luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:27 am

You can cut the irony with a knife
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:03 am

One of the things that really burns me up is that while losing people is breaking news no on seems interested in reporting much about the progress being made or the accomplishments that have come about.

Damnit, those men and women volunteered to do this job and they need to know that we support what they are doing. Supporting the troops does not mean demoralizing them by focusing only on the cost. We recognize the cost, while moving forward because the goal is worth it.

WHo here wants to discuss the goals and whether they are worth the cost?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:13 am

"no on seems interested in reporting much about the progress being made or the accomplishments that have come about."


The US military and FOX NEWS do!  
"U.S. paying Iraqi editors to print favorable news
Some military officials in Iraq, Pentagon deplore secret operation"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...-te.baghdad30nov30,1,4405919.story

FOX News Special: Winning Iraq: The Untold Story

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177381,00.html

[Edited 2005-12-02 18:14:28]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
MYT332
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:14 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
WHo here wants to discuss the goals and whether they are worth the cost?

I'll go grab N1120A.
One Life, Live it.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:18 am

How is a handful of Marines dying in a war zone "Breaking News"? Good thing this isn't Vietnam or we would have nothing BUT breaking news.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:28 am

My sympathies the their families, and to all the families of everyone lost in Iraq. Salute and Semper Fi.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
no on seems interested in reporting much about the progress being made or the accomplishments that have come about.

Isn't that the truth . . . have a look here Ian. Same old drivel, same old naysayers and blindfold wearers. Interesting News From Iraq (by ANCFlyer Dec 1 2005 in Non Aviation)

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 3):
I'll go grab N1120A.

Great, at least he can manage a cognizant, coherent conversation.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:32 am

Quoting KROC (Reply 4):
How is a handful of Marines dying in a war zone "Breaking News"?

When the cable networks use the "Breaking News" thing to follow a guy going down Ventura Blvd in LAX who is evading police because he robbed a bank, then the bar has been lowered.

My sympathys to the familes and friends of those who have fallen.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:04 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
Supporting the troops does not mean demoralizing them by focusing only on the cost.

But supporting the troops while being critical of this war are two completely different things! How is someone demoralizing the troops when denouncing that this administration hasn't given them proper equipment? How is someone demoralizing the troops when denouncing this Administration's claims that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, a reason for which many young men and women actually joined the military in the first place!?

One thing is to critisize the troops (of which I haven't seen much, not on this board nor in the media). An entirely different thing is critisizing those who call the shots, the politicians in Washington! Argueing that any criticism on this Administration's handling of the war is a direct criticism of the troops is pathetic! It is deflecting the criticism to those who do not have a voice in this whole issue, who cannot critisize the decisions taken by their leadership and which they ultimately have to carry out.

These men and women, who as you indicated, did volunteer and of which at least 10 today paid the ultimate price, were send on a mission by this Administration and it is this Administration which is being held accountable. I cannot imagine those men and women in the US military, many of whom signed up inmediately after 9/11, want the US General Public to follow their leader blindly, as that is exactly what happened in the runup to the war which ultimately led these men and women to follow their political leaders' orders and invade Iraq, when they thought they were going after Osama bin Laden.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:20 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
We recognize the cost, while moving forward because the goal is worth it.

WHo here wants to discuss the goals and whether they are worth the cost?

You sound like a tax & spend liberal.  Smile
Bring back the Concorde
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:31 am

Breaking news? They were killed YESTERDAY, the Pentagon kept it quiet until today. The BBC made special mention of that because it goes against every single other US military casualty announcement.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:40 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9):
They were killed YESTERDAY, the Pentagon kept it quiet until today.

Next of kin notification most likely . . . that's not an ususual practice. Put yourself in the place of the NOK and hearing on the news that 10 Marines have been killed - and not knowing if your loved on was amongst the casualties.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Actio

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:01 am

Quoting KROC (Reply 4):
How is a handful of Marines dying in a war zone "Breaking News"? Good thing this isn't Vietnam or we would have nothing BUT breaking news.

my god, I actually agree with an american on the Iraq war...... With the 1000+dead how is 10 'breaking news'? It is known by now that American soldiers die in iraq every day.... how is this difirent?

[offtopic]
hiding for the war that I most likely have started
[/offtopic]
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:16 am

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
But supporting the troops while being critical of this war are two completely different things!

No, they aren't. The method and means of the opposition are such that they harm troops by damaging morale by indicating to the troops that their mission is in doubt. If you were ever in the military you would know that you must have faith in your mission and your leaders. Much of the criticism is overblown and overdramatized, namely the constant namecalling and accusations of malfeasance and lying almost all of which is unproven, acceptance by certain parties notwithstanding. The troops don't need to hear all the begative crap and find that the folks back home never hear about the good things that happens, most of which is dismissed by detractors of the leadership who don't want any good news to get in the way of their message.

It's similar to someone announcing that I'm spending thousands of dollars a month on a business losing money and it's not worth it (in their opinion which fact they typically omit in the hopes that their audience will take it as fact). Well, if they don't point out that I'm spending thousands of dollars a month on starting a new business and it is not scheduled to turn a profit for 3 years then they aren't telling the whole story.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
How is someone demalizing the troops when denouncing that this administration hasn't given thsem proper equipment? How is someone demoralizing the troops when denouncing this Administration's claims that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, a reason for which many young men and women actually joined the military in the first place!?

Well, do you think the troops need you to tell them whether they have the proper equipment? Do you think that a reporter who doesn't know the difference between an AK74 and an SLR is truly qualified to do anything other than scream what they heard from someone else? Do you think it improves morale to scream at the top of your lungs some of the stated reasons for war are lies....especially when they weren't lies...perhaps incorrect intel, but to call them lies and assign reasons of your own to them lends confusion and discomfort to our troops in the field...as well as their families here.

Oh, and it lends comfort to the enemy in that they take heart in the idea that there are those here who want to pull out before the job is done and let the terrorists do what they want without opposition. Lending aid and comfort to the enemy is the definition of treason if you are a citizen here, or the definition of an enemy if you are from elsewhere. Many don't think of it in those terms, but if you look at it honestly you'll find it difficult to deny this.


Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
One thing is to critisize the troops (of which I haven't seen much, not on this board nor in the media). An entirely different thing is critisizing those who call the shots, the politicians in Washington! Argueing that any criticism on this Administration's handling of the war is a direct criticism of the troops is pathetic!

Pathetic? No one said that criticizing the President is criticizing the truth, and to claim such is deflecting blame. Criticizing the administration is fair game, until outlandish and unproven allegations are taken as fact and constant attacks are levied at the administration in the press with little contrary editorial opinion in most outlets that is weakening public support for the direction we have taken...and doing so dishonestly.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 3)
I'll go grab N1120A.

Great, at least he can manage a cognizant, coherent conversation.

Yeah....he's still far left, but he's a good guy, and my friend. I think he's a 20 year old democrat who'll be a 40 year old republican (a Giuliani type to be sure, but there).  Wink

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
When the cable networks use the "Breaking News" thing to follow a guy going down Ventura Blvd in LAX who is evading police because he robbed a bank, then the bar has been lowered.

Amen, brother.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
I cannot imagine those men and women in the US military, many of whom signed up inmediately after 9/11, want the US General Public to follow their leader blindly, as that is exactly what happened in the runup to the war which ultimately led these men and women to follow their political leaders' orders and invade Iraq, when they thought they were going after Osama bin Laden.

I guess that since you cannot imagine it perhaps you should go and speak to them. They are in your country at Moron, Rota and elsewhere. (assuming you are in Spain). Men and women who enlist in the US military understand what they are getting into and do it with their eyes open. Don't insult them by accusing them of being blind sheep.

There is a way to criticize and disagree without taking the all out attacks being levied. Polite and even forceful questioning and even voting against measures not liked is called for.....screaming unproven accusations as fact is not.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
You sound like a tax & spend liberal.

Watch yer lip, 'tater chip!  Wink

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9):
They were killed YESTERDAY, the Pentagon kept it quiet until today.

Next of kin notification most likely . . . that's not an ususual practice. Put yourself in the place of the NOK and hearing on the news that 10 Marines have been killed - and not knowing if your loved on was amongst the casualties.

Because the press would show up at their door with the people unprepared for this. Notification is necessary and to demand information prior to family notification is crass and classless.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
solarix
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:56 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Actio

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:21 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
When the cable networks use the "Breaking News" thing to follow a guy going down Ventura Blvd in LAX who is evading police because he robbed a bank, then the bar has been lowered.

LOL. We get those all the time here in SoCal. In the past week I've watched 3 "breaking news" car chases on TV.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:27 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Next of kin notification most likely . . . that's not an ususual practice. Put yourself in the place of the NOK and hearing on the news that 10 Marines have been killed - and not knowing if your loved on was amongst the casualties.

Up until this announcement, the incidents were always reported by the US Armed Forces HQ in Iraq within a couple of hours of them happening. No names obviously as that allows them to contact next of kin, but thats how all incidents up to this one were released to the press.

This one was kept quiet for 24 hours and the press was informed by the Pentagon. One has to wonder why.... (no conspiracy theories, people are genuinely interested in why the sudden and vast change in policy).
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:33 am

Well they were all killed in one single attack, that took out all ten.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:42 am

Thursday's deaths bring the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to 2,124.


Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
WHo here wants to discuss the goals and whether they are worth the cost?

I do. So tell me, what are the goals and how far are they away.
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
Nordair
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:47 am

It's just never going to end, is it.  Sad
"It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda." - Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:57 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):
This one was kept quiet for 24 hours and the press was informed by the Pentagon. One has to wonder why.... (no conspiracy theories, people are genuinely interested in why the sudden and vast change in policy).

Again, not unusual - and I seem to recall a similar incident a few months back where a Marine AmTrack was destroyed, killing 14-15 Marines, and that news was also released much later than the incident. Once again, it's not unusual. And it's not a "sudden and vast change in policy". You're making more of this than it is - honestly. It's not breaking news, it's not a sudden or vast anything. Notification of Next of Kin might have taken some extra time. It's just that simple.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:10 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
Again, not unusual - and I seem to recall a similar incident a few months back where a Marine AmTrack was destroyed, killing 14-15 Marines, and that news was also released much later than the incident. Once again, it's not unusual. And it's not a "sudden and vast change in policy". You're making more of this than it is - honestly. It's not breaking news, it's not a sudden or vast anything. Notification of Next of Kin might have taken some extra time. It's just that simple.

Why then was the delay and change of reporting specifically mentioned as 'unusual' in the TV report on the 6pm news on BBC1 with similiar wording to my post?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:18 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 19):
Why then was the delay and change of reporting specifically mentioned as 'unusual' in the TV report on the 6pm news on BBC1 with similiar wording to my post?

Call BBC1 and ask them. . . . it's not unusual.

Try this: Sensationalism? That's a good start.

It's just not unusual . . . you can rephrase your question again, and the answer will be the same . . . . it's not unusual . . . . I wish I could subscribe to some huge conspiracy or coverup theory to support your thoughts/the BBC's report but it's just not there. . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:28 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 16):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
WHo here wants to discuss the goals and whether they are worth the cost?

I do. So tell me, what are the goals and how far are they away.

Good. Thanks for offering discussion.

What are the goals here. I believe that our original goal was to remove Iraq as a threat when we were unable to find evidence that countered our intelligence that said that Iraq possessed wmds. While there has been no large numbers of WMDs found it was found that the ability to restart these programs fairly at will was present and as long as Saddam was in charge that threat was real. So the goal of preventing Saddam from possessing or using WMDs or threatening his neighbors in a volatile region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil, thus stability of national economies around the world, has been met.

Our current stated goal of having a democracy in the region is the current goal, and it's a worthy one in that the primary reason terrorists exist is that a large group of people feel disenfranchised and that their lives are worth more in the next world. If we can help this nation develop a working democracy with a functioning economy where the populace feels that they have more to live for than die for then we will have gone a very long way towards making the world safer by reducing the number of people willing to export terror as a means to effect change. Once people figure out that you can seek justice and exercise self determination within a democratic framework then terrorism and the assholes who propagate and instigate it will be stuck looking for followers.....and not finding the success that they currently enjoy. Democracy and prosperity will kill terrorism.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
mrmeangenes
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:56 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:45 am

I think I'll skip the political crap and say ,"Godspeed, and safe journey home, brothers !"

Semper Fi !
gene
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:48 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Call BBC1 and ask them. . . . it's not unusual.

Try this: Sensationalism? That's a good start.

It's just not unusual . . . you can rephrase your question again, and the answer will be the same . . . . it's not unusual . . . . I wish I could subscribe to some huge conspiracy or coverup theory to support your thoughts/the BBC's report but it's just not there. . .

Im not being heartless here but US and UK military personel deaths in Iraq is something that gets reported at least once a week it seems, theres nothing to GET sensationalist over - its rapidly becoming a none event when it comes to prime time news items. Again, Im not being heartless, thats how it is tho.

The BBC gets no income from increased viewership figures as it doesnt advertise - wheres the point in being sensationalist? It isnt exactly a good story with any potential for follow up anyway.

When their main political correspondant says something like that on a prime time news slot and spends what could be deemed a not inconsiderable chunk of the news item on it, Im willing to think that the BBC doesnt consider it 'normal' despite whatever someone on airliners.net seems to think.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:01 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 23):

Im not being heartless here but US and UK military personel deaths in Iraq is something that gets reported at least once a week it seems, theres nothing to GET sensationalist over - its rapidly becoming a none event when it comes to prime time news items. Again, Im not being heartless, thats how it is tho.

I understand . . . I'm not insinuating you're being heartless at all. I too see the general public - on both sides of the ocean - becoming more and more desensitized to theswe casualties. Mostly because of the NIMBY effect IMO.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 23):
Im willing to think that the BBC doesnt consider it 'normal' despite whatever someone on airliners.net seems to think.

That my friend is the question I can't answer for you other than to say - It's not unusual. I don't find it as such. I would venture to say that none of the former/current military members here would find it unusual either.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:47 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:47 am

The whole way news is reported mostly pisses me off these days. You can almost hear the excitement in the voices of the journos/presenters on the news of some major disaster/tragedy. It's become tabloidy, tasteless, and disrespectful. Once "breaking news" or "newsflashes" meant something important. Now it's like "10 marines KIA today, and in other news Michael Jackson's been beating it again..."
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:35 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
No, they aren't. The method and means of the opposition are such that they harm troops by damaging morale by indicating to the troops that their mission is in doubt.

With all due respect, but that is complete and utter bullsh!t. Their part of the mission isn't in doubt at all. Their interference and sacrifice has never ever been in doubt! It's the people who planned the mission in the first place who are being held accountable. And that is precisely what 'the troops' themselves can't do.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
If you were ever in the military you would know that you must have faith in your mission and your leaders.

It is difficult to maintain faith, both inside the military as outside, when the current battles in Iraq have little if anything to do with the initial reason for which Iraq was invaded in the first place.

Blindly following your leader has already led to the invasion of Iraq and a ever growning lists of casualties on both sides. The US General Public and the media rallied behind the President in the runup to the war after being scared sh!tless with numerous official statements on Iraq's WMD capabilities and its ties to Al-Qaeda. Call me naive, but I don't think the President would have had such an overwhelming support in case the General Public would have known there simply were no ties between these two. And for the same reason, I don't think too many of the men and women who enlisted after 9/11 with the intention to kick Osama's butt, were too happy about going after Saddam instead.

If only this Administration would have the same guts those marines had who lost their lifes today. If only they would have had the decency NOT to continue to link Saddam and Al-Qaeda and ADMIT that misstakes were made. As long as that doesn't happen, as long as this Administration continues to blatantly and verifiably lie about what they said or didn't say in the runup to the war (ie, Cheney on the Atta-meeting in Prague or Bush himself on WMD's having been found), the General Public and the media should continue to question both the mission as their leader because the troops themselves can't do it!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Well, do you think the troops need you to tell them whether they have the proper equipment? Do you think that a reporter who doesn't know the difference between an AK74 and an SLR is truly qualified to do anything other than scream what they heard from someone else?

Two words: Public Opinion. And it has been public opinion which has finally caused the Pentagon to increase armour on vehicles after the press reported about it. If that wouldn't have happened, more soldiers would have died of IED's.THAT is the task of the General Public; by maintaining to keep the Administration accountable for the Mission they devised as well as by informing about ALL the news regarding Iraq and not just what the Administration would like to see reported as happened before the invasion, can the troops be supported.

You have this wrong idea that 'the troops' are an extension of the Administration and they are not. They represent the United States of America and as such, persons of whatever political ideaology. They represent a Nation, not an Administration. Criticism on an Administration is therefor NOT by extension criticism on 'the troops'.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Oh, and it lends comfort to the enemy in that they take heart in the idea that there are those here who want to pull out before the job is done and let the terrorists do what they want without opposition. Lending aid and comfort to the enemy is the definition of treason if you are a citizen here, or the definition of an enemy if you are from elsewhere. Many don't think of it in those terms, but if you look at it honestly you'll find it difficult to deny this.

I don't give a damn what the enemy thinks. And you shouldn't either be wasting your time by trying to imagine what the enemy would or wouldn't think! But this is a much repeated claim amongst the hardcore republicans who are running short on excuses on why they should continue to follow their leader blindly.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Pathetic? No one said that criticizing the President is criticizing the truth, and to claim such is deflecting blame. Criticizing the administration is fair game, until outlandish and unproven allegations are taken as fact and constant attacks are levied at the administration in the press with little contrary editorial opinion in most outlets that is weakening public support for the direction we have taken...and doing so dishonestly.

I said that the deflection of criticism on the Administration to the troops is pathetic. And that is something you can't deny is actively happening. Look at what all republicans said after Murtha's proposal! 'That he wasn't supporting the troops', that he was 'undermining the troops and putting them in danger' blah blah blah... Whether one actually agrees with Murtha's proposal or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his proposal was a helluva lot more supportive of the troops then the Republicans have shown sofar as they use those same troops to shield them of whatever criticism.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
I guess that since you cannot imagine it perhaps you should go and speak to them. They are in your country at Moron, Rota and elsewhere. (assuming you are in Spain). Men and women who enlist in the US military understand what they are getting into and do it with their eyes open. Don't insult them by accusing them of being blind sheep.

I never said they were blind sheep! I said I couldn't imagine they want "the US General Public to follow their leader blindly", which is something entirely different. The issue is that many of these troops signed up after 9/11 and they eventually ended up inside Iraq (and not in Afghanistan or Pakistan kicking Osama's butt) because the country followed blindly their leader with "no questions asked".
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:00 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
But supporting the troops while being critical of this war are two completely different things!

No, they aren't.

Yes, they are, Ian. You seem to be of the mindset that if you DON'T support the war, you CAN'T support the troops. That's labeling all of us who dont' support this conflict as somehow un-American in that regard.

I do NOT support the POLITICAL decision to send our troops to war. I DO support our troops in trying to carry out a decision in which they don't have the choice, to the best of their ability, and to get home as quickly as practical, within the mission. They are not mutually tied. To say they are is an attempt simply to deamonize those of us who simply do not agree with going to war in Iraq.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
The method and means of the opposition are such that they harm troops by damaging morale by indicating to the troops that their mission is in doubt.

It's in doubt because of political fuck-ups in Washington, Ian. I think that's clear to all but the most insane zealots on the far, far left. It isn't in doubt because of the performance of our troops.

-It's in doubt because not enough troops were sent at the beginning of the war. That's not the troops' fault, is it?

-It's in doubt because those who started this conflict did not think of a practical and realistic exit plan for getting out. While things do not always go to form in any conflict, the fact that the C-in-C spoke on a carrier with a sign behind him saying "Mission Accomplished" and saying the war was, in effect, over, 2 1/2 years ago, is not the troops' fault, is it.

-Alienating a good portion of the community of nations' before the war, then begging them to help after things went not according to plan was a political shortcoming, and one that's haunted us throughout this campaign. That's a political shortcoming, Ian, and not the troops' fault, is it?

=Starting this conflict and further antagonizing anti-American sentiment in the area. by invading a literally helpless Arab nation, which in turn has further set of a new front for terrorism, was a shortsighted fault of the politicians, not the troops.

So, you see, you're dead wrong, Ian. As dead wrong as you can be. And I don't appreciate the sentiment behind your comments which, again, insinuates that somehow those of us against the war-which, I might remind you, my friend, is now a majority of Americans-is somehow not being an upright American. To the contrary. If I were against the war, but totally silent, that's where I become an American not worth my salt.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Much of the criticism is overblown and overdramatized,

ROTFL. And the constant PR put out by Bush and you guys sayinig it's going well isn't? Much of the criticism is absolutely and completely warrented, on a President who didn't know what the hell he had gotten himself into.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Oh, and it lends comfort to the enemy

Pure bullshit. Sorry, but I will never buy that, and it's just another sad, worn-out, lame, over-used tool by those, mostly on the right, who still cling to the belief that this war is somehow a good and worthwhile endeavor.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
I believe that our original goal was to remove Iraq as a threat when we were unable to find evidence that countered our intelligence that said that Iraq possessed wmds

When we were unable to find these phantom weapons, Ian, it showed that Iraq was NO THREAT. Ergo, simply by that definition, this war was unjustified, and can never be justified. Then, after that, came the pathetic, naseauting "new" reasons for the war, which, in my view, were completely full of dishonor, including the President, in doing this.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
While there has been no large numbers of WMDs found

Ian, stop the fibbing: there have been NONE found! ZERO! ZILCH, NADA! NOTHING! Stop the bullshit! There ARE NO WEAPONS. It was a lla lie of some type or another. For yu to say this is just so bogus, man.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
it was found that the ability to restart these programs fairly at will was present and as long as Saddam was in charge that threat was real

Wrong. Again, another falsehood. He had no ability of any size to start a significant program. He wanted them, but there had been no serious reconstruction of the program, certainly by the 19th of March, 2003.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
So the goal of preventing Saddam from possessing or using WMDs or threatening his neighbors in a volatile region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil, thus stability of national economies around the world, has been met.

That wasn't the goal. That's just a post-facto excuse to justify the unjustifiable of invading a helpless nation, when the real reason-that the president YOU SUPPORT-had enumerated over and over again that it was solely about WMD that WERE THERE. So, another disingenious excuse, that history will discount in the long run, Ian.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
Our current stated goal of having a democracy in the region is the current goal,

What a hoot. We have a president who forswore nation building when he originally ran-indeed, it was one of the main tennant of what he wanted his foreign policy to be. I propose to you that was a lie on his part, as he always wanted to invade Iraq and rebuild it in his image.

Our goal now is to just put the nation together as best we can. There will be no long-term democracy, because after we leave, they'll chose the kind of goverment type they want. It isn't what Saddam forced on them; it isn't what we have forced down their throats. It will be an Islamic Republic, and Iraq will become once again our enemy.

And we'll have the wilfull arrogance and short-sightedness of George W. Bush to thank for that. You support him, in all his inglory. I just wish the loser would go away to Crawford and dawdle on his ranch, as much harm as he's done to this nation, Ian.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:08 am

10 Marines killed today.

But 10 Iraqis bought cell phones today costing the US tax payer $ 1 billion.

So, of course, it's worth it.

(Republican Math. Its the New Math for the New Millenium. Throw money at anything as long as it makes the Great Leader look good, Kil Il Jong style)
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:28 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
One of the things that really burns me up is that while losing people is breaking news no on seems interested in reporting much about the progress being made or the accomplishments that have come about.

Reporting the good news does not fit the anti-Bush and anti-U.S. agenda.

On the other hand the media reports with glee (shared by some here) whenever Americans die in Iraq.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:36 am

Quoting B757300 (Reply 29):
On the other hand the media reports with glee (shared by some here) whenever Americans die in Iraq.

I would never say with glee, that is both unfair and totally wrong. I find it hard to believe anyone in the media enjoys having to report these deaths on a almost daily basis.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:43 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Yes, they are, Ian. You seem to be of the mindset that if you DON'T support the war, you CAN'T support the troops. That's labeling all of us who dont' support this conflict as somehow un-American in that regard.

I would not call you anti-american, but I think you are a victim of wishful thinking in this regard. By saying, "We are against what you are doing, but not against you", is a cop-out, and a meaningless one at that. A soldier who is made to doubt his mission will not perform as well. A soldier with low morale, and with doubts about his mission, is more likely to fail himself and his comrades, and will be more likely to be killed or cause others to be killed.

If you think I am wrong in this, I ask you why would morale be held to be so important for an army, ever since Sun Tzu?

So all the people who say in broad public that this war is not worth fighting are increasing the probability that American soldiers will be killed, because they cannot leave without the job being done, and low morale will simply increase the time and casualties that will take. Your attitude should be "I might not agree with how we got there, but since we are there, get it done and come home."
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:44 am

Just heard on NBC news that the reason for the delay in reporting these deaths could have had something to do with George W's scheduled press conference. Though the White House says that they had nothing to do with that!

RIGHT!

Yeah sure } { Yeah sure }{ Yeah sure }{ Yeah sure }{ Yeah sure }{ Yeah sure }{ Yeah sure }{ Yeah sure }
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:44 am

Any glee is reserved entirely for the seat-warmers who couldn't be bothered to recognize the readily available facts and cheered for the war (and still do) while others die (civilians primariy, but "coalition" troops as well among the victims).

If you, B757300, and your ilk are embarrassed and are squirming at the horrifying news I can only say: Good! You wanted it, you got it!  gnasher 
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:10 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
no on seems interested in reporting much about the progress

"good news is no news" ! I am not sure whether the phrase was "coined" by Churchill or Mark Twain or whomever, but it still is correct. Look at TV-news or in newspapers. Progress and invention CAN be found if lucky on page 12, misery, war and catastrophe from page 1 to page 10

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
supporting the troops while being critical of this war are two completely different things! How is someone demoralizing the troops when denouncing that this administration hasn't given them proper equipment? How is someone demoralizing the troops when denouncing this Administration's claims that Saddam and 9/11 were connected

well, some U.S. officers might envy those Russian officers who once were in command in Afghanistan and who knew that public discussion in the USSR was not exactly encouraged. But the armed forces of a democratic country have to live with the fact that the actions of their government and their own actions ARE discussed

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
But supporting the troops while being critical of this war are two completely different things!

No, they aren't. The method and means of the opposition are such that they harm troops by damaging morale by indicating to the troops that their mission is in doubt.

again, the aim of the US armed forces NOW is (has to be) to support the build-up of a new Iraq, so that whatever discussion is done about previous things like the original invasion and what followed is rather a historical discussion. TWO questions however are to be asked: A) it is obvious that exactly the presence of the US-troops is THE major reason why the violent rebels still get some support. So that it is to be asked when and at what speed and how they at least can be reduced to a lower profile and gradually be withdrawn + B) when the USA will allow former members of the Iraqi armed forces to join the new army. That moment will come, as come it must and come it shall .
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:12 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9):
Breaking news? They were killed YESTERDAY, the Pentagon kept it quiet until today. The BBC made special mention of that because it goes against every single other US military casualty announcement.



Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 32):
Just heard on NBC news that the reason for the delay in reporting these deaths could have had something to do with George W's scheduled press conference. Though the White House says that they had nothing to do with that!

RIGHT!
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:17 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 33):
at the horrifying news

well, if seen in proper perspectives, then the losses of the USA in Iraq are VERY LOW indeed. Both if compared with the losses on the side of the Iraqi population and Iraqi government forces as well as if compared with the losses of other intervention-forces (Russians in Afghanistan, Brits in Malaya, Egyptians in Yemen, US-Americans in Vietnam) . So that "pro-Bush-men" of course can complain about the media blowing things up just in order to criticize the most honourable president.
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:41 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
So the goal of preventing Saddam from possessing or using WMDs or threatening his neighbors in a volatile region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil, thus stability of national economies around the world, has been met.

The goal of preventing Saddam Hussein (why do you call him by his first name ???? Is he a friend of yours ?) to drink a soda while watching TV is also met. But that was not the point at the begining, and it was not the point to stop him threatening his neigbors.
The official point was to prevent him using the WMD he HAD. I mean the WMD he was supposed to have according to Bush and Powell.

But you seem to have perfectly understood the real point (last part of your sentence).
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:48 am

Quoting B757300 (Reply 29):
Reporting the good news does not fit the anti-Bush and anti-U.S. agenda.

Good news, of any kind, doesn't sell. And if it's all anti-Bush, which is bullshit, then why wasn't Mr. Clinton's 8 years filled with roses? Again, as Don Henly correctly said "we love dirty laundry".

Quoting B757300 (Reply 29):
On the other hand the media reports with glee (shared by some here) whenever Americans die in Iraq.

Only few I ever saw, dude, get gleeful when GI's or Americans in general died, were 3 individuals; one in jail, one under another user name and he doesn't show up on here, and a third who was so full of themselves that their name can't be mentioned on here. Other than that, I see no glee.

It's just a figment of your very warped right-wing mind.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 31):
By saying, "We are against what you are doing, but not against you",

As usual, Charles, your sided gets it wrong. I am saying "I am against the political decision that sent you here. But it's been made, and I support you in the job you were sent to do." Get it right for once, will you? There's a big distinction.

I AM against the political decision they were sent to do. I cannot be against the men and women are simply doing what they took an oath to do if called upon to do it.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 31):
Your attitude should be "I might not agree with how we got there, but since we are there, get it done and come home."

That's what it is for most of us. You spelled it out. Now, maybe with that clear, the war-supporters can just stfu and let us do what we're Constitutionally guaranteed to do-protest our government.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:05 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38):
Again, as Don Henly correctly said "we love dirty laundry".

LOL, I've been thinking of that song ever for the past couple of days on this subject.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38):
As usual, Charles, your sided gets it wrong. I am saying "I am against the political decision that sent you here. But it's been made, and I support you in the job you were sent to do." Get it right for once, will you? There's a big distinction.

I stand corrected. You have always been of that opinion. I was thinking of those people on this board and in the press and who want to cut-and-run.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
MiCorazonAzul
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:24 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
Again, not unusual



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
Once again, it's not unusual



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
it's not unusual.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
It's just not unusual



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
it's not unusual

ok, WE GOT THE POINT.....IT'S NOT UNUSUAL!  Wink

Sad story indeed....oh well, add them to the tally........which btw, what is it at right now anyhow?
Live for Today.....tomorrow is NOT guaranteed.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:21 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 39):
I stand corrected. You have always been of that opinion.

And that mindset is not in anyway contridactory, Charles, except among a few who fanatically support this war, and they are few and far between, even on here.

I am not for pulin the troops out right now-it would cause more harm than good-IN MY OPINION. But that also doesn't mean that those who say they SHOULD be removed should be labled as un-American or assisting the terrorists. Many people earnestly, fervently and honestly believe this, and they should have their beliefs respected as well.

One prop I give to Bush lately, is he's tried to tone down the rhetoric that came down late in November. It got very ugly there-including a statement from the WH-but credit is given when it's earned-he went out and tried to calm the rhetoric by dialing his back. Seems that, along with the Thanksgiving Congressional recess, has toned it down some. Which is good.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:31 am

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 32):
Just heard on NBC news that the reason for the delay in reporting these deaths could have had something to do with George W's scheduled press conference. Though the White House says that they had nothing to do with that!

RIGHT!

Nonsense.

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 40):
ok, WE GOT THE POINT.....IT'S NOT UNUSUAL!  wink 

Apparently, CZ, one of our UK friends didn't.  wink  silly 

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 28):
10 Marines killed today.

But 10 Iraqis bought cell phones today costing the US tax payer $ 1 billion.

So, of course, it's worth it.

(Republican Math. Its the New Math for the New Millenium. Throw money at anything as long as it makes the Great Leader look good, Kil Il Jong style)

 sarcastic 

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 28):
Kil Il Jong

KiM Jong Il
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:01 am

OK..I'll answer some of the points raised....
but no one has effectively dissuaded me from the belief that our goals as I stated them were the wrong ones to have or that the thought behind them is incorrect.

If they are not right then why oppose them so actively?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
With all due respect, but that is complete and utter bullsh!t.

Well, I'm glad you added the all due respect. Otherwise I'd wonder how you really felt about the opinions of others, and that which they see as fact.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
Their part of the mission isn't in doubt at all. Their interference and sacrifice has never ever been in doubt!

How the hell do you separate them? They are acting on the orders of the chain of command which starts at the President. You are telling them that their mission is doomed to failure. You think they don't watch TV or get on the internet? WTF, over?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
It's the people who planned the mission in the first place who are being held accountable. And that is precisely what 'the troops' themselves can't do.

You are holding them accountable before the mission is over, and ignoring anything that you don't want to see in order to scream hysterically for their heads.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
It is difficult to maintain faith, both inside the military as outside, when the current battles in Iraq have little if anything to do with the initial reason for which Iraq was invaded in the first place.

What do you know about how the military maintains faith? When did you serve, and where did you see combat? How did you gain your understanding of the military and the average joes mindset?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
Blindly following your leader has already led to the invasion of Iraq and a ever growning lists of casualties on both sides.

Calling us blind again? Is that your way of convincing yourself that those who do not think the way you do are mindless? Unthinking? Kiss my ass. Oh, and see if you can find a way to see both sides and consider them equally. Your view was prejudiced from the beginning.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
The US General Public and the media rallied behind the President in the runup to the war after being scared sh!tless with numerous official statements on Iraq's WMD capabilities and its ties to Al-Qaeda

"Being scared shitless"....so your interpretation of an appropriate level of concern and a desire to be proactive is "being scared shitless"? Once again, kiss my ass. You keep your head in the sand, and accept as much terror activity as you want to, but I personally would rather take the fight to the enemy and do something about the situation that produces so many terrorists instead of ignoring it and letting it happen.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
And for the same reason, I don't think too many of the men and women who enlisted after 9/11 with the intention to kick Osama's butt, were too happy about going after Saddam instead.

Again, what do you know about it? How many of them have you spoken to?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
And it has been public opinion which has finally caused the Pentagon to increase armour on vehicles after the press reported about it.

Oh, and the uparmor program that was already in place and functioning to the point that the contractors were already working was not happening? I will say that the additional focus on the situation helped modify the pentagon procurement program and refined an old system. But to say that we were not uparmoring the vehicles prior to that is a misrepresentation (a polite way of saying it was a lie).

