America has invaded Syyria

[Derrick]

Syria is the country that suposively is supplying the insurgents with all those nasty rocket propelled gernades.

[KwadDamyj]

You've been awfully political lately, Fodders. =^/

[myk]

TheDarkArchon said:
Key word: Accuses.

Key word on noting the bias of the paper, certainly, which is quite obvious anyway. It presents what the Syrians say in a rather subjective way (i.e., "While showing off what he said were...", "He made the allegations...") and the American position (which implies that what the Syrians say isn't bullshit; "I've heard there have been some cross-border activities...") in a more "objective" way, although presenting subtle political dissent or variations.

In other words, a wink to those willing to have faith in their authorities, and a display of the news site's economical and political positioning.

Unless you meant something like "they can accuse us, but no more, because we have mighty military power that inspires terror and stops them short of anything more, regardless of whether we really did do shit"

[Sharessa]

KwadDamyj said:

You've been awfully political lately, Fodders. =^/

He's a lot less than he was, say, a year and a half ago.

[baronofhell]

We're not going to war with Syria, at least not during this presidential term. Just because there's been some cross border activities means nothing. Months and months ago, msnbc reported that U.S. special forces were running recon missions in Iran. Nothing has happened there yet either. Not saying we'll never invade Iran, but it's not a certainty, although I thought differently when I heard it.

[Ralphis]

KwadDamyj said:

You've been awfully political lately, Fodders. =^/

No, he's always been a conspiracy theorist for as long as I've known him

[fodders]

Ralphis said:

No, he's always been a conspiracy theorist for as long as I've known him

NOT a "conspiracy theorist"! Just one that learned things happened way before you did.
eg, no wmd :)

[baronofhell]

I think this story is bullshit. It claims 11 marines died in this battle alone, for some reason I think the major news outlets would be all over it. And I have done some browsing of the above mentioned outlets(fox, msnbc, cnn) and found not a trace of this story.

[insertwackynamehere]

Ralphis said:

No, he's always been a conspiracy theorist for as long as I've known him

actually conspiracies can be more real than what our governments tell us. It's a conspiracy.

HAVE YOUR BRAIN CHEW ON THAT FOR A WHILE, EH?

also, I doubt that we will go to war with Syria. Bush has lost A LOT of popularity since the election. In fact almost everyone I know who supported Bush doesnt like him now. He made a lot of mistakes, what with Iraq just getting worse and Katrina being a pathetic failure. Invading Syria is a great way to lower his polls. Or raise them if you look at the paper upside down until some presidential advisor corrects you.

[Ralphis]

Ah with "Iraq getting worse".

For what it's worth, which will be absolutely nothing on this ridiculously liberal board, my cousin who is over there in the military says it is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING close to what the television shows about it. He's right.

They aren't going to show us anything good happening for two reasons.

1) Good things are bad television.
2) Bashing Bush is good television.

I can't say that I'm all about us not finding WMD there but everyone thought they were there. US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, Bush, Clinton, etc etc. However, regardless of the WMD Saddam had no problem destroying his own people. I'm all about removing him (Now someone try and get witty about Bush destroying his own people blah blah blah). OMG PEOPLE CAN VOTE.

Noone said it was going to be easy. Neither was the American Revolution.

[Captain Red]

ofcorse it's going to be hard, but do you honestly still think it's worth the effort? The worlds full of tyrants, why that one in pictular?

I mean really, going after one evil bastered and trading with another, It's just not honest.

Bah. Whatever. Bashing bush is old, but supporting him is still retareded.

[myk]

Ralphis said:
1) Good things are bad television.

As far as the "bad things" go, it seems like the US media concentrates mostly on the bombings and perhaps a bit on misconduct or torture now that its becoming more obvious, but not much on anything about the social and cultural damage occurring in Iraq or the vincity; i.e., a country which was invaded and is occupied by a hostile force of a different culture. Heh, why would the Iraqis be happy after being murdered, bombed and constantly watched when not even your own population is happy with the situation?

The US perspective of things has often been like that; to put actual economic and social factors and events on a second plane behind idealistic and political matters; an emphasis on convincing and belief (or "loyalty") over facts and relations.

2) Bashing Bush is good television.

It seems good for him too, because the only character he has really managed to develop is the idiot clown: and talking about an empty headed figurehead is useful, while the actual decision makers work in the background, farther away from the media's eye.

