Russian Response to Attack

Quote:

---

Originally posted by davebat
Now that honeybee has been proved wrong again she will not reply and so this thread will dissapear faster than honeybees credibility

---

How was he proved wrong? I didn't see much opinion, let alone proof. Wasn't the argument about who commanded which troops?

The politicians do the strategic command, while the normal military chain handles tactical command. Those two chains blur at the top of the military chain. Since Britain is responding to the overall lead of the American's, I would say America is in strategic control, Britain is in tactical control, and whoever is in nominal control really doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by davebat
these are American funds granted from the 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations, as the american taxpayer has provided them it is up to them to decide how to pay spend them.

If Bush decides to divert his own funds Blair cant really argue.

I suggest you re-read your post where you whine about people googling their opinions as you havent a clue what you are talking about.

see the details of the appropriations here:

http://www.************.com/p/articl...7/ai_104438394

---

Indirectly that means it's America's war, nobody else's. Because no other nation is putting money into rebuilding Iraq, at least not a significant amount. Which goes to prove my point indirectly.

And even if they are American taxpayers' funds, aren't they going to be used for the "Coalition" plan? Or is America only using the other countries' troops to guard its spoils in the war? If it really was a Coalition war, no matter who paid money, it would have to be appropriated by a coalition authority not the US congress. The funds are supposed to be used for bringing peace and stability in Iraq, not to serve America's own priorities. And America alone cannot decide where the funds should be spent to better bring stability and security in Iraq. If she is let to do this choice, again it proves that it's not a coalition, because no other coalition partner has any say in it.

This whole argument about it being the US taxpayers' money so they can spend it however they want is completely ridiculous. If America alone can decide how these funds should be used in Iraq, it means it treats the whole Iraq war as just another investment.

Yep, and the troop commanders take orders from whom, I wonder?

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
How was he proved wrong? I didn't see much opinion, let alone proof. Wasn't the argument about who commanded which troops?

The politicians do the strategic command, while the normal military chain handles tactical command. Those two chains blur at the top of the military chain. Since Britain is responding to the overall lead of the American's, I would say America is in strategic control, Britain is in tactical control, and whoever is in nominal control really doesn't matter.

---

Britain in tactical control? I guess it would only be for the towns and cities which they are policing. I doubt if they can even choose between duties. Something like they are ordered by the US commanders to do a particular job, if they don't approve of it they complain to the British military authorities and are told to go along with the US orders. Yes, that's my guess. I would like to see some "proof" to prove it wrong.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
LOLOL :lol: :lol:

Honeybee - I think that's why it's called the "US Led Coalition", but it is a coalition nonetheless. Some of our troops in Afghanistan are actually under the command of a Pakistani general. Does that mean Pakistan is calling the shots there?

---

I would have to say so, at least for the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The situation is completely different to Iraq, because Pakistani forces are more closely aquainted to the Afghan terrain than the coalition troops are. So when it comes to choose between the US and the Pakistani forces, the Pakistani are obvious choice to command, lead and coordinate.

In Iraq, I doubt if any of the coalition troops can be chosen in this way. All of them are new to the terrain and almost none of them, except maybe the British, have faced urban or guerrila warfare. So there's no specific reason other coalition partners should be mere spectators. So the political and other considerations come to the fore, and so the US becomes the overall dictator in Iraq.

US-led coalition? Looks more ilke US-dragged coalition. Today I can say that every other country who is part of the coalition is there just because it can't pull out of it and face the US wrath. This is because the Iraq war and participation in the coalition has become a prestige issue for the US. Which was evident from the way the US officials reacted to Phillipines' withdrawal of their troops. The reason being it's widely perceived, and is quite correct, that it's America's war and nobody else's. The reasons for war have been proved unjustified, and no other nation has any benefit from the war except a little bit more favouritism from the US government. Tidbits by way of contracts are no longer attractive because the security situation has made it impossible to conduct business in Iraq. They are there only because they can't withdraw now and fall flat on their faces. They can't go to the public saying they made a mistake. Everybody wants to protect their political careers first, before showing any signs of honesty.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Reporter: "President Bush, what was your justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Was it based on Oil?
Was it based on a belief of WMD's?
Was it based on a belief of a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda?
Was it based on the desire to liberate Iraqi's from the brutal Saddam Regime?"