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
You have this wrong idea that 'the troops' are an extension of the Administration and they are not. They represent the United States of America and as such, persons of whatever political ideaology. They represent a Nation, not an Administration. Criticism on an Administration is therefor NOT by extension criticism on 'the troops'.

Well, to be accurate, the troops are an extension of the President, who is the commander in chief and responsible for their actions. The military does represent our nation, but they are also an extension of the government. Your efforts to separate the two are a disengenuous effort to legitimize your style of attacking the part you can get away with admitting you don't like.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
don't give a damn what the enemy thinks. And you shouldn't either be wasting your time by trying to imagine what the enemy would or wouldn't think! But this is a much repeated claim amongst the hardcore republicans who are running short on excuses on why they should continue to follow their leader blindly.

You don't give a damn what the enemy thinks? That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet. You don't think that they read? Or that they watch CNN? You don't think that they take heart when they hear we may bug out? What kind of idiocy is that? Wilfull ignorance does not change the fact that the enemy's thought process plays one of the most important roles in this conflict. It's their thought process that causes them to act the way they do. You don't care what they think? That's a load of crap, unless you are either stupid or simply so politically enraged that you want us to fail at all costs.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
I said that the deflection of criticism on the Administration to the troops is pathetic.

Give me a couple of examples where the administration has deflected criticism to the troops.....don't just say they did it...show us.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
And that is something you can't deny is actively happening.

I can if you don't provide examples.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
Look at what all republicans said after Murtha's proposal! 'That he wasn't supporting the troops', that he was 'undermining the troops and putting them in danger' blah blah blah...

Murtha did materially harm us by giving the enemy reason for hope that if they hold out a bit longer we'll just go away. How can you not see that?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
I never said they were blind sheep! I

May I refer you to a previous quote in this post where you called us blind?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 26):
The issue is that many of these troops signed up after 9/11 and they eventually ended up inside Iraq (and not in Afghanistan or Pakistan kicking Osama's butt)

How do you know what people signed up for? Some did, and others signed up for the general war effort. The point is that unless you spent any time talking to GIs in general how the hell do you know anything about their mindset or desires?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Yes, they are, Ian. You seem to be of the mindset that if you DON'T support the war, you CAN'T support the troops

Not exactly, and if I gave that impression I failed to effectively communicate my thoughts. I think that you can be angry at the reasons we are there. I think that you can be against the war. I think that you can be a spokesman for the opposition. However, I think that the tactics and style of attack employed by the people who are actively opposing the war effort are damaging to morale and the war effort in general, which is the intent of the instigators. There is absolutely no way to tell everyone that the reasons for war are bogus, and that they war itself is immoral, and that the leaders are idiots without hurting morale. Our guys read and watch TV. They see that there are some people back home who are calling for their recall. They have to wonder about what they are doing. That's called doubt, and that is dangerous for someone in the combat zone. By causing this doubt you are harming them. You may not like it, but it is a byproduct of the way you are opposing this war and the leadership. If you want to oppose the war by standing up and questioning instead of accusing then the tone of the debate may change from screaming to discussing.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
That's labeling all of us who dont' support this conflict as somehow un-American in that regard.

Stop that. I never, ever called you unAmerican, and to say I did is a tactic that is employed to dissuade people from challenging you. It's kind of like when the race card is played without justification.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
I do NOT support the POLITICAL decision to send our troops to war.

Really?! I'd have never guessed....  Wink

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
To say they are is an attempt simply to deamonize those of us who simply do not agree with going to war in Iraq.

Not true. It's the truth, and you have to decide whether your opposition merits the tactics of accusation and outrage that polarizes all discussion.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
It's in doubt because of political fuck-ups in Washington, Ian. I think that's clear to all but the most insane zealots on the far, far left. It isn't in doubt because of the performance of our troops.

I believe that there are plenty of people who don't consider themselves zealots who look at war opposition in the light of political gain. You can't really deny that. The performance of our troops is connected to the overall war effort on all of our parts, and if they get the impression that we aren't supporting what they are doing then their efforts may flag. Thats a fact of life.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
. To the contrary. If I were against the war, but totally silent, that's where I become an American not worth my salt.

I never, ever asked you to be silent. I would encourage you to find ways to voice your doubts and questions in a less confrontational and accusatory manner, but its your right to say and do whatever you want. You should not, however, overlook the impact of your words.

You do take your beliefs and let them become fact, as many of us do, but you then go on the rampage against others who may disagree, and you refuse to acknowledge all the effects of such public ranting.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Oh, and it lends comfort to the enemy

Pure bullshit. Sorry, but I will never buy that, and it's just another sad, worn-out, lame, over-used tool by those, mostly on the right, who still cling to the belief that this war is somehow a good and worthwhile endeavor.

It's absolute truth, and if you look at it you'll agree. It's worse than Lord Haw Haw or Tokyo Rose. All the troops knew they were traitors and scum. However the enemy listens to our public figures call for the abandonment of the mission and they have valid reason to take heart and have hope. Hope is what causes people to hold out against tall odds. If the terrorists and insurgents feel that they have a reasonable chance to succeed then they will have absolutely no reason to lay down arms and participate in a democratic process where they are not assured of getting their way.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
While there has been no large numbers of WMDs found

Ian, stop the fibbing: there have been NONE found!

OK..here's one. A 155mm sarin gas shell converted to an IED, of a type that was not on the list. Found right outside of the airport. There's one. So, am I still "fibbing". Are you still at NADA, ZERO, ZILCH? Is there now room for doubt? There is more, but deal with the one I mentioned and then go back and look at your response. You deal in absolutes where there is actual evidence that you are wrong. There is doubt there, and a large percentage of Americans feel that there are WMDs there somewhere. You can call them stupid, and hey, that's always productive, but you can't prove them wrong.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
it was found that the ability to restart these programs fairly at will was present and as long as Saddam was in charge that threat was real

Wrong. Again, another falsehood. He had no ability of any size to start a significant program. He wanted them, but there had been no serious reconstruction of the program, certainly by the 19th of March, 2003.

So...do you choose to believe part of the Deulfer report but not the rest...since it does not fit with what you want to believe? The report and testimony in front of Congress clearly said that these programs could have been restarted at will by Saddam once sanctions were lifted and the pressure was off. How long would sanctions and constant pressure have lasted? Be honest with yourself there.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
So the goal of preventing Saddam from possessing or using WMDs or threatening his neighbors in a volatile region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil, thus stability of national economies around the world, has been met.

That wasn't the goal. That's just a post-facto excuse to justify the unjustifiable of invading a helpless nation, when the real reason-that the president YOU SUPPORT-had enumerated over and over again that it was solely about WMD that WERE THERE. So, another disingenious excuse, that history will discount in the long run, Ian.

Post facto excuse. No.. that was one of the reasons we went in. To prevent Saddam from having or using WMDs. I think that history, in the long run, will acknowledge that Iraq has been handed a rare opportunity. An invasion by foreign powers that forces democracy on them in order to better mankind. That did work in a couple of other instances I can name. It will be more difficult here, but it's on a smaller scale.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
Our current stated goal of having a democracy in the region is the current goal,

What a hoot. We have a president who forswore nation building when he originally ran-indeed, it was one of the main tennant of what he wanted his foreign policy to be. I propose to you that was a lie on his part, as he always wanted to invade Iraq and rebuild it in his image.

Are you so damned intent on mocking the President that you are completely unwilling to see the good that can come from a democracy there? Are you so prejudiced against the people of the region that you can't envision them ever accepting democracy (as their neighbors the Turks seem to have done, albeit in slow steps)?

Yeah, a tenet of President Bush's platform was no nation building. Well, that had to change with this war. What he should have said was we would not spuriously start and stop efforts, as the view of this was colored by the Somali experience where we did cut and run (which, not incidently, gave the people behind many of our problems with terror reason to believe we would follow that pattern). I believe that part of the platform was politically motivated and ended up being changed by circumstance. Now, tell me how we could avoid nation-building efforts there once we invaded.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Our goal now is to just put the nation together as best we can. There will be no long-term democracy, because after we leave, they'll chose the kind of goverment type they want. It isn't what Saddam forced on them; it isn't what we have forced down their throats. It will be an Islamic Republic, and Iraq will become once again our enemy.

I refer you to the earlier response where I questioned your long term view. How can you be certain of failure? Why are you certain that the people of this region will not democratize? Yeah, it'll take time, but if everyone decides it's going to fail in advance does that not become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I know you don't want us to fail. Why are you assuming we will?

What did you think about the people who went and voted in the face of terrorist threats (60% overall turnout) and had their fingers painted blue so they could not vote twice? How can you say that people that willing to face danger in order to exercise their franchise won't persevere?


Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
And we'll have the wilfull arrogance and short-sightedness of George W. Bush to thank for that. You support him, in all his inglory. I just wish the loser would go away to Crawford and dawdle on his ranch, as much harm as he's done to this nation, Ian.

Once again, your hatred for the President makes you ignore the good that has come. Our economy has rebounded from the recession that the previous administration left at least partly because of the tax cuts and efforts of the present administration, we chased the Taliban into caves and eliminated the possiblity that Saddam Hussein would use WMD/s on us either directly or through intermediaries. Our actions prodded Libya to give up it's WMD programs peacefully, and countries around the world that previously winked and nodded at terrorists in their own borders (who were not attacking the host) are now going after them more strongly than they ever have been.

Some may not like our government right now, but they sure as hell listen to them and take them seriously when action is promised.

You may not like it, but what I just said is true.

Now, what is wrong with the idea of helping to create a democracy? Do you really think we should not even try? Forget anything other than the future with this question. I know you want to focus on the past here, but simply consider the future. What should we do?

I know that Falcon does not think we should cut and run, as he has said so...but there are others here who do.

What should we do besides what we are doing right now?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:21 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
but no one has effectively dissuaded me from the belief that our goals as I stated them were the wrong ones to have or that the thought behind them is incorrect.

Ian, invaded a fourth-rate, nearly helpess nation is wrong in and of itself. I think that's effective enough argument right there.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
Not exactly, and if I gave that impression I failed to effectively communicate my thoughts. I think that you can be angry at the reasons we are there. I think that you can be against the war. I think that you can be a spokesman for the opposition. However, I think that the tactics and style of attack employed by the people who are actively opposing the war effort are damaging to morale and the war effort in general, which is the intent of the instigators.

All I can say is I disagree. I don't see any spitting on troops coming home; I don't see any verbal denigration of the troops', except in cases like Abu Gharib, where it's warrented. What I see is a concerted POLITICAL effort opposing the President on 1. that he started the war in the first place and/or 2. for his handling (or mishandling, if you will), of the war.

That's why I don't see your point. I'd agree if there were incidents like I described above, which did take place during Vietnam.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
OK..here's one. A 155mm sarin gas shell converted to an IED, of a type that was not on the list.

Yes; ONE! UNO! A single projectile that, if I remember right, predates the '91 war. And, on that, you think the lives of 2100 Americans was worth that? I don't think you really do. I know I don't. One shell does not equal what this Administration said was there prior to Bush wanting to play soldier and going into Iraq. One freakin' shell. What justification for a 3-year war.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
The report and testimony in front of Congress clearly said that these programs could have been restarted at will by Saddam

Now you justify it on a "could have been"? Again, this war wasn't pressed beforehand on a "could have been". It was based on the assertion by Bush and Co. that the weapons constituted a clear, present and immediate danger to us. They didn't because if we're down to "could have been", then there is absolutely no justification for this war.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
No.. that was one of the reasons we went in. To prevent Saddam from having or using WMDs.

Sorry, but that's a post-invasion fabrication. We were told HE HAD THEM, and in huge numbers. It wasn't to prevent him from having them. We were the things were there by the tons. They're not. Ergo, the justification to go to war was false.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
Are you so damned intent on mocking the President that you are completely unwilling to see the good that can come from a democracy there?

I don't believe democracy will be the result. And yes, I mock this President because I think he's a fool, and got us into something that has damaged our reputation for long after he'll be back saddling up in Crawford. I don't think he and his advisors had a clue when they started this thing, and I think it'll hand around his neck, historically, like an albatross, Ian. I have no use for this man and what he's done in this conflict. None.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
Well, that had to change with this war.

ROTFL. Yeah, and who started it, going against his belief of nation-building? He did.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
How can you be certain of failure?

Because people don't like being dictated to by another nation. Because I feel the Iraqi's don't want a government of a western style.

I think we keep up the effort, but I think in a decade, it'll be an Islamic Republic.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
Once again, your hatred for the President makes you ignore the good that has come.

I don't see 2100 GI's killed a "good"; I don't see a nation racked with terrorism as "good"; I don't see the damge this guy has done to our good name as "good"; I don't see what even inviting more hatred on the U.S. as being "good"; I don't see why rebuilding Iraqi schools when schools here are falling apart as "good".

I don't see much good coming out of this conflict.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:58 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
I don't see much good coming out of this conflict.

If only Bush could have this same vision!
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13243
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:10 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
While there has been no large numbers of WMDs

Well, zero, or possibly one, is certainly not a large number.  sarcastic 

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
So the goal of preventing Saddam from possessing or using WMDs or threatening his neighbors in a volatile region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil, thus stability of national economies around the world, has been met.

Well that's just great! Tell the (min) 25,000 dead innocent Iraqis that their deaths were not in vain - Americans won't have to pay $5 a gallon for "gas". I'm sure their relatives will be very happy.  no 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Gary2880
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil

would you like a glass of water to wash your foot down with.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):

talk about moving the goal posts, its for weapons! No its for Saddam! No oil! No democracy! No protecting America!

ok so you had false intelligence about weapons. So what did the rest of the world do, we sent in UN inspectors. They were checking, and checking and checking, and finding nothing. Bush and CO realize hey... Maybe Saddam doesn't have any. We cant have this?! Lets tell the UN to get out because were going to start bombing we'll find them ourselves. In a fantastic fit of arrogance, America invades, has a quick nosy around, and realizes

bugger me! No weapons. Whoops eh?

right then lads, plan b?
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel :- Samuel Johnson
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Actio

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:20 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
My sympathies the their families, and to all the families of everyone lost in Iraq. Salute and Semper Fi.



Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 22):
,"Godspeed, and safe journey home, brothers !

At least two people said what really needed to be said.

I hope they rest in peace, it is a sad day when any number of our soldiers die.
NO URLS in signature
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Breaking News Ten U.S. Marines Killed In Action

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:03 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
but no one has effectively dissuaded me from the belief that our goals as I stated them were the wrong ones to have or that the thought behind them is incorrect.

Ian, invaded a fourth-rate, nearly helpess nation is wrong in and of itself. I think that's effective enough argument right there.

You keep hammering only at items you feel are useful to your argument, while ignoring the questions I posed.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
No.. that was one of the reasons we went in. To prevent Saddam from having or using WMDs.

Sorry, but that's a post-invasion fabrication. We were told HE HAD THEM, and in huge numbers. It wasn't to prevent him from having them. We were the things were there by the tons. They're not. Ergo, the justification to go to war was false.

Yes...it was one of the reasons. We did not want him to possess or be able to use WMDs. And we succeeded in that endeavour. You may not like how we did it, but there it is. The fact that we believed that there were weapons where we could get our hands on them rapidly is not really germaine to my point. Do you really trust that Saddam would not have reinstituted his WMD programs had we left him to his own devices? Seriously.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):

I don't believe democracy will be the result.

Well, thats a risk. I think we have to take it. It's the only hope of actually containing organized international terrorism. Because the way it is now organized crime and extremist religious figures will continue to fund and utilize terrorism as a tool to accomplish their goals.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
And yes, I mock this President because I think he's a fool, and got us into something that has damaged our reputation for long after he'll be back saddling up in Crawford. I don't think he and his advisors had a clue when they started this thing, and I think it'll hand around his neck, historically, like an albatross,

Yeah, well mocking the guy for doing what he said he'd do (act proactively to counter threats to our country is kind of non-productive and gives justification to outsiders doing the same thing. Tell me what good it accomplishes. Tell me how it motivates people to do better. You never liked the guy and it has colored your thinking since day one and this makes it easier for you to find fault and ignore success.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
ROTFL. Yeah, and who started it, going against his belief of nation-building? He did.

And you don't think people should change position on things if circumstances force their hand. I don't believe that there was any intention of doing this from the beginning, despite what the left says. It has become accepted in cetain circles to assume that President Bush acts certain ways because he's either stupid, influenced by evil advisors or trying to impress his father. I'm fairly certain that he's doing what he said he'd do, and bad press and bad pr management notwithstanding he's doing a fairly good job with it.

Are certain things screwed up? Sure. Am I completely happy with everything the man does? Hell no. But am I sick of the constant whining and nagging from the left that demonized everything they don't like? Hell yes I am.

You can't have a decent discussion with people anymore because the tone of the debate is so poisoned by people whose righteous indignation turns everything into a shouting match where absolute rightness is at stake.

It's bullshit, and discussion like that solves nothing.

THe only person who has actually acknowledged the questions I posed is Falcon and he seems to be more interested in telling me why the Iraqis are incapable of democracy than anything else.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
How can you be certain of failure?

Because people don't like being dictated to by another nation. Because I feel the Iraqi's don't want a government of a western style.

I think we keep up the effort, but I think in a decade, it'll be an Islamic Republic.

Like this. If he's right then we should get out and nuke the place in order to preserve our own future. I think he's wrong. Everyone is capable of democracy, it's a matter of time and perseverence.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
Once again, your hatred for the President makes you ignore the good that has come.

I don't see 2100 GI's killed a "good"; I don't see a nation racked with terrorism as "good"; I don't see the damge this guy has done to our good name as "good"; I don't see what even inviting more hatred on the U.S. as being "good"; I don't see why rebuilding Iraqi schools when schools here are falling apart as "good".

I don't see much good coming out of this conflict.

Do you really think that those people all of a sudden rose up from nowhere? Saddam kept a leash on them through an iron fist. His concerns were the Kurds and Shiites, and now the concerns are the Sunnis and Shiite (and a distinct minority of them) who are using the tactics they understand from history. The will learn that other ways of governance are better or suffer the wrath of the Iraq majority who are pretty damned sick of being afraid of the troublemakers.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 46):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
While there has been no large numbers of WMDs

Well, zero, or possibly one, is certainly not a large number.

There you go.. ignore the point.. He said none and I showed one. There is a concrete difference. THere have been other instances, isolated to be sure. Do you truly think there are no more out there? Do you have any way of accounting for the unaccounted weapons from the UN lists?
Can you tell me where that weapon came from? There is no such thing as one cockroach......

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 46):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
So the goal of preventing Saddam from possessing or using WMDs or threatening his neighbors in a volatile region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil, thus stability of national economies around the world, has been met.

Well that's just great! Tell the (min) 25,000 dead innocent Iraqis that their deaths were not in vain - Americans won't have to pay $5 a gallon for "gas". I'm sure their relatives will be very happy.

How do you know that all 25k were innocent? Why do you characterize them as innocent? And do you really think that we are stealing Iraqi gas to keep prices down? Because that's another accepted lie of the left. We keep the prices lower here through lower taxation. The Iraqi oil money is in their hands, and if we were going to invade someone to take their oil there's easier and logistically simpler places to do that to.

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 47):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
region which controls a significant chunk of the worlds oil

would you like a glass of water to wash your foot down with.

um...what? that region does control a significant chunk of the worlds oil, and the worlds economy runs on oil whether you like it or not. Disrupt the oil flow and you change things at a fundamental level.

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 47):
ok so you had false intelligence about weapons. So what did the rest of the world do, we sent in UN inspectors. They were checking, and checking and checking, and finding nothing.

The Iraqis were playing games, threatening inspectors, violating the rules set up, convoying truckloads of something from palace to palace to keep it out of the hands of the inspectors.....what was that all about?

The efforts of certain nations to bust the sanctions and sustain Saddam throughout the period of the sanctions certainly offered him hope that he just had to ride out the storm and things would go back to normal for him.

What do you think would have happened with Saddam still in power and no international oversight (which even you must admit was running out of steam)?

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 47):
Maybe Saddam doesn't have any. We cant have this?! Lets tell the UN to get out because were going to start bombing we'll find them ourselves. In a fantastic fit of arrogance, America invades, has a quick nosy around, and realizes

bugger me! No weapons. Whoops eh?

right then lads, plan b?

Yeah....that's exactly what happened. You are so correct. Thanks for clearing that up for us. I'm so arrogant I never would have seen it that way if you had not made if plainly obvious for me. Your omniscience has benefitted mankind tremendously, and your manner of conveying your wisdom makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Thanks.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Baidu [Spider] and 40 guests