Exactly five years ago, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.
Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.
■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the "peace" movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic "middle class" demonstrators.
■ Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy's unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC's Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of "cluster bombs" against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.
■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam's victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine "massacre" at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America's highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.
■ Mostly Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion's share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined.
■ Little Time for Good News. The last six months have seen a massive reduction in insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties. But the three broadcast evening newscasts have shown little interest in the good news, with coverage dropping every month since September. (See chart.)
A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks' performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious.
Comments Policy
This is a great summary of the Media war coverage
March 19, 2008 - 10:27 ET by Dee BunkI'm especially tired of the people who say the media was responsible for the Iraq war and didn't do enough reporting on the protests. Come on! You could say that about the war in Afghanistan, but even then their the narrative was "quagmire".
Brainwashing takes time and they just didn't have enough of it. Now after five years of their drum beat many of the brainwash susceptible have converted.
Yeah, the media has
March 19, 2008 - 10:37 ET by BDYeah, the media has pronounced us failures in the GWOT at every turn, then discovers when the smoke clears that we have indeed far rom failed.
1.) The media during the second week of Afghanistan (OEF) claimed that we were now officially bogged down in a Soviet like Quagmire and would not get any further. Then we took Kabul.
2.) During the opening days of OIF, the US forces held up short of Najaf during a sandstorm (Shamal) and the media proclaimed that we had failed ue to poor planning and we would not get any further. Then we took Bagdhad.
3.) The media just KNEW we were not going to be successful in getting elections running and thus we had failed. Then millions of purple fingers were held up and the media moved on tot he next sighting of failure.
4.) The media just KNEW that the US would never get the Iraqi economy going again. The oil wells would not pump, the pipelines would not shuttle cargo etc. Then we beat prewar oil production levels, and the Iraqi economy surged.
5.) The media just KNEW a civil war was imminent. Then the Surge calmed the situation in desired regions.
6.) The media just KNEW that the area west of fallujah would always be a hotbed of resistance. Then the "Great Awakening" occurred.
7.) The media just KNEW that the Iraqi parliament would never cooperate. Then revenue sharing at the local level occured.
The Media is tied to a mantra of US military failure that leads back to Vietnam. I believe it is because they do not WISH to see US military success as it does not feed their view of a "Kindlier, Gentler, more Peaceful" superpower who can admit its failures and ask for forgiveness.
Great summary also BD
March 19, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dee BunkI remember the run up clearly because I was terrified. I was so afraid for our soldiers and thought they barely stood a chance. Then I heard Rush one day by accident (never listened to him before because I bought the MSM characterization of him). He was so positive and confident in our ability to win and I started to see how the media mis characterized everything. I was always conservative, but I still believed the media on many things and thought that people like Rush were "extreme right wing" and not like me. After listening to Rush for a while, I realized that he was very much like me. Then I started watching FOX also and I vowed then to never pay attention to the rest of the networks again. It's too bad that so many people trust them, they would have a much more positive outlook on everything if they stayed away from the MSM.
I'm happy to hear you've
March 19, 2008 - 11:38 ET by SmartypantsI'm happy to hear you've seen the light. Now, if I could only get so many friends and relatives to see the truth about the media, I could sleep better at night. Far too many of us still believe the bilge that spills from the major networks and newspapers, and much of it is nothing more than agenda-driven nonsense.
And let us not forget what the MSM said back in 1991...
March 19, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Prester John....our forces would be decimated by the "battle hardened" armed forces of Iraq. Baghdad had one of the most extensive air defense systems in the world against which our Air Force didn't have a chance, and the vaunted "elite" Republican Guard units would overwhelm our Army and Marine units.
After 6 weeks of an air campaign and 4 days of ground combat Coalition Forces, as Gen Powell so eloquently put it, turned "the 4th largest Army in the world into the 2d largest in Iraq".
The MSM is not to be trusted.
You guys must be following
March 19, 2008 - 12:03 ET by balboaYou guys must be following this a lot more closely or watching different channels than I did. I NEVER thought we were in trouble during the Gulf War. I was afraid I might get drafted, but I never thought we were facing a superior army.
And I never thought we could lose this war. I thought we could screw it up, with poor planning. But then we "surged" back into control.
The MSM definitely stressed
March 19, 2008 - 12:15 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe MSM definitely stressed before the start of the Gulf War how tough the Iraqui forces would be. That POV was very prominent (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS,etc.; didn't have many choices back then :-) and not an obscure one among the media.
"Tough" doesn't mean "we're
March 19, 2008 - 12:47 ET by balboa"Tough" doesn't mean "we're gonna lose."
I agree, Balboa, but the
March 19, 2008 - 13:28 ET by NewsbusterbrownI agree, Balboa, but the impression was that we would be banged up severely enough by the Iraquis that we would be at war for years with casualties that would make what we have had the past five years look like a drop in the bucket.
balboa - they left the impression that we would have huge
March 19, 2008 - 13:29 ET by Dee Bunkcasualties. That's what I mean about fearing for our soldiers. I do and would have feared for them regardless but the media made it seem from day one like we would be losing soldiers in Vietnam type numbers.
They still report as if it's as bad as Vietnam,
Like I said, maybe I
March 19, 2008 - 13:34 ET by balboaLike I said, maybe I haven't been paying as much attention, but I never got that sense. It was always what _could_ happen, not what would.
bal,
March 28, 2008 - 00:48 ET by gfrrockstypical lib, "thought the worst(half glasss empty) would happen". Tens of thousands of U.S. troops would die was the prediction from the libs like you. You wake every morning with a negative attitude. What a miserable existance to be a liberal. Life ALWAYS sucks, unless the DIMS are in power..oh wait.......
Hi gfrrocks, bal been here, doing his "thing" for like forever
March 28, 2008 - 01:18 ET by upcountrywaterwelcome, and good luck ;-)
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
upcountryh2o
March 28, 2008 - 01:34 ET by gfrrocks...I've been on this site for several years now, and know bal and his "progressiveness".....hell he's a head in the sand LIB. I've recently had a fire at my residence and can't access some things...one being MY computer(staying at older brothers' place and using his computer not my Mac..I'm hurtin'), plus my book that has notes on passwords for certain sites(NB). I WAS under the name of "gfrrman", so until I access that info I will go by what you see here. Bal is just what I said he is like all liberals...truth means nothing to them and it will always come back to bite them and they will always deny that truth because they have no convictions....everything is "gray area" to them so they can always skate. Think about that for a minute...it is soooo true of liberals.
Thanks for the reply....good to be back and seeing some thoughtful conversation.
"Socialists eventually run out of other peoples' money"...Margaret Thatcher
gfrrocks, I tell you what, you have bal figgured out.
March 28, 2008 - 01:50 ET by upcountrywatergfrrman, i remember that name ( sorry about your loss of wealth N' stuff , fires suck! Wow you have been doing some mileage with bal: skating, conviction free,so very gray.. yup that sums him up.
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Upctry
March 28, 2008 - 01:59 ET by gfrrocksLibs are too easy game..their whole game is a lie...that way they never have to committ to anything....ie; Hitlary, Obama..Lenin Stalin, etc. Socialism has NEVER worked anywhere in the history of the world!!!! But they sure as H@#L will try it incrementally(by judicical fiat). It and and of itself is a LIE!!!
mymidons
March 28, 2008 - 02:05 ET by gfrrocksBtw, upcountry, bal is just another run of the mill mymidon and would be off the cliff if the "group" suggested it. It's "group" think that rules mymidons.
gfrrocks they are on the loose 'round here too
March 28, 2008 - 02:23 ET by upcountrywaterspending some elses money is a hard habit to break
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
upctry
March 28, 2008 - 02:44 ET by gfrrocks$$$ well spent....LMAO!!! Let's see, that would cost the "taxpayers"of the U.S. about $2 million for the costumes and $4 million for the cost of transportation to get to said event...LOL.;-) And if Liberals were in charge it would cost $7 Mmillion for the costumes and $40 million for transportation and $20 million for those attending that needed "counseling" after the event.. ya think?
Part of the difference
March 19, 2008 - 13:36 ET by sarcasmoIs that our military got really-good at battlefield medicine in Vietnam. But I'd agree that potential casualties were overestimated -- especially by the left; just as fiscal reality was underestimated -- especially by the right.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc left also way overestimates the costs
March 19, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Dee BunkThe right may have underestimated it but the economically challenged left think that you can just transfer the same spending to health care and get more benefit. I'm sorry but that's even worse.
Health care spending loses jobs while military spending creates them so it finances some of itself through increased tax receipts. The left don't care about the spending, they just think it's the wrong spending and their spending would be even worse for the country and the economy.
I'm not sure the left
March 19, 2008 - 14:12 ET by sarcasmoOverestimated things as bad as reality has turned-out. Remember, this was an era during which Paul Wolfowitz was saying this would pay for itself via oil revenues. And for me the right's economic failure isn't excused by the left's. The choices aren't just "war or healthcare." There's also the "NOT SPENDING" for-once option, as much as both sides desperately-want to ignore it.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Right sarc - but you're never going to get that option
March 19, 2008 - 14:32 ET by Dee BunkWith Obama and Clinton the choice is health care and with McCain it's Military Spending. No one is picking the not spending choice.
The Obama and Clinton spending will have a more negative draw on the economy than Military spending. Plus it will never ever be decreased only increased. Infrastructure spending (which I include military spending) doesn't cost as much as social programs because the spending grows the economy and jobs whereas social spending contracts it. Military Spending is by far the lesser of two evils.
It's like the difference between two brothers who win $100,000 each and one puts his under the bed and the other puts it in the stock market earning a 10% return. They both spend $10,000 a year frivolously from their inheritance but the guy who puts it under his bed goes broke and can never get the money back. The one who invested can stop spending at some point. You can say both are wasting their money but one is wasting it more foolishly.
just as fiscal reality was
March 20, 2008 - 10:27 ET by pbanks7just as fiscal reality was underestimated -- especially by the right.
Underlying political correctness, media bias, and Demorats and the State Department undermining Bush's policies, have been well documented on this site.
One way to stop looting is to shoot over the heads of looters. No, can't do that, better be PC about it.
The fiscal reality would have been much, much less if we didn't have the media and Demorats aiding and abetting the propaganda arm of al Qaida.
etc., etc.,
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
I'll stand by those particular words unmodified, thanks.
March 20, 2008 - 10:32 ET by sarcasmoIn fact, another 'net libertarian guy gave me another good one here:
"Talking to right-wingers about war is like talking to left-wingers about abortion and communism. Neither wants to discuss what actually happens."
I wholeheartedly agree.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Talking to Libertarians
March 20, 2008 - 10:42 ET by NL207Talking to Libertarians about the need for War as a tool to prevent the strong and violent from overcoming and tyrannizing the weak is like talking to the Chicago Cubs about winning the World Series.
You misunderstand.
March 20, 2008 - 10:44 ET by sarcasmoWar's not the problem, it's the undeclared part. We have issues with that because we actually read the US Constitution. Try it sometime, you might like it too.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Have you ever read the
March 20, 2008 - 11:06 ET by NL207Have you ever read the Congressional Authorizations to use force in Iraq and in Afghanistan? These are Declarations of War in every way except their titles. The Congress declared war.
So what part of the Constitutional requirement that Congress declare war has not been met?
Glad you asked.
March 25, 2008 - 02:56 ET by sarcasmoWe all know they DIDN'T actually declare war because that's politically incorrect these days. We've also all seen the results, where the nation is divided along party lines regarding an undeclared war. Those Founders really weren't that stupid when they made-up that Constitutional requirement. They knew human nature, which hasn't changed since.
The fact that Hillary can now say, "no, no, I didn't really mean THAT when I voted to give the President authority" is my best evidence. A vote on an unambiguous declaration of war would not allow politicians the "nuance" to get away with voting for it but then saying "I'm against it" when things get iffy. IMO that's the Constitutional requirement that's not been met, via our usual ignorance of the wisdom of this nation's Founders.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I seem to remember a
March 20, 2008 - 09:42 ET by pbanks7I seem to remember a Democrat mantra of needing "thousands of body bags" for US soldiers 5.1 years ago.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
And thousands of soldiers
March 24, 2008 - 12:32 ET by JasonCAnd thousands of soldiers have died. So apparently they were right. Though it didn't strike me as a mantra, really. Um, what's your point?
Jason
March 24, 2008 - 19:31 ET by botgWhere were you 6 years ago? sleeping?
Sweet 16 sign-ups here
btog & Jason
March 24, 2008 - 19:39 ET by MrShyEven I'll admit I'm confused by this one... although I think the poster (don't have his/her screen name in front of me, sorry) meant, having the thousands of body bags at the ready for immediate deaths when we initially went into Iraq.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
shy
March 24, 2008 - 19:47 ET by botgi agree with you, IIRC they were talking 10,000 minimum casualties before taking Bagdad
Sweet 16 sign-ups here
I have a question for
March 19, 2008 - 10:29 ET by ConservativeRexI have a question for liberals who have constantly opposed this war to rid a country and the world of a horrible, muderous, tyrant.
Why do you not want Iraqis to have freedom? Simple as that. Why are you liberals so selfish with the freedom you have that you do not want an oppressed people to have the same? All your other BS about Bush this and Bush that doesn't amount to anything. It boils down to, why you would deny someone else the chance for freedom to do as they choose?
We could help them and we have. We did this in spite of the constant harrassment from the left. The only thing I can get out of the actions of the left is that you are jealous. Jealous that some other people, different from you, have a chance to enjoy life with out fear of death at the hands of a tyrant, much like the safety you enjoy in this country.
It appears you democrats have not changed your spots. You are the very same democrats of the 1850's. You really can't stand, and will not tolerate, anyone different from you. That is the only conclusion one can get as to why you would deny freedom to someone different than you. You haven't changed, we're on to you.
Your Premise is Horribly Flawed
March 20, 2008 - 14:27 ET by rfrancis1980Its not that U.S. citizens don't want other people to have freedom. I am a libertarian I want everyone to have freedom. I will cherish the day consensual crimes are removed from the books of this country and every other country on earth and people are allowed to secede from their current governments and form new ones.
It's that we don't believe the sword is the best way to achieve that end. If you have ever watched the television show Star Trek and especially The Next Generation sequel you are familiar with the Prime Directive and Non-Interference. These laws exist in that future to prevent massive wars that result in millions of casualties and deaths.
What gives the U.S. the right to decide to overthrow another country's government for the good of their people? Who says they want our help? Who says that using the sword to achieve such an end will cause more good than harm?
You remind me of the liberal codependents who want to take care of and help everyone else even when they never asked for your help in the first place.
It is going to take another 2 generations for the Iraqi people to get back on their feet.
The children growing up in a war torn country are going to grow up with the physical and psychological scars from this war that will not heal by the time they have children.
They will pass down their beliefs on the acceptability of using violence and torture to settle political disputes.
Many, like you, have the belief that the ends justify the means. The thing is there are no ends. There is no goal post we get to unless you count death. All we have is means.
If we want a free world where people have the right to do what they want without the threat of violence by someone else or their government, the way to get there isn't by using violence. Fighting fire with fire is not going to work.
Fighting fire with fire is
March 20, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Dan The Man 2Fighting fire with fire is not going to work is a falacy. In fire fighting it woks very weel, ever hear of fire breaks where a controlled fire is started to consume teh fuel the uncontrolled one would have and spread the fire further. You logic stinks.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
My Logic Stinks? Yours is Nuke them All
March 20, 2008 - 17:19 ET by rfrancis1980I'm glad you aren't in charge of using our military, you would be more beligerent than Bush.
Setting back fires works because then there is no fuel for the main fire to feed on (In this case Islamic terrorism). Wiping out the entire Muslim world might work in eliminating Islamic terrorism but thankfully no one as insane as you is in charge of the military.
P.S. And way to focus on the analogy at the end rather than all the specific points about the issues I made along the way. Clever but transparent.
rf1980, History has been set for 1400 years.
March 20, 2008 - 17:36 ET by upcountrywaterThe moslems want to return to the 7 th century, and bring us along kicking and screaming. SCREW THAT
You think we deserved 9-11. Because we were in mussie lands blah blah first, how about this???
Nuk them FIRST ,BEFORE THEY NUK US!!
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
HOWEVER: Iranian Uranium, ICBM's <sleep>
I Never Said We Deserved It, Get a Clue.
March 21, 2008 - 12:03 ET by rfrancis1980Go read this:
http://www.pointless...
It refers to Dunbar's number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
You clearly have no ability to put yourself in the shoes of those outside your social group. Yes there have been wars, yes we have been attacked in the past, yes pirates like to steal.
But if your answer is genocide, I vote to keep you away from controlling the military. I hope enough Americans would agree with me on that.
P.S. I do think we should save the whales, many species of whale have brains far bigger than ours and are in fact the largest on earth. Does that mean they are intelligent? No but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We know we are intelligent because of the civilization we have built. If we had flippers for arms that couldn't even touch where would civilization be today? We might have spoken languages but likely not written and likely no technology.
Wow, here come the
March 24, 2008 - 12:41 ET by JasonCWow, here come the trigger-happy lunatics. "Nuk" them? Dynamite solution (no pun intended). They want to go back to the 7th century? We're talking about Iraq here, genius, not al Qaeda. Believe it or not, the two were totally distinct prior to March '03, and 9/11 in and of itself did not link the two, except in the fevered imaginations of hellbent-on-blind-revenge Orientalists. Iraq was basically a secular, modern society with a particularly vicious strongman leader. Just like maybe 1/3 of the world. Our invasion gave them freedom? They may not have been living in as an open society as the US, but it wasn't North Korea or Sudan either. I'm sure the people who lost their home and family members in Shock & Awe, or now have al Qaeda factions in their towns, are just enjoying their newfound liberties to the hilt. If you're going to advance this bullshit argument that we did it to liberate the oppressed Iraqis, you need to sack up and advocate that we proceed to invade and overthrow every country that has a government structure which is as oppressive or more so than Saddam's. Start with Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, we can't do that.
JC, We live on a planet at war! you want to LOSE why is that?
March 28, 2008 - 00:19 ET by upcountrywaterIran has an industry of building stuff that kill AMERICANS?
Started in 1979 thankx to your buddy Carter.
All that's needed is a mini shock and awe, to wipe out the factories that make crap, that fu*ks with FREEDOM.
If not get a burka for the wife, NOW
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Uh, America's bad history with Iran
March 28, 2008 - 09:33 ET by sarcasmoDid not start in 1979 with Carter's sandstorm blunder. Try "Operation Ajax" in 1953 instead, without which there would have probably been no hostage crisis in 1979. Actions have consequences.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
What happens after the mini
March 28, 2008 - 09:40 ET by JasonCWhat happens after the mini shock and awe? Do we let Ahmadinejad continue to rule? Are we not obligated to the people of Iran who had nothing to do with those factories to provide some sort of recompense? You have a distorted view of modern warfare and geo-politics if you think we can get away with dropping some missiles and going back to life-as-usual the next day.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
JC, and
March 28, 2008 - 00:39 ET by gfrrocksBJC did nothing in Darfur and Sudan,Somalia yet you complain. I see your priorities....BDS.
No, you have misread my
March 28, 2008 - 08:55 ET by JasonCNo, you have misread my post. All I said was that Iraq, pre-invasion was not as repressive a society as N. Korea or Sudan. You can make reference to rape rooms and poison gas and thugocracies all you want, but these things will only go so far. In 2003, the biggest threat to that basically secular society was UN sanctions.
I never said we should have invaded Sudan. This is not BDS, this is me taking issue with people who, 5 years later, still insist that our presence in Iraq is about "Keeping us safe in a post-9/11 world." As for Bush, I truly believe that if he could do it over, he would not have invaded Iraq.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Start with Saudi Arabia.
March 28, 2008 - 09:15 ET by general companyStart with Saudi Arabia.
Why them first?
but it wasn't North Korea or Sudan
Are you suggesting that it wasnt as bad as, or ?
still insist that our presence in Iraq is about "Keeping us safe in a post-9/11 world."
Well then what is?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
The Saudi Arabia thing was
March 28, 2008 - 09:23 ET by JasonCThe Saudi Arabia thing was a joke, because we so obviously will not attack them. And I hate to use an old, tired point, but that should have been seriously discussed if our decision to invade someone in that region had to do with 9/11.
I'm not actually suggesting we invade anyone. I'm using these examples to point out the arbitrariness and hypocrisy involved in the 'decision' to invade Iraq.
Well then what is it? At this point, it's about fixing what we done broke and salvaging political careers/legacies.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
At this point, it's about
March 28, 2008 - 09:50 ET by general companyAt this point, it's about fixing what we done broke and salvaging political careers/legacies.
This is what is keeping us safe? Didnt work when Clinton was in the WH. He was busy tying to fix his "political careers/legacies", and they were still blowing up things like the USS Cole and a few Embissies? But I guess that differnt, right?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
These laws exist in that
March 20, 2008 - 17:47 ET by MrShyThese laws exist in that future to prevent massive wars that result in millions of casualties and deaths.
Well, and it's a great thing that our country has not embarked on any kind of massive war resulting in millions of casualties and deaths.
We went into a country and quickly took down a terrible regime, got pulled into a fight with suicidal insurgants, a big percentage coming from outside Iraq, and all things considered, after 5 years our casualties have been amazingly low, thank God, and I certainly feel the world is a lot safer post-Saddam. There has not been a major terrorist attack since 2005, so that's very positive already. And removing Saddam and setting Iraq on a good course, smack in the middle of the M.E., will continue to have a positive rippling effect as far as basic freedoms and democracy worldwide.
If we want a free world where people have the right to do what they want without the threat of violence by someone else or their government, the way to get there isn't by using violence. Fighting fire with fire is not going to work.
Like I stated above, we are already seeing a free-er world and a safer world, post-Saddam.
rfrancis1980, the good guys are chasing down -- and killing, if necessary -- the very bad guys, and I'm grateful for my country that we're doing this.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Only about 5% of insurgents aren't native Iraqis
March 21, 2008 - 18:50 ET by rfrancis1980Read any of the reports the U.S. government itself puts out on the make up of the insurgents in Iraq, only about 5% are foreign born.
1 in 20 is not a big percentage. Do some reading and fact checking rather than remaining willfully ignorant.
The Vietnam war resulted in the deaths of 2 million Vietnamese. So much for no wars resulting in millions of deaths.
The Iraq war has death total estimates in excess of half a million by some studies. Since our government never saw fit to do body counts we don't know for sure. Considering the ratio of wounded to dead U.S. soldiers it stands to reason that more than a million Iraqis have been wounded in this conflict.
Your feelings shouldn't be the basis of Iraq policy. Rational thoughts and actions based on the facts should be the basis of our policy. Saddam was not a threat to the United States. In the history of his country he never attacked us. At the most, and this is a stretch, he shot at U.S. airplanes from time to time enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq.
He did not have the military capability to attack our country and he was not behind 9/11.
There were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from the first WTC bombing under Clinton to 9/11 under Bush. A longer time period than since 2005 which has made you feel safe.
You have no idea what the consequences of this Iraq war will be. It is a faith based assumption not born out of any facts that freedom and democracy will spread out of Iraq from this. None of us know what the repurcussions of this will be Nostrodomos.
rfrancis 1980
March 21, 2008 - 21:25 ET by MrShyFirst off, were you born in 1980? (man, I'm getting old :p)
Okay, quickly:
Read any of the reports the U.S. government itself puts out on the make up of the insurgents in Iraq, only about 5% are foreign born.
Not buying that 5% number, but okay, I'll do some research and get back to you.
The Vietnam war resulted in the deaths of 2 million Vietnamese. So much for no wars resulting in millions of deaths.
I meant the current war, in Iraq. I should have included that, sorry. Yes, we engaged in a true quagmire some 40 years ago. Iraq has no resemblance to that war, especially in death/casualty numbers. That's all I was arguing.
The Iraq war has death total estimates in excess of half a million by some studies. Since our government never saw fit to do body counts we don't know for sure. Considering the ratio of wounded to dead U.S. soldiers it stands to reason that more than a million Iraqis have been wounded in this conflict.
Okay, "some studies" and "considering the ratio.... it stands to reason..." don't cut it. Give me some links, and I'll look at them.
Your feelings shouldn't be the basis of Iraq policy. Rational thoughts and actions based on the facts should be the basis of our policy. Saddam was not a threat to the United States. In the history of his country he never attacked us. At the most, and this is a stretch, he shot at U.S. airplanes from time to time enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq.
This is not my feelings. I was telling you how I see a much safer/free-er world post-Saddam. Arguments about pre-invasion are valid, but we're now 5 years post-invasion.
There were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from the first WTC bombing under Clinton to 9/11 under Bush. A longer time period than since 2005 which has made you feel safe.
Never said "terror attacks on U.S. soil". I was referring to worldwide. There were several major, coordinated/orchestrated attacks by al Queda throughout the 1990's, and a lot of their energy/resources went into the lead-up to 9/11. I believe the last al Quada-connected attack was 2003 or 2004. So far, so good.
You have no idea what the consequences of this Iraq war will be. It is a faith based assumption not born out of any facts that freedom and democracy will spread out of Iraq from this. None of us know what the repurcussions of this will be Nostrodomos.
Granted, no, I probably don't have an idea. And as you then stated, "none of us know...." you don't, either. Time will tell.
My take on things are not borne from just some "blind faith" in things. I have some statistics/facts to give me hope that this could turn out good, and so far, we are not clearly in more danger of terrorism now than we were 5 years ago, and I'm not buying that we've "lost our standing in the world" which I hear non-stop.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
rf 1980, Millions died in Viet nam, AFTER WE LEFT
March 21, 2008 - 21:38 ET by upcountrywaterCUT AND RUN
You want the same thing for Iraq... you are a typical liberal.
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>InfrastructureROFLMAO
It's Fiction, Not Fact
March 20, 2008 - 17:58 ET by CGatton"These laws exist in that future to prevent massive wars that result in millions of casualties and deaths."
ROTFLMAO
"These laws" dont even exist, lol. They are a fiction writer's political commentary - about what he/she thinks would be good for men/mankind/the universe. Naturally, the shows are structured to demonstrate the wonderful benefits of these directives, which are in reality nothing more than the beliefs of the writer. Utopias don't work - can't work because of human nature, and that is immutable.
I'm not saying that an individual cannot change or be persuaded to be something he is not, but human nature, in the as-born collective, is fixed by our biology. As positive as I am of that, I am even more certain that people will continue to run around preaching that it can be changed. That also is inevitable, as without such a concept and belief system, people would have to learn to compromise in earnest. Realizing this would sow the seeds of destruction of libertarianism, since it relies on people being able to handle total freedom.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
making decisions about Iraq
March 20, 2008 - 18:27 ET by TruthMongermaking decisions about Iraq - based on STAR TREK:)? that is good
You've clearly not watched the show enough or at all
March 21, 2008 - 21:07 ET by rfrancis1980First of all the Prime Directive, Non-Interference, is a policy position that existed long before you were born.
It is based off of a policy begun in 1648 called Westphalian Sovereignty:
http://en.wikipedia....
Its hardly portrayed as a Utopian principle in the show, you can view criticisms of it made in the show here:
http://en.wikipedia....
In actuality its more like what people say about democracy: "Its the worst system of government except for all the others". Non-Interference is the worst foreign policy platform except for all the others. It prevents wars that never have to take place, it prevents us from imposing our beliefs and opinions on others through violence, and it prevents wars that might actually work out for the best in the long run except for the fact we can't predict the future and have no way of knowing whether we will just make things worse.
An article on dunbar's number referred to as the monkeysphere has a lot to say about our inate primate brains:
http://www.pointless...
Though I would argue that what makes each individual is their biological programming with environmental programming layered on top of it chronologically.
I think compromise is quite possible if we except each other as we are. I am a libertarian and I do not think at the Global or Federal or even State level there should be consensual crime laws. I think that should be at the county or town level. Then citizens of a county or town can decide what they want to allow in public in their small societies. It's not ideal from my POV but I think it would serve us better than what we have.
People who violate consensual crime laws could face punishment or choose banishment from said town or county where the law was violated.
This would work as well in the U.S. as it would in the Middle East where many areas desire Islamic laws. All the sinners could decide to form their own free towns or Islamic towns where they are free to sin in public. People just might be able to get along better that way, out of sight, out of mind. Fundamentally though individual people would get to make these choices at the local level and if the biology of Dunbar's number is to be believed it might help make for more peaceful coexistence.
lighten up francis
March 21, 2008 - 21:16 ET by botgi get my political philosophy from the 3 Stooges
woob woob woob woob woob
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Tell That To My WIfe
March 22, 2008 - 00:45 ET by CGattonFirst, I neither cite nor accept Wikipedia as a reference. Not that it really matters. I never once stated who specifically created it, nor when it was created. I merely said it was a fiction writer's pipe dream. That statement stands, and you have tacitly accepted it when you wrote, "It is based off of a policy..." All fiction is based on something, yet it remains fiction.
As for my not watching (enough) Star Trek - I'll let you tell that to my wife. Don't pay any attention to me as I stand downwind of that exchange, lol.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
CG
March 22, 2008 - 00:52 ET by BlondeLive long and Prosper....\\//
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Gatton
March 22, 2008 - 01:20 ET by candanceNotice how this thread has been cleverly pulled away from "the media is biased about Iraq" to "you've never watched Star Treck."
I smell a troll.
candance
March 22, 2008 - 01:37 ET by botgi can't believe you all answered with anything other than ridecule
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
well Bot
March 22, 2008 - 01:44 ET by candanceThat was my first reply to this thread. As I was reading it, I busted a gut at that Star Treck reference...using a fictional TV show as a model for foreign policy. Liberals never cease to amaze with their willingness to say the stupidest crap.
If I'd been the first to reply to that it would have been a simple ROFPMSL.
candance
March 22, 2008 - 01:47 ET by botgnuk nuk nuk
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Where Do Ideas Come From?
March 22, 2008 - 12:37 ET by rfrancis1980If the only excepted origin of good ideas is from current political leaders and not literature and the arts this country is in bigger trouble than I thought.
It's much easier to ignore the vast content of my posts and ridicule one small element. That way you can ignore responding to any of the other good ideas mentioned and pretend the whole thing is bunk.
An excellent example of a closed mind.
the epistomology of political
March 22, 2008 - 12:49 ET by botgthought and rhetoric; Moe's collorary: violence works!
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
botg
March 22, 2008 - 13:01 ET by BlondeI don't think Moe's corollary would work on this troll....a swift kick to the head would only make him spew more fantasy foreign policy.
Star Trek?
LOL.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
beam me up Blondie
March 22, 2008 - 13:04 ET by botgyou are correct he ridicules himself!!
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Moe's collorary
March 22, 2008 - 14:25 ET by botgwas first used sucessfully (other than