Bush: "Um...No, No, No, No and No"

Reporter: "Well then, President Bush, why did you invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Bush: "Well,...[chuckles]...I...I mean we, you know the people of the U.S., you know...God's country...[giggles]...Well, hell, we did it to piss of that Honeybee fella! There's nothin' funnier than seein' that fella get his panties in a bunch!"

Reporter: "And there you have it ladies and gentleman...The true reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq!"

---

Alright, it at least proves my point that none of the reasons given by Bush before and after the Iraq war to justify the war are the true reasons.

.

Here's something to ponder.
Yes, many nations were against the US led coalitions decision to enter Iraq.

They have refused to provide any type of help when it comes to rebuilding.

But they (meaning France, Germany, et al...) are all about trying to setup new companies there to benefit from the democratic process. TeleCommunications companies, oil companies.

They didn't want to participate, but they sure as hell want to benefit don't they!

. . . and of course those who participated were not hoping to benefit in any fiscal manner at all.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, it's a big coincidence that virtually all of the multi-million reconstruction contracts are given to American companies. No profit interest whatsoever. They're only there for humanitarian reasons and all the million dollars they rake up for their effort is a neat side effect ... :rolleyes:

Actually although I agree with what I posted it was meant to be a retort to the ridiculous post just before.

Eyes, Blinkers, Wall.

What a mess.

err, mine was in the same vein yrwysummat.

I ocassionally am capable of mustering enough wit to spot the humour in threads. With considerable difficulty I'll admit ... :)

:eek2:

Dont eat at KFC, they might profit from your chicken consumption.

they do chicken wrong anyway.

The point of my post was...They didn't participate, so why should they benefit?

Why should anyone be entitled to a piece of anything, if they didn't contribute to it?

If I bought a pizza and you didn't put any money into paying for it, why should I give you a piece?

You should give me a piece because if you don't:

Me and my friends will come to your home
We will accidentally (sorry we missed) kill your pets
We will leave our brothers their to make sure you share your pizza.
We will install a new head of the household (who will report to us)
We will tell the local authorities they can exist only - and only if - they comply with pizza-sharing law.

:sick:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee

This whole argument about it being the US taxpayers' money so they can spend it however they want is completely ridiculous. If America alone can decide how these funds should be used in Iraq, it means it treats the whole Iraq war as just another investment.

---

Piess off. It's our money you commie basterd. I'm going to eat your baby and dump napalm on a herd of baby seals.

So what would you propose should happen now, Honeybee? You sound alot like US liberals - "it's all bad, everythings bad, Bush is bad, the war is bad". When asked for a solution, or an alternative the reply is usually "uh...it's just bad, bad I tell ya!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Dont eat at KFC, they might profit from your chicken consumption.

they do chicken wrong anyway.

---

Dude, I never thought of that, and I doubt you meant it the way it reads, but it sure makes me hesitant to try any of their chicken!:eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
So what would you propose should happen now, Honeybee? You sound alot like US liberals - "it's all bad, everythings bad, Bush is bad, the war is bad". When asked for a solution, or an alternative the reply is usually "uh...it's just bad, bad I tell ya!"

---

Good point!

I was against the war, and am still against the war. I don't think Bush was honest about why he went into it, but went into it he sure did! Now what.

Well, attacks on US forces ~6 months ago were in the order of 5-10 a day (maybe 10-15, I forget). Now the attacks are more in the order of 80 a day (according to two news reports I have heard). The situation is getting worse.

Of course as MasterB said in his typical screwy way, it sure is a great idea to let the bad guys focus on a war against America over in Iraq.

Still, there must be a solution.

We could:

1) Simply leave.

That would almost certainly lead to one of two things: Either an islamic state similar to Iran, or a dictator similar to Sadam. I suspect that if we could guarantee outcome #2, we'd be gone by now. Back to Saddam would be an improvement over the status quo.

2) Stay the course.

This has no endpoint at this time. We never wanted a real democracy, we wanted stability. When the current 'president' was a badass, the people loved him because he was restoring order. Now the current president looks like he's a sham, and the people are losing interest. We are betting on elections, but NOBODY thinks they will solve anything.

3) Attack someone else.

Ok, I couldn't think of any other option except this, but it's not a bad idea. After all, many people thought the real reason we went into Iraq was because we found out that we couldn't win in Afghanistan. I don't believe that, but right now, Iran is looking like more trouble than Iraq. Still, this can't be done. We don't have the troops without the draft.

There is no answer. The current solution is as still-born as all the other options. Right now, the best idea that anybody has is: Stay the course and hope for a miracle.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The point of my post was...They didn't participate, so why should they benefit?

Why should anyone be entitled to a piece of anything, if they didn't contribute to it?

If I bought a pizza and you didn't put any money into paying for it, why should I give you a piece?

---

In fairness, what did American companies contribute, so why should they benefit?

It doesn't bother me at all about this whole "Only the countries that participated should get contracts" statement of Bush's, but as an American tax payer it should bother you.

You see, I was kind of involved in a bit of this and the way it played out was frightening. Here is my tale, the names have been ommitted to protect my arse.

There's a pile of Jet Engines (Gas Turbines) in Iraq used to pump gas and oil around and to generate electricity. Most of them are made by Rolls Royce or GE.

Someone (I'm not sure if the it was the US Govt, the US Military or Haliburton) asked for bid documents for major players to go in and rebuild/repair these engines. There are only two companies in the world geared up for such a task (GE or Rolls-Royce) (Pratt tend to not get involved with other peoples engines).

So both companies tender a bid. Rolls Royce are told that they can't bid because the division of their company that deals with Oil Pipeline Gas Turbines is (not suprisingly) Rolls-Royce Canada. Ah, you see, despite the fact that Canada supported the US going in to Afghanistan, because they didn't support them going into Iraq apparently they're not allowed to bid. So Rolls-Royce argue that their head office is in England, their North American headquarters are in the States, so surely they're eligable. Which makes a farce of Bush's statement as all of the big companies are truelly international, how do you decide which nation a company belongs to now. Really, it comes down to perception/image more than anything.

So, they get a message back saying yes, they can now bid, but don't put Rolls-Royce Canada on the header paper, use the US Headoffice paper. Fine, so they do that.

Then they get a letter, saying, nope, they've changed their mind again, Rolls-Royce aren't eligable to bid if any of the work is to be done by Rolls-Royce Canada. Another call, then another letter saying that provisionally they can bid, but they can't be guaranteed to be eligable. At this point Rolls-Royce pulls out of the bidding and decides that it want's nothing more to do with this, as they could spend a lot of money on the bid process only to be told that it was a waste as they won't be considered for the job under Bush's "coallition nations only" idea.

Rolls-Royce informs GE (both companies are on suprisingly friendly terms at director level) that they have withdrawn from the bidding. GE are now the only company bidding for the contract. I will quote a GE Exec on this (over a few pints of beer), "So of course, when we heard that, we stuck an extra zero on the bid price we had before sending it out. They have to pay it."

He then went on to tell us the price...... let's just say my jaw hit the deck. It get's worse....;)

Now, everything above I heard from the horses mouths involved. Much of the rest is drunken talk from GE or Rolls sales reps etc. (With the exception fo the guy who got shot up, he's a mate of my brothers).

One of the GE guys is out working on an engine in Iraq, and he gets shot at and his two guards are killed (he survived). GE pulled all of their staff out of the country, because one of the conditions they had put in was that if the military couldn't guarantee the safety of their employees they were out of there with 100% of the contract paid (they would still supply the spare parts specified, but all the commssioning was to be paid off in full).

So, the US tax payer paid GE ten times the market cost (because Bush effecively made them the sole bidder, and lets face it, who can blame them) and the job was never even 5% completed (though they do now have the spare parts sitting in a dock somewhere). And this is going to kill you, they have now approached Rolls-Royce and asked them if they would be prepared to take over the contract.....

...... If GE's price shocked, Rolls-Royces almost made me faint.... because now that GE have pulled out, they're the only bidder.....

That's an awful lot of Tax payers money that's just been given away, why? To make a silly political statement in a small minded attempt to "punish" countries that didn't do what he wanted.


Like I say, I don't mind, it's not my money, it's yours.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The point of my post was...They didn't participate, so why should they benefit?

Why should anyone be entitled to a piece of anything, if they didn't contribute to it?

If I bought a pizza and you didn't put any money into paying for it, why should I give you a piece?

---

Nobody bought a pizza in Iraq. The pizza was forced down their throats with their arms and legs tied up behind them.

Who decides which companies should get contracts for what? It's the Iraqis, stupid :D. Not some "provisional coalition government" which is nothing but Paul Bremmer and the US government and nobody else.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
So what would you propose should happen now, Honeybee? You sound alot like US liberals - "it's all bad, everythings bad, Bush is bad, the war is bad". When asked for a solution, or an alternative the reply is usually "uh...it's just bad, bad I tell ya!"

---

Do I indeed? LOL well let's check the options you have at your disposal:

1. Withdrawal from Iraq immediately: The nation is already in disarray. Violence is rampant with the US forces present in the country. If you leave it's going to wreck whatever is left of it.

2. Stay in Iraq for a few years till it stabilizes: Going by the signs, Iraq is nowhere near stability nor will it be even after the proposed general elections. Everybody who can have any nuisance value is going to fight for a share of the pie. Those who can govern and those who can't govern. The effect is you will have a completely wretched form of government in Iraq. Plus if the US troops stay longer in Iraq, the resistance to the occupation will grow and further tear apart the country. Again it's a wreck.

3. I know this suggestion is going to be ridiculed by almost everyone reading the post, but I don't care. Put Saddam back in charge. Hand Iraq over to him, because only he knows how to rule them. After all he did so for so many years without the average Iraqi being killed in streets, starving without food, water, electricity and employment. The only problem is because the US has an ego bigger than everybody else's put together, they won't do it.

There aren't really any more choices are they? Whatever rosy picture the Bush government painted and is painting about Iraq and its future, it's more daydreaming not even wishful thinking. The ground realities are harsh, whether you admit it or not, and are not going to improve at all unless there is a miracle. And we all know there are no miracles.

In any case, it's going to take decades to put Iraq back in the place where it was during Saddam's regime. That is nothing but a big FAILURE of the US government and I think they should be prosecuted internationally just for this big crime. The average Iraqi citizen is worse off now than under Saddam, and that's why I say they don't give a damn if Saddam ruled them. As long as they didn't cross his path, they were at least guaranteed sufficient basic amenities and infrastructure. If they have to shoult Hail Saddam to get them, that's peanuts for what they are getting.

I know the usual reasons you are going to quote here, that the quick fall of Saddam was unexpected blah blah blah. But it still was a war for chrissakes. You can't go to war without having thought out all the options. It's like playing a chess move without anticipating the most obvious reply. If that's the reason Bush gives for his failures in Iraq, it just means he is as stupid as I think he is.

Plainly nobody gives a damn what kind of government they get, as long as they get their needs satisfied. Those who worry about such trivial issues are usually those who have too much freedom and too much power.

.

It seems that the ideal situation would have been that the US consulted a psychic and had the future revealed. The situation in Iraq is worse than expected, but not unexpected. Of course it was a swift victory, we would have nothing else. The aftermath was expected to a point, but the number of attacks probably were not. The import of terrorists was expected, and the ratio of kills shows that we are able to handle this variable (and according to some friends who are in Iraq, that's what they expected, kill them there, not in my local mall - and it's working) . Casualties are to be expected. Dead US military are to be expected. The number is high, and shocking, but does not equal defeat or call for withdrawel. Iraq is an important target strategically, if for no other reason than it is the neighbor of Iran. We won't have to ask anyones permission to use their air space and be denied (ala Turkey). I think there is a bigger picture here, and Bushs job at this point is to make sure that the situation in Iraq does not weaken American resolve. After 9/11, Bush announced that the United States is at war. And he stated that the war would last a long time. Personally, I am prepared for that as are most people I associate with. People outside of the US are only fed the information their tv and govt provides them and, of course, the information they can pick up from the liberal US media. I understand most foreigners have formed their opinions based on liberal media, therefore I reckon they simply don't know any better.
Iraq is stage 2 of a larger effort. 1000 + dead sucks, but I fear they are the first 1000 in a long line. This is not going to end anytime soon. But when it does, the world, the US, and the defeated countries will be in a better spot because of the strength, resolve, and leadership of the guy sitting in the oval office right now (and, God willing, whoever takes his seat in 2008). Even you, Honeybee, will be in a better position than you are now, and I don't even know what position you're in. Quit eating everything you read, see on tv, or hear on the radio.
And besides, you think this is bad? Wait till we hand North Korea their ass.

I curious as to what "Liberal Media" is? Is that like truthful media?

probably any media that isn't singing to the right-wing republican tune ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I curious as to what "Liberal Media" is? Is that like truthful media?

---

About as truthful as Dan Rathers sources and their documents.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
It seems that the ideal situation would have been that the US consulted a psychic and had the future revealed. The situation in Iraq is worse than expected, but not unexpected. Of course it was a swift victory, we would have nothing else. The aftermath was expected to a point, but the number of attacks probably were not. The import of terrorists was expected, and the ratio of kills shows that we are able to handle this variable (and according to some friends who are in Iraq, that's what they expected, kill them there, not in my local mall - and it's working) . Casualties are to be expected. Dead US military are to be expected. The number is high, and shocking, but does not equal defeat or call for withdrawel. Iraq is an important target strategically, if for no other reason than it is the neighbor of Iran. We won't have to ask anyones permission to use their air space and be denied (ala Turkey). I think there is a bigger picture here, and Bushs job at this point is to make sure that the situation in Iraq does not weaken American resolve. After 9/11, Bush announced that the United States is at war. And he stated that the war would last a long time. Personally, I am prepared for that as are most people I associate with. People outside of the US are only fed the information their tv and govt provides them and, of course, the information they can pick up from the liberal US media. I understand most foreigners have formed their opinions based on liberal media, therefore I reckon they simply don't know any better.
Iraq is stage 2 of a larger effort. 1000 + dead sucks, but I fear they are the first 1000 in a long line. This is not going to end anytime soon. But when it does, the world, the US, and the defeated countries will be in a better spot because of the strength, resolve, and leadership of the guy sitting in the oval office right now (and, God willing, whoever takes his seat in 2008). Even you, Honeybee, will be in a better position than you are now, and I don't even know what position you're in. Quit eating everything you read, see on tv, or hear on the radio.
And besides, you think this is bad? Wait till we hand North Korea their ass.

---

It's not just the 1000+ dead US troops, you are talking about the future of the whole country. What once was a peaceful (maybe even slowly prospering) country is now in ruins. Thanks to the US aggression. If this isn't "bad", I don't know what is.

Whatever media we choose to believe in, I guess the reality remains that the basic infrastructure has not been restored, which means what Iraqis got under Saddam's rule, is not available under the US rule. Civilians are dying by the day, again something that didn't happen during Saddam's rule. There are almost daily attacks and blasts, something that didn't happen under Saddam's rule. Whatever you may think of Saddam, these are BIG failures for the US. Saying this state of affairs in Iraq was not unexpected, it just means the US didn't account for it or chose not to reveal such a grim picture to the world before war. Which again means the US lied about the future of Iraq. However optimistic you can be and however you may throw the rule of probabilities and chances and possibilities at me, even a village idiot would have seen through the rosy pictures to know what was coming. The fact that the US government chose not to include this picture in their would-be scenarios simply compounds the fact that the motives behind this war were selfish. If the US had presented this would-be scenario before war, none of the "coalition of willing nations" would have come forward to participate in this war. So if they are not stupid, they are liars, which is even worse.

On a side note, doesn't anyone think the US government has always tried to play down the violence in Iraq as something trivial when there are all the chances of it blowing up into a fullscale civilian war?

Hand North Korea their ass? I am ready to wait till eternity to find out what all of it means. Who is the US to decide what form of government the other countries should have and what form of military and other strengths the other countries should have? Are all these demands made under the disguise of stopping proliferation and simply increasing its own might?

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
Hand North Korea their ass? I am ready to wait till eternity to find out what all of it means. Who is the US to decide what form of government the other countries should have and what form of military and other strengths the other countries should have? Are all these demands made under the disguise of stopping proliferation and simply increasing its own might?

---

Yes, we are going to nuke n koreas nuclear sites, you didnt know?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Yes, we are going to nuke n koreas nuclear sites, you didnt know?

---

With the peanut-size brains and elephant-size ego of your government that seems quite possible :p

.

I think Russia will be angry about the terrorist attack

Quote:

---

I think Russia will be angry about the terrorist attack

---

So do I.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
So do I.

---

Yes, and they will not play like we do (rules of engagement)!
:eek2:

Quote:

---

What once was a peaceful (maybe even slowly prospering) country is now in ruins. Thanks to the US aggression.

Whatever media we choose to believe in, I guess the reality remains that the basic infrastructure has not been restored, which means what Iraqis got under Saddam's rule, is not available under the US rule. Civilians are dying by the day, again something that didn't happen during Saddam's rule.

---

!
You've got to be kidding me? Peaceful nations don't invade neighboring countries or gas their own citizens.

wow, for a moment I really thought this was a three-page thread on the russian terrorist attack.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
With the peanut-size brains and elephant-size ego of your government that seems quite possible :p

.

---

that is pretty lame :o

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
Hand North Korea their ass? I am ready to wait till eternity to find out what all of it means. Who is the US to decide what form of government the other countries should have and what form of military and other strengths the other countries should have? Are all these demands made under the disguise of stopping proliferation and simply increasing its own might?
.

---

why doesn't give us the right? You?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
About as truthful as Dan Rathers sources and their documents.

---

Yep a perfect example of what the liberal media is all about. They have been doing it for years duping people into believing things that are not even true. Thanks to talk radio and alternate news sources pressing the issue CBS was not able to get away with presenting forged documents as truth.

X

But you think that Fox is great don't you (despite the fact they have been repeatedly caught inventing stories/quotes as oppossed to simply not checking their sources thouroughly).

I'm also curious is Al-Jazeera right wing or left wing in your handy phrase book? I mean, they're sympathic to the Iraqi people, yet they're showing beheadings etc.

I'm curious where this fits in your hand linear judgement of politics.... :sick:

Al-Jazeera = anti US, so I'd say they fit in with the left wing lib's.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
Al-Jazeera = anti US, so I'd say they fit in with the left wing lib's.

---

Ah! So this is the old if you don't believe everything the president says, then you're anti-US, which by extension would imply unpatriotic.

The last time a major power succumbed to such sweeping Nationalist sentiment the world suffered hugely. I hope this madness is stopped soon before the same thing happens again.

Nobody here has better information than they get from the news media. Even Bush himself only hears what people tell him. Soldiers in Iraq see one little piece of the pie, and nothing more. There is no big picture, and nobody knows more about it.

As for all TV news: It's garbage, and has been for years. Fox has the unique distinction of having been shown to have more ignorant viewers than the average American public (in that they believe things that are not true at a higher rate than the general public). However, I don't know that this has been tested for other TV watching groups, so it may be correlation without causation.


Anybody who thinks Bush's War on Terrorism is any more likely to succede than Nancy Reagan's War on Drugs, has not taken even a casual glance at history. What is happening now has happened throughout history. Is it happening more now? Perhaps, but that may be an artifact of the airplane. It is now easier to attack more people, with more deadly weapons. Other than that, things are business as usual in the world.

In America, we tend to get worked up about 9/11, but that's just because it is more visible to us. It was our greatest terrorist attack, but not our first. Not even the first in the decade, nor the first on those towers. The only difference here was that the attack was reasonably successful, and it was perpetrated by foreigners. That's our excuse for war, but the war can't be won, and certainly can't be won the way Bush is fighting it. People with big hammers tend to look for big nails to hit.

If you read "A Bright and Shining Lie", which is a biography of a fairly deceptive operative in Vietnam, there is a section about the early part of the war where the US was in an advisory and support role. Air strikes were called in at times to assist ground troops. The pilots flattened every hut in the area, but they were so focused on taking out structures that the only thing they went after was the huts. The VC and NVA weren't in the huts (because that's what always got bombed), so the air power was ineffective.

We are doing the same thing. Punching Al Queda is like punching water. We can take out their top people as many times as we want, because there will always be another to take their place. We can do that for the rest of time without significantly changing things. We have to not just take out the top, but take out the reason for them to be created.

And while we are at it, take out the fundamentalists of all religions.


Here's a novel thought: Iraq wasn't a country until it was created during the colonization period of europe. How about if we deconstruct it now. They don't like each other, why force them to form a country with each other?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Ah! So this is the old if you don't believe everything the president says, then you're anti-US, which by extension would imply unpatriotic.

The last time a major power succumbed to such sweeping Nationalist sentiment the world suffered hugely. I hope this madness is stopped soon before the same thing happens again.

---

Amen! Blind faith is bad news, regardless of what you have faith in.

Amen? LOL. an oxymoron, I think...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dglienna
Amen? LOL. an oxymoron, I think...

---

An oxymoron is two contradictory terms next to each other such as a deafening silence

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
But you think that Fox is great don't you (despite the fact they have been repeatedly caught inventing stories/quotes as oppossed to simply not checking their sources thouroughly).

I'm also curious is Al-Jazeera right wing or left wing in your handy phrase book? I mean, they're sympathic to the Iraqi people, yet they're showing beheadings etc.

I'm curious where this fits in your hand linear judgement of politics.... :sick:

---

Actually I do only because they show a different side of what is going on in the world. Why would you want just a liberal slant on the news all the time? I think its nice that the other side is shown for once. I bet you long for the good old days when one side is all you got and there was not internet or alternative news sources to go to. I for one go to both sides and attempt to sift out the BS. This time its CBS that was full of it.

Lies are lies whether they come from the left or right or the Islamic kook fringe. If you show only one side all the time and that is all you can get than I do believe its harmful as you have a bunch of people running around feeding off of things that are not even true. Diversity in news sources is a positive thing, right now the Islamic world is where the US news world was 20 years ago, they are getting one side of the story. Hopefully some day maybe they will get to see a different side of things.

X

Xanith: there is only one side: it's called the truth.

Whether or not it's ever broadcast is up to debate; in fact everyone always has their slant . . ..

Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.

- Euripides

My cats breath smells of cat food.

- Ralph Wiggum

Think about it.

You should only believe that which does not arrive through the senses.

Think about that

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Xanith: there is only one side: it's called the truth.

Whether or not it's ever broadcast is up to debate; in fact everyone always has their slant . . ..

---

My point is there is always 2 sides to a story. Take Iraq for instance. Some networks only want to dwell on the negative aspects of what is going on, the bombings, killings...etc never showing the positive like the opening of schools and water treatment plants or opening of markets again. If you only listen to one network you would have a tendency to feel there is nothing positive going on inside Iraq.

I am just saying there is more to the story than one network gives you. Go out and look and read from other sources to get the complete picture. Not just what you want to hear. :)

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Ah! So this is the old if you don't believe everything the president says, then you're anti-US, which by extension would imply unpatriotic.

---

No but if you lie or use false documents to take the president down it sure does. There is nothing wrong with reporting something damaging to the president if its true, in fact its pro-US and our system if you expose corruption/wrong doing even at the highest level. The trouble with this election year is you have people shouting buzz words all over the place that people pick up on and don’t bother checking if they are even based in fact. I listen to liberals all the time shout the same mantra over and over again with the spoon fed tripe spewed forth by the DNC and their supporters. They hear it so much they actually think its true, even when presented with the facts they still continue believing what they want to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
The last time a major power succumbed to such sweeping Nationalist sentiment the world suffered hugely. I hope this madness is stopped soon before the same thing happens again.

---

Am I correct to assume you are now linking the Bush administration with the rise of the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930’s? This is funny only because I have actually heard liberals say that Bush is going to be behind a terrorist attack in the US for the sole purpose of stopping the presidential election so he can cease power. There is so much anger out there people are ready to believe anything no matter how far fetched it is. Sad.

X

Quote:

---

My point is there is always 2 sides to a story. Take Iraq for instance. Some networks only want to dwell on the negative aspects of what is going on, the bombings, killings...etc never showing the positive like the opening of schools and water treatment plants or opening of markets again. If you only listen to one network you would have a tendency to feel there is nothing positive going on inside Iraq.

I am just saying there is more to the story than one network gives you. Go out and look and read from other sources to get the complete picture. Not just what you want to hear.

---

Your point, in my opinion, is incomplete: there is only one side to any story - that would be the truth. If you cannot accept that you have a problem. Human beings will always paint a slightly different story, and complete lie for a story later on. The truth is there; will always be there - and it is that which we should all strive for.

And as for what I want to hear? It's simple - it's the truth! I will never get it from TV (that's for sure) and I certainly will not get it from you. Ever.

These threads just seem so scripted. they always follow the same pattern:

1)Insert random topic
2)Turn into Bush bash
3)Start the media bashing
4)Insert Hitler/Nazi Germany reference
5)Insert latest political maneuver in the news
6)Wash rinse repeat in next thread



Oh and Americans eat babies....

How can there only ever be one side to the story - the truth depends on who your asking.

If I believe the moon is made of cheese then that is the truth. Ask an Iraq terrorist and an American Soldier what they think of Bush and you'll get two completley different views. (I hope) Which one is telling the truth?

Quote:

---

How can there only ever be one side to the story - the truth depends on who your asking.

---

NO! The truth is what actually happened.

YOu are confusing bias and honesty with truth.

yes but what actually happened depends on who you are asking.

Nope.

What actually happened is what actually happened. It's the different accounts of what happened that differ.

The truth remains the truth.

Truth denotes a static assertion that changes from person to person, opinion to opinion, culture to culture. Thus, truth is a hollow, manipulating word that professional value destroyers promulgate in their attempts to gain credibility for their deceptions and destructions.

What twaddle! Truth is truth, mate.

10/10 for effort, though.

you said it yourself

You should only believe that which does not arrive through the senses.


truth is based on perception, a 'crazy' person may see people that no one else can. who is telling the truth those who say there is no one there or the 'crazy' person who says there is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Your point, in my opinion, is incomplete: there is only one side to any story - that would be the truth. If you cannot accept that you have a problem. Human beings will always paint a slightly different story, and complete lie for a story later on. The truth is there; will always be there - and it is that which we should all strive for.

And as for what I want to hear? It's simple - it's the truth! I will never get it from TV (that's for sure) and I certainly will not get it from you. Ever.

---

That all fine and good, but I believe what Xanith is trying to say is that the media will never give you the pure truth. Whether the media be right or left wing, you always get a skewed version of what really happenned. Since the left and right media skew the information into their views, if you watch the same news headline on each station, you are going to find out more of the actual truth then if you just watch one.

Also, the whole truth is never present when you are asking anyone. Unless YOU were present at the exact moment it happenned, you are most likely not going to get the truth in its entirety.

Quote:

---

you said it yourself

You should only believe that which does not arrive through the senses.


truth is based on perception, a 'crazy' person may see people that no one else can. who is telling the truth those who say there is no one there or the 'crazy' person who says there is.

---

I agree that you will never know the truth. Ever. If you believe that truth is based on perception then I think you are grossly misled.

There can only ever be one truth; that is what actually happened. The stories told thereafter will never be the truth; they might be close, but they will never ever be the truth.

Iagree Rdove; reread my posts. What Xanith is trying to do? - God only knows.