Binkus 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,146
Quotecommon sense would tell anyone that we are still at war, it prety obvious. As for a declariton of victory or whatever might have been said Ive never really cared whats been said,I dont need any morale boost and can see formyslef when the mission has been acomplished. The staytment was probably directed towards defeating the established millitary/government of Iraq. In many ways our millitary still looks at things in a WW2/conventional style warfare stand point. Iraq is not, and really never was a conventional war. Trying to treat it like on creates additional problems.. On a second note recieving combat pay dosent really mean to much, I have been deployed to Saudia arabia and Kuwait in the mid 90s. During these times we were not conducting any combat operations (just security of american bases-never left the base) and were never attacked but we still recieved combat pay. Just my opnion.
The issue is: how can we be at war in Iraq, while Iraq is not at war and everything there is lovely, and any media person saying otherwise is a liar? That is the paradox for the right to explain.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
The issue is: how can we be at war in Iraq, while Iraq is not at war and everything there is lovely, and any media person saying otherwise is a liar? That is the paradox for the right to explain.
Because the war with Iraq ended over 2 years ago. Therefore we are no longer at war with Iraq. The war with an insurgency within Iraq goes on. Nobody but you has said everything is lovely. What has been said is that the press is afraid to go out and get first hand stories out of fear. Instead they rely on Stringers, who know the press want exciting stories to sell newspapers, so the Stringers give them what they want.
Positive aspects in Iraq are mainly ignored. Surely someone as worldly as you knows newspapers sell tragedy.
mnealtx 0
QuoteThe issue is: how can we be at war in Iraq, while Iraq is not at war and everything there is lovely, and any media person saying otherwise is a liar? That is the paradox for the right to explain.
Nice exaggeration, John...training for a media career?
As you well know, the point the other posters are making is that it's not as bad as the media is saying.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteThe issue is: how can we be at war in Iraq, while Iraq is not at war and everything there is lovely, and any media person saying otherwise is a liar? That is the paradox for the right to explain.
Nice exaggeration, John...training for a media career?
As you well know, the point the other posters are making is that it's not as bad as the media is saying.
So what kind of war is it in Iraq, then? You claim it's not a civil war, we are at war there (GWB tells us so), so if it isn't a civil war, what is it?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe issue is: how can we be at war in Iraq, while Iraq is not at war and everything there is lovely, and any media person saying otherwise is a liar? That is the paradox for the right to explain.
Nice exaggeration, John...training for a media career?
As you well know, the point the other posters are making is that it's not as bad as the media is saying.
So what kind of war is it in Iraq, then? You claim it's not a civil war, we are at war there (GWB tells us so), so if it isn't a civil war, what is it?
I've asked you before and you ignored the question. Give us your definition of "Civil war."
Slip slip slip. Oooo. It's fun to be slippery. Fun and you don't have to learn anything. Wheee!
First Class Citizen Twice Over
First Class Citizen Twice Over
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe issue is: how can we be at war in Iraq, while Iraq is not at war and everything there is lovely, and any media person saying otherwise is a liar? That is the paradox for the right to explain.
Nice exaggeration, John...training for a media career?
As you well know, the point the other posters are making is that it's not as bad as the media is saying.
So what kind of war is it in Iraq, then? You claim it's not a civil war, we are at war there (GWB tells us so), so if it isn't a civil war, what is it?
I've asked you before and you ignored the question. Give us your definition of "Civil war."
If it isn't one, why does it matter? Tell us what it IS, not what you think it ISN'T.
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
Why is it a Civil War and not a Religious War then? By your definition it became a Civil War when Iraqi's started killing other Iraqi's.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuote
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
Why is it a Civil War and not a Religious War then? By your definition it became a Civil War when Iraqi's started killing other Iraqi's.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS? I think it's a civil war. Whether the motivations are religious, racial, tribal or political doesn't stop it from being a civil war.
civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuote
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
Why is it a Civil War and not a Religious War then? By your definition it became a Civil War when Iraqi's started killing other Iraqi's.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS? I think it's a civil war. Whether the motivations are religious, racial, tribal or political doesn't stop it from being a civil war.
civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
Damn, take a chill pill. I already agreed with you that by the narrowest definitions you are correct. The question is whether it is going to devolve into something that's uncontrollable.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
Why is it a Civil War and not a Religious War then? By your definition it became a Civil War when Iraqi's started killing other Iraqi's.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS? I think it's a civil war. Whether the motivations are religious, racial, tribal or political doesn't stop it from being a civil war.
civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
Damn, take a chill pill. I already agreed with you that by the narrowest definitions you are correct. The question is whether it is going to devolve into something that's uncontrollable.
By definition I'm correct. Narrow has naught to do with it. And it's been out of control for quite a while, just low intensity.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
Why is it a Civil War and not a Religious War then? By your definition it became a Civil War when Iraqi's started killing other Iraqi's.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS? I think it's a civil war. Whether the motivations are religious, racial, tribal or political doesn't stop it from being a civil war.
civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
Damn, take a chill pill. I already agreed with you that by the narrowest definitions you are correct. The question is whether it is going to devolve into something that's uncontrollable.
By definition I'm correct. Narrow has naught to do with it. And it's been out of control for quite a while, just low intensity.
See there.. we agree on everything except how out of control it is and whether it can be brought back into control. Hell almost froze over.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
I think it's a civil war, given that the preponderance of violence seems to be between rival factions within the same nation. It could, of course, be a war of liberation from an oppressive foreign occupation force.
Why is it a Civil War and not a Religious War then? By your definition it became a Civil War when Iraqi's started killing other Iraqi's.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS? I think it's a civil war. Whether the motivations are religious, racial, tribal or political doesn't stop it from being a civil war.
civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
Damn, take a chill pill. I already agreed with you that by the narrowest definitions you are correct. The question is whether it is going to devolve into something that's uncontrollable.
By definition I'm correct. Narrow has naught to do with it. And it's been out of control for quite a while, just low intensity.
See there.. we agree on everything except how out of control it is and whether it can be brought back into control. Hell almost froze over.
Must be worth a beer or two.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Positive aspects in Iraq are mainly ignored.
A very good piece on what it takes to put a positive face on the Iraq war. From the end of the article:
--------------
It is American journalists' duty to try to look at the broader picture in Iraq - telling the stories about those brave souls who seek to restore normalcy and laughter into the daily routine here. But there is no denying that the horrific violence will often make that task impossible.
-------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/20/opinion/edtapper.php
A very good piece on what it takes to put a positive face on the Iraq war. From the end of the article:
--------------
It is American journalists' duty to try to look at the broader picture in Iraq - telling the stories about those brave souls who seek to restore normalcy and laughter into the daily routine here. But there is no denying that the horrific violence will often make that task impossible.
-------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/20/opinion/edtapper.php
Amazon 7
I heard a report last night by those friggin liberal media types.....
They were complaining about not being able to get out into the Iraqui countryside to see all the good things that are going on.... something about being kidnapped and having thier heads removed if they venture out of the green zone without military escort.
They were complaining about not being able to get out into the Iraqui countryside to see all the good things that are going on.... something about being kidnapped and having thier heads removed if they venture out of the green zone without military escort.
billvon 3,111
>Here is a rather timely retraction that I believe pretty much says it all on this subject.
Here's what you have to do nowadays to get some good news out of Iraq:
Howard Kaloogian is running for Congress in my district, and is on the "Iraq is doing great!" side of things. He has a list of things he's done recently, including a trip to Iraq to 'see for himself' what it's like over there. At one point he says this:
"We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism." (picture below.)
Only problem? The picture he posted alongside that text was taken in Istanbul, Turkey.
When you can't even find a peaceful enough place in Baghdad to take ONE PICTURE of a calm and stable area - you have to know you're in trouble. (In his defense, he may not have even gone to Iraq, and just perused the web for a peaceful picture of a place that looked like Baghdad.)
But at least he is giving right wingers the sort of journalism they want to see.
Here's what you have to do nowadays to get some good news out of Iraq:
Howard Kaloogian is running for Congress in my district, and is on the "Iraq is doing great!" side of things. He has a list of things he's done recently, including a trip to Iraq to 'see for himself' what it's like over there. At one point he says this:
"We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism." (picture below.)
Only problem? The picture he posted alongside that text was taken in Istanbul, Turkey.
When you can't even find a peaceful enough place in Baghdad to take ONE PICTURE of a calm and stable area - you have to know you're in trouble. (In his defense, he may not have even gone to Iraq, and just perused the web for a peaceful picture of a place that looked like Baghdad.)
But at least he is giving right wingers the sort of journalism they want to see.
Quote>Here is a rather timely retraction that I believe pretty much says it all on this subject.
Here's what you have to do nowadays to get some good news out of Iraq:
Howard Kaloogian is running for Congress in my district, and is on the "Iraq is doing great!" side of things. He has a list of things he's done recently, including a trip to Iraq to 'see for himself' what it's like over there. At one point he says this:
"We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism." (picture below.)
Only problem? The picture he posted alongside that text was taken in Istanbul, Turkey.
When you can't even find a peaceful enough place in Baghdad to take ONE PICTURE of a calm and stable area - you have to know you're in trouble. (In his defense, he may not have even gone to Iraq, and just perused the web for a peaceful picture of a place that looked like Baghdad.)
But at least he is giving right wingers the sort of journalism they want to see.
Or he could have visited several different countries and taken lots of pictures and simply made a mistake.
Naw, he must have an agenda to try and convince people things in Iraq are better than they think because he's an evil Neo-Con. Yeah, that's it!!
billvon 3,111
>Or he could have visited several different countries and taken lots
>of pictures and simply made a mistake.
Ach, of course, I forgot. He's a conservative, so anything of that sort is a regrettable, innocent mistake - even if it helps him make his point. But if, say, CBS makes a mistake on the authenticity of a document - they must be crucified immediately.
>of pictures and simply made a mistake.
Ach, of course, I forgot. He's a conservative, so anything of that sort is a regrettable, innocent mistake - even if it helps him make his point. But if, say, CBS makes a mistake on the authenticity of a document - they must be crucified immediately.
rushmc 23
3 out of 18 provinces are violent. 15 are much more peaceful. shouldn't be too hard.........
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,111
>15 are much more peaceful.
True! And during the US civil war, most states effectively saw little violence. Those lying liberal historians, trying to make it out like it was a big deal.
True! And during the US civil war, most states effectively saw little violence. Those lying liberal historians, trying to make it out like it was a big deal.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites