kill "Daddy").
The strategy is naive as it does not take into account the complexities - clearly demonstrated by the appointment of the incompetent ex-General as administrator who quickly got sacked.
The biggest issue is that this plan was "disguised" as being about WMD (which do not longer seem to exist) as well as the fight against terror - when a) Iraq was not a major "source" of terror (Saudi is) and b) the action has resulted in more acts of terror - not less (in the region at least).

Quote

He had them. He used them on a million people. And he jerked around weapons inspectors for years because he had nothing to hide, right? Hardly.

Yes he had chemical weapons (that we know for sure). But it seems they were destroyed in the 90's. That is why neither the UN inspectors nor the Americans have found any. Why did he not tell? Well this is where the complexity of the region comes in that the US does not understand. There are several possible reasons a) Iraq did want it neighbours to believe that it had these weapons in order to have greater influence b) Saddam did not want to loose "face" or his own people did not want to tell him the truth because they were afraid of him. We probably will find out at some stage. Key issue is that these people think differently and that is always the problem if you are trying to apply "Texas logic" to regions where the culture and the way of thinking is very different.

A couple of issues that are starting to come to light are 1) that the intelligence available was treated badly - i.e. used "raw" by politicians instead of analyzing it professionally. 2) That Iraq actually was trying to signal to the US that they had nothing and were willing to get the US to verify it. Supposedly Iraq did it via informal channels and the US did ignore it. This point is still a "speculation" and not confirmed. But it will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Quote

but I'll probably vote for him again -- and I'm still in the majority!

Well you are very much entitled to do so. If you are in the majority will be seen in 12 month. A lot depends on what else will be discovered about this whole thing and how many soldiers will be killed.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

That was not what I was saying. Read again. It seems you are calling anything that does not suit your views "left wing bias" no matter if it is fact or not.

Man, sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Quote

Again, I was not saying that. What I said is that the "Bush version" of what is happening in Iraq has been contradicted by what actually happens on the ground.

I'm further lost. What you actually wrote was that the growing number of body bags would prove that Bush and company are full of shit, no matter how FOX and Friends tries to spin it. I then asked you to explain what the number of deaths has to do with it.

Quote

It is a crappy "plan". The plan was based on a strategy by the "neo-cons" to secure the oil supplies and get an ongoing foot hold in the Middle East (and finish off Saddam who tried to kill "Daddy").

Yea, it's all about stealing oil and revenge for "daddy". Sigh.

Quote

The strategy is naive . . .

Or maybe to believe that was the strategy/motivation is naive?

Quote

Key issue is that these people think differently and that is always the problem if you are trying to apply "Texas logic" to regions where the culture and the way of thinking is very different.

We agree in part on this.

Quote

2) That Iraq actually was trying to signal to the US that they had nothing and were willing to get the US to verify it. Supposedly Iraq did it via informal channels and the US did ignore it. This point is still a "speculation" and not confirmed. But it will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Like Rummy said the other day, why would they need to use back door diplomacy when the front door was wide open?

. . =(_8^(1)

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Man, sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

I thought it was clear enough or are you just pulling my leg? Every time somebody (here on Talk Back) quotes facts / news from CNN or other sources that do not fit the arguments of the "right wingers" they talk about "left wing bias" no matter how factual it is.

Quote

I'm further lost. What you actually wrote was that the growing number of body bags would prove that Bush and company are full of shit, no matter how FOX and Friends tries to spin it. I then asked you to explain what the number of deaths has to do with it.

You are pulling my leg? Isn't it clear? The Bush administration has been telling everybody how wonderful things are developing in Iraq. The growing number of body bags and lack of security is clearly showing that it is not going so well.

Quote

Yea, it's all about stealing oil and revenge for "daddy". Sigh.

Well, not stealing but securing the supply -plus getting a "base" of influence. Sounds weird but try to read some of the stuff the neo-cons have been writing in the last few years and you get the picture. And BTW stable Oil supply is of enormous strategic importance - believe it or not. I actually would rather support military action if somebody threatened the oil supply of the western world rather then being dished up fairy tale stories about WMD.

You really believe the US went in there because of WMD? The country with the best and most expensive intelligence agencies did not only believe that their were all kinds of WMD, but that there were so many of them and "combat ready” that it presented a clear and present danger?
Iraq was the main supporter of and "source" for Al Qaeda? Invading Iraq would stop terrorism?

So you believe in fairy tales?

And in regard to justifying the war retrospectively by documenting the human rights abuses and murders committed by Saddam & Co. – well if that is the case, why are we not invading Zimbabwe and a whole range of other countries?

If the US administration REALLY were concerned about WMD's they would invade North Korea and Iran first.
If the US administration REALLY wanted to stop the supporters of Al-Qaeda then there are a whole range of countries that should be invaded first: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lybia etc.

Quote

Or maybe to believe that was the strategy/motivation is naive?

Believing the spin you are being fed from the White House is being naive....

Quote

We agree in part on this.

It is always good to agree on a few things

Quote

Like Rummy said the other day, why would they need to use back door diplomacy when the front door was wide open?

Well, as I said - I have not seen proof of this, but I think it is possible. Remember we agreed on that these guys "tick" differently? Saddam has/had an enormous ego and loss of "face" by publicly "caving" in to ultimatums and demands is just too great for an Arab leader. It is not unthinkable that he risked an invasion rather then to come "clean" and lose face.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,095]

>Holy shit! You have facts that demonstrate there is no left wing bias
>in American media? Please present them and end the ongoing
> controversy!

See a previous thread about the growing right wing bias in american media. Nowadays you can choose to read whatever bias you want.

>Sure there was a plan -- and it is being carried out now.

Some quotes from a recent Rumsfeld memo:

---------------------------
Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?

It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror. . .

The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us!
---------------------------------

I mean, I'm glad he realizes they don't have much of a plan, but perhaps thinking about that _before_ the war might have been a smart move.

>There may have been mistakes made with intelligence, but I am
>not aware of any deliberate distortion. Are you?

Well, there was his use of a report he knew to be false in his state of the union address. I know, I know, he said that British Intelligence said Saddam was buying uranium, but in my book if you use a statement you know to be false to convince someone of something, it's a lie.

And of course the whole thing about Iraq being an immediate threat to the US was made up.

How about these:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-Rumsfeld on WMD's
3/30/03

"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
Bush, 3/30/03

>He had them. He used them on a million people.

Yeah, well, we were supporting him while he did that because we wanted him to kill Iranians for us - so I wouldn't use that one too often. Heck, we sold him the ingredients.

>And he jerked around weapons inspectors for years because he had
>nothing to hide, right? Hardly.

Ironically, in the end, his constant claims of "we have nothing to hide!" turned out to be right.

>I certainly am not thrilled about everything the Bush administration
> has done, particularly in regards to foreign diplomacy, but I'll
> probably vote for him again -- and I'm still in the majority!

Not any more. Latest Newsweek/Gallup poll - 50% will vote against Bush, 44% will vote for him, 6% undecided.

[Darius11 12]

I agree with you 100%.
They always do that for the Israelis and Palestinians too. When a Israelis helicopter kills innocent civilians it is a military operation but when a Palestinian suicide bomber blows him self up he is a crazy terrorist. I think it's ok to kill people if it is done with new COOL weapons. The media will twist things to make it sound the way they want.
Like you I'm not in any way sympathetic to the resistance in Iraq.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[TheAnvil 0]

Neither you nor I nor anyone else here in the forums know if Saddam had anything to hide or not. Perhaps he didn't - that is a possibility.

The election in '04 will be a tight one, but once folks actually start to pay attention to whomever emerges from the Naive Nine, you'll see those #'s swing back into Bush's favor. I've been paying attention to what they say and stand for - I'm not impressed.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,095]

>The election in '04 will be a tight one, but once folks actually start to
>pay attention to whomever emerges from the Naive Nine, you'll see
>those #'s swing back into Bush's favor.

I think it depends entirely upon the economy. If it continues to improve (which, historically, is likely) Bush will win. If recovery is slow, he will lose. Not because there will be a better choice, but because he will be seen as the worst of several bad choices.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Very un-amazingly, commercial enterprises like CNN will choose survival over political influence every time.

[happy tears]*Sigh* there is hope for the world, yet[/happy tears]

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jraf 0]

Nihil novi sub sole....

...during WWII the Germans called all resistance fighters throughout Europe terrorists or bandits. When cought they were executed. Their towns and villages were "pacified"

We have pacified parts of Tikrit a couple of days ago using "helicopters, tanks, Bddley fighting vehicles and air force" according to an army spokeswoman. I suppose the only thing we did not do is nuke Tikrit. Yet.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[TheAnvil 0]

That's how it often tends to be.

My brother mentioned something to me that I found very profound - probably because I hadn't thought about things from that perspective before.

He said that of all the areas with which an elected president must contend, Foreign Policy is the one area where he has the most autonomy. Congress and the states will affect the domestic agenda drastically because they control the purse strings. True, the power of the Executive Order lets the president have limited powers domestically in certain aspects, but I think my brother was onto something. He was saying that he looks at how a candidate would handle foreign policy more than anything else, though he certainly looks at any candidate as whole. I thought that quite interesting.

Even opposed as I am to some of the things Bush has done from that perspective, I still find no candidate among the Naive Nine who presents a plan I would like better - those few who present any plans at all. Add to that my utter contempt for their racially discriminatory programs, their desire to raise my taxes, and their apparent distaste for the concept of personaly responsibility, and I cannot fathom voting for any of them.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yea, it's all about stealing oil and revenge for "daddy". Sigh.

well, I am utterly confused. Could you please tell me what the war is for?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Yea, it's all about stealing oil and revenge for "daddy". Sigh.

well, I am utterly confused. Could you please tell me what the war is for?

OK, if a guy that is known to kill and torture people on a scale like, say, maybe only 200 people or so, was walking around your nieborhood with a big gun and a Malitov Cocktail would you just want him left alone to do those things?

Now increase the scale to country size, and add in the fact that he could have still, if left in power, affected you and your nieborhood directly, that should answer your question.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,095]

>OK, if a guy that is known to kill and torture people on a scale like,
> say, maybe only 200 people or so, was walking around your
> nieborhood with a big gun and a Malitov Cocktail would you just want
> him left alone to do those things?

Well, no, I'd want him arrested and tried under the laws we all obey. But I wouldn't want to go and kill his sons, family and friends, and a few thousand innocent people for good measure. That would make me like him.

>Now increase the scale to country size, and add in the fact that he
> could have still, if left in power, affected you and your nieborhood
> directly, that should answer your question.

Is your point that Hussein had the power to attack the US? I must have missed the WMD's, ICBM's and aircraft carriers that we discovered after the war.

In any case, when we do discover someone killing people on a large scale, we are just as likely (historically) to support them as to fight them. There are a lot of people we want dead; we support people who kill them for us.