I can't say that I'm all about us not finding WMD there but everyone thought they were there. US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, Bush, Clinton, etc etc.

The WMD bullshit came from the US and Britain, incidentially the two countries with an hegemonic eye on the oil industry.

As for Russia's position:
The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

However, regardless of the WMD Saddam had no problem destroying his own people.

Good thing the US continued the practice; we can't have those dirty arabs running around free and healthy. What if they plant a bomb somewhere?

But really, if one wants to find out who Saddam's Iraq killed or fought, or why, one can read some Iraqi history, and then check back on that "liberator role" some dreamed the US played.

I'm all about removing him

George W. Bush?

Noone said it was going to be easy. Neither was the American Revolution.

Right, and you already know that's about as far as you'll get in the comparison, as basically they are otherwise opposites. In one case a sovereign nation rising in arms against an imperial power that held sway over them, and in the other a sovereign nation attacked by an imperial power to hold sway over them.

[fodders]

LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) -

Abuse of human rights in Iraq is as bad now as it was under Saddam Hussein, if not worse, former prime minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview published on Sunday.

"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam Hussein's time and worse. It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told British newspaper The Observer.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam," said Allawi, a secular Shi'ite and former Baathist who is standing in elections scheduled for Dec. 15. "These are the precise reasons why we fought Saddam Hussein and now we are seeing the same things.

"We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated," said Allawi in an apparent reference to the discovery of a bunker at the Shi'ite-run Interior Ministry where 170 men were held prisoner, beaten, half-starved and in some cases tortured.

"A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations."

Allawi said the Interior Ministry, which has tried to brush off the scandal over the bunker, was afflicted by a "disease".

If it is not cured, he said, it "will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government".

"The Ministry of the Interior is at the heart of the matter," Allawi said. "I am not blaming the minister himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place."

Allawi was Iraq's first prime minister of the post-Saddam era but failed to win January's election, which brought current Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, an Islamist Shi'ite, to power.

An opinion poll in an Iraqi newspaper a week ago suggested over half of Iraqis want Jaafari to stay on in the job after the December vote.

Allawi, who enjoys some support among both Shi'ites and Sunnis, came third in the poll behind Mithal al-Alusi, a secular Sunni who heads his own election list.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Ralphis said:

OMG PEOPLE CAN VOTE.

Yes, but it only counts if it's for Bush.

[Belial]

So far it looks to me that more people died in Iraq because of the invasion than there would've if Saddam was left in power.

[DaJuice]

That whole part of the debate is pointless, as WMDs and "democracy" in the Middle East were nothing but a front to begin with. The modus opperandi for the US was very simple: get rid of hostile regimes and secure American interests. Same old same old. WMDs and liberation of an oppressed people were just two palatable reasons to convince the American people.

I'm sure they figured that Iran and Syria are next, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[baronofhell]

Something extremely tragic would have to happen in order for the President to get the ok to wage war on another country. I HIGHLY DOUBT that Bush is planning another war, with his approval ratins at an ALL TIME low because of this "war".

[SYS]

WWIII! Be all that you can be!

[myk]

DaJuice said:
get rid of hostile regimes

Hostile in the sense that they post an obstacle to certain economic targets, and not as threats. If Iran, for instance, manages to arm itself with nuclear weaponry it will not be a destructive threat to the US or even Israel; what will happen is that it will be able to not be stomped down like Iraq was.

[baronofhell]

I hope to god no one actually believed freaking Sadamm Hussein and his regime were a threat to us. After we bitch slapped them in the gulf war, give me a break.

[Janderson]

I hope to god no one actually believed freaking Germany and Hitler's regime were a threat to us. After we bitch slapped them in The Great War, give me a break.

[DaJuice]

myk said:

Hostile in the sense that they post an obstacle to certain economic targets, and not as threats. If Iran, for instance, manages to arm itself with nuclear weaponry it will not be a destructive threat to the US or even Israel; what will happen is that it will be able to not be stomped down like Iraq was.

Yeah, rogue (as in, not in step with the US) would have been a better word.

[Quasar]

I knew this would happen a long time ago.

[Scuba Steve]

Ralphis said:

...my cousin who is over there in the military says it is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING close to what the television shows about it. He's right.

Ahh the old anecdotal "Well my friend/relative..."

While it is true that that first hand experience is a good indication of current events... in this case it falls flat on its face. Too many accounts tell the opposite story for it to be beleivable that "Things are great over there".

1.) I have lsitened to no less than 3 news reporters for MPR/NPR tell about their experience over in Iraq and just how awful the situation is. They make consessions saying that "Yes, the troops are building a school somewhere or helping someone... but I can't in all concience write about that story while a bomb blast downtown kills 50." They report having to hide in fear of being captured and mudered on the highways, not leaving their hotels for fear of capture or murder.

2.) What of the MANY, MANY US soldiers who, like your cousin, have come back saying things are terrible there? Worse than when we came in? Are these people just "lying" and I should believe only people like your cousin?

3.) The United States destroyed MUCH of Baghdad's infrastructure during the bombing campaign, and cities like Fallujah have been leveled to the ground. I don't see how anything can be constructed while such major combat operations are still occuring.

4.) I'm going to guess that your cousin is stationed in Baghdad which just happens to be the most secured city in all of Iraq, the further from baghdad you go the worse it gets.

5.) Numerous, unbiased studies have stated that over 80% of Iraqis want us out and over 70% say they never have clean drinkable water or viable sewage elimination. And fewer than ONE percent think our involvement is helping curb the violence.

That's from a poll taken by the ministry of defense.

As much as I'd love to believe your cousin and the people in charge who say everything is dandy and getting better... common sense and critical reasoning tell me otherwise.

[Csonicgo]

-_DLD_- said:

Yeah...unfortunately.

If anybody wonders why I'm so pro-Canadian and anti-American, that single post you made is a big reason. I don't hate Americans, I just hate the States itself.

you hate our Government, not america, or the country or anything. Guess what? we hate our government too. sounds like you're just as american as we are ;)

[Janderson]

Scuba Steve said:

Ahh the old anecdotal "Well my friend/relative..."

Everybody is bound to experience different things while there. A statement like 'we have driven a band of combatants from [position].' Would mean 'We're winning!' to one and 'At heavy cost, no doubt.' to another. So suggesting his cousin is lying is a little unfair.

Heh, I have just resisted the urge to post relevent anecdotes of my father from the first Gulf War.

[myk]

Janderson said:
So suggesting his cousin is lying is a little unfair.

Is that what Scuba Steve suggested? Whether that specific individual lies, is mislead in relation to the "bigger picture" by his position and place, or just doesn't have a clue isn't too important. It's more about what you are mentioning in your post; you can get an idea of something happening a block away which is totally missing the point. My understanding of things that have happened in my own country or even my city have changed radically after being able to look into or experience certain events that escaped me before simply because I wasn't in the right places or didn't spot certain information (of events) or simply ignored it.

[Gokuma]

Fuck you to whoever deleted my post.]

edit: Why yes there are elves in post hell. Careful or they'll steal you underwear, whether you're wearing it or not.

Seriously, the mainstream corporate news in the US does not report things they think unimportant or not good for you to hear and they even lie. Literally over three million die in the current conflict in the Congo but is it newsworthy? Apparently not.

[Janderson]

myk said:

I wasn't in the right places or didn't spot certain information (of events) or simply ignored it.

I prefer first hand info to the kind that can easily be editted and the closest we've got to that is a soldier's experiences. But I do agree that his position could make him believe that the war is better than it is, but on the other hand we have the news telling us that it is worse than it is. The information we're getting on it is second hand and likely to be exaggerrated. Now that hardly anyone likes Bush and Blair (I'm assuming most people here are your average american and british citizen) no one wants to hear the good things that are happening. That and we all want our troops back. This makes the soldiers who think the war is going badly ideal candidates to interview.

We are ready to pounce on these tales of prisoner torture, some are true enough, some are malicious hoaxs (why they did it, I don't know), others are extreme exaggerrations from ambitious journalai. In both cases the information is likely to be erroneous but I'd rather I got it from the soldiers themselves than the media.

[fodders]

Janderson said:

I prefer first hand info to the kind that can easily be editted and the closest we've got to that is a soldier's experiences. ...

this hero's experience is worth reading

A proud professional firefighter and conservative Republican, Spec. John Kulick watched the World Trade Center burn and collapse, stealing thousands of innocent lives. He believed in the war against terrorism, and, at 33 years old, he decided to help fight it by joining the Pennsylvania National Guard as an infantryman 10 days before the Iraq invasion...

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13266919.htm