How's our Iraq invasion working out?

[Brixtonbulldog]

its not an invasion...its a liberation 

we r liberating iraq of its oil and people at a record pace! 

god told bush to liberate iraq..soo actually its like a jihad..buut its ok when christians do it 

Riiiigggghhhht.

[ToxicAvenger]

Riiiigggghhhht.

soo people aren't dying?

wasn't this called "operation iraqi freedom'?

didn't bush HIMSELF say god told him to bring democracy to the people of iraq??

u tell me.. 

[Brixtonbulldog]

No. Rummy deserved 100% of the blame.

Troops in Afghanistan have needed, begged, and wished for FIXED ARTILLERY. Fixed artillery is not subject to weather or time of day like the C130 gunships.

Rummy denied fixed artillery in Afghanistan. Why? Because he didn't want us to "look like the Soviets". That's why. He was more worried about image than lives.

Rummy fragmented combat troops who have trained together as a unit for DECADES. Why? He wanted a mobile force. So, a fragment of the group goes into combat without the support that they have trained with FOR DECADES. Good call? Not really.

Rummy utterly fucked the the way the U.S. military deploys for combat. Why? Image. No other reason. Rummy has cost many lives.

Hmm.... interesting points.  Thanks for bringing them up and motivating me to see for myself.

What's your view on the war as a whole?

[Hedgehog]

Oh, and please, can we drop the "Faux" News. I love how it is treated by some people, yet those that criticize it will glady go watch CNN or turn on Olberrmann or Chris fucking Mathews over on MSNBC. Because let me guess, CNN and MSNBC are split right down the ole' middle when it comes to coverage. Give me a fucking break. Every news outlet is slanted, most of them to the left, people just usually want to watch something that tells them what they want to hear.

Fox News is biased. It's a bullshit news station, which now has been pitching Hillary Clinton as the only Democratic alternative for a good while.

CNN, while it deserve a lot of critisism for self-censoring a lot the years following the 9-11, is still a news outlet that has an objective to bring news in a unbiased manner.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Republican presidential candidate has gotten the most airtime on the major networks since the mid 80's.

The Media owners tend to be conservative, while the journalists tend to be Democrats. There is still a slight bias, the media is favoring the corporate America, those who buy their ads.

Remember however, that in the code of journalism, objectivity is focal. It is only FOX which has left that.

The Australian Rupert Murdoch dictates how a lot of Americans will vote, through his FOX Network. Even though I am not American, I don't feel too good about how one man can have so much influence on the most important country in the world.

-Hedge

[Brixtonbulldog]

soo people aren't dying?

wasn't this called "operation iraqi freedom'?

didn't bush HIMSELF say god told him to bring democracy to the people of iraq??

u tell me.. 

It's a war dummy... of course people are dying.

You have a beef with the name?  Did I imagine an Iraqi election?  Was that a dream?

He's a religious man.. so what.  Either way when this is all over (assuming it's left to us and we don't let the UN take over) they might actually have a chance of not ending up under another brutal, murderous dictator.

 

[Brixtonbulldog]

Fox News is biased. It's a bullshit news station, which now has been pitching Hillary Clinton as the only Democratic alternative for a good while.

CNN, while it deserve a lot of critisism for self-censoring a lot the years following the 9-11, is still a news outlet that has an objective to bring news in a unbiased manner.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Republican presidential candidate has gotten the most airtime on the major networks since the mid 80's.

The Media owners tend to be conservative, while the journalists tend to be Democrats. There is still a slight bias, the media is favoring the corporate America, those who buy their ads.

Remember however, that in the code of journalism, objectivity is focal. It is only FOX which has left that.

The Australian Rupert Murdoch dictates how a lot of Americans will vote, through his FOX Network. Even though I am not American, I don't feel too good about how one man can have so much influence on the most important country in the world.

-Hedge

No it's not.  Fox news presents both sides.  If you spent more time watching it for yourself instead of reading about what clowns say about it on the internet.

I think you've been watching more biased networks for so long you actually consider them to be "middle of the road."  .. laughable.

They report stuff that makes the other news networks and the left as a whole look foolish... they interview and debate those other networks are afraid to.. I see a lot more objectivity in that than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC ever have.

[OzmO]

hahahahahahah


right.

[tommywishbone]

True story:

When I was a little kid, I had a little kitten. Kitten's name was Puff. Some how little Puff wandered outside, and I guess he bothered a neighbor. I found little Puff tied up in a plastic bag. I don't know who killed Puff... most likely never will. That was 30 years ago, and if I ever find out who killed my kitten, I'll kill them and their entire family. True story.

Moral of the story? Iraq is insanity.

[Brixtonbulldog]

hahahahahahah


right.

You think I'm shitting you?  Okay..

On no other network will you find conservative guests and liberal guests evenly matched.

On the other networks you might have 6/1 to 3/1 liberal and on Fox the average is more like 1/1. 

Hate all you want but the stats speak for themselves.

[Brixtonbulldog]

True story:

When I was a little kid, I had a little kitten. Kitten's name was Puff. Some how little Puff wandered outside, and I guess he bothered a neighbor. I found little Puff tied up in a plastic bag. I don't know who killed Puff... most likely never will. That was 30 years ago, and if I ever find out who killed my kitten, I'll kill them and their entire family. True story.

Moral of the story? Iraq is insanity.

I offer the above argument as testament to the way liberals argue. 

[tommywishbone]

I offer the above argument as testament to the way liberals argue. 

Liberal?  I'm a Secular Humanist, it ain't quite the same young man.

[Hedgehog]

No it's not.  Fox news presents both sides.  If you spent more time watching it for yourself instead of reading about what clowns say about it on the internet.

I think you've been watching more biased networks for so long you actually consider them to be "middle of the road."  .. laughable.

They report stuff that makes the other news networks and the left as a whole look foolish... they interview and debate those other networks are afraid to.. I see a lot more objectivity in that than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC ever have.

Let me give you an example:

This was a report on Fox. Since I live in Sweden, it was very easy for me, with a few calls, check the facts of this story.

I called the Emergency Central, and asked them what their procedures were like when driving out to the neighborhoods in question. They told me they had no extra arrangements made.

Then I asked them about if there ever was a police car escorting. No, they said. But a lot of times, a police car would already be at the scene of the event, since police, at least in Sweden, gets called out on most incidents and accidents.

Fox twisted the facts into making a part of Sweden look like a war zone, to feed the Muslim hate.

That's bullshit and not even journalism.

It's propaganda.


A side note: I am highly critical of all things Muslim, but I don't like lies. More than anything, I hate lies. And Fox was lying here. The truth needs to be told.

This was just one example.

And I was able to call the bluff with a few simple phone calls. It blows my mind how much bullshit Fox must be pulling everyday.

No, it's not about Fox being conservative. I would be just as critical of it, had it been doing the same for the Democrats. And I've been bringing attention to the shift in Fox's agenda for a long while now. Fox is backing Hillary Clinton as well as the Republicans.

I am against any hidden agendas in the media.

Therefore, I've lashed out against Olbermann in the past too. The type of journalism which he and O'Reilly does, commentary (or rather, telling their viewers how to think) is stupid, and not creative.

I am a big fan of Tim Russert.

-Hedge

[tommywishbone]

It's a war dummy... of course people are dying.

You have a beef with the name?  Did I imagine an Iraqi election?  Was that a dream?

He's a religious man.. so what.  Either way when this is all over (assuming it's left to us and we don't let the UN take over) they might actually have a chance of not ending up under another brutal, murderous dictator.

 

It ain't no war dummy. It's rape. It's tourture. It's robbery. It's brigidage. It ain't war.

Was Stalingrad a war? Of course not, it was mass murder, and the killers got exactly what they deserved.

[Mr. Intenseone]

It ain't no war dummy. It's rape. It's tourture. It's robbery. It's brigidage. It ain't war.

It's a war to the likes no one has ever seen, the rape, tourture and robbery is all done by the insurgents, strapping bombs on and blowing themselves up where innocent people are like pizza parlours and weddings, hiding in places like hospitals and schools, like I said, it's was that NO ONE have ever seen!!

[GigantorX]

No, Stalingrad was one of the most, if not the most, significant battles on any front during World War II. Both sides were fighting for an objective and ended up killing a lot of eachother. Mass murder would be something more along the lines Rowanda or Darfur or any other 'cleansing'. Oh, then who were the "killers" during the "mass-murder" of Stalingrad? The Wermacht? or the Red Army? The SS? Paulus? I'm going to go ahead and say all of these soldiers killed plenty of each other, sooooo they all got what they deserved? Walk me through this minefield of logic you are using.

And the "rape, robbery, torture" is nonsensical. Iraq is a war ,albiet often times an asymetrical one, between not only the Coalition and various insurgent groups, but the democratically elected Iraqi government and against those various insurgent groups. Saddam Hussien gassing and commiting acts of genocide against the Kurds to the tune of 100,000 dead or the Turks massacring the Armeniens, now that is mass murder. Man, it seems that the lenses of the glasses through which you look at this information are just a bit dirty, better clean them up.

Hope This Helps!

[tommywishbone]

"...Hope This Helps!"

No, no it doesn't. You need a lesson in violence and death young man. Dying for someone elses noble cause, is still dying.

Stalingard was insanity on the Germans part... we're the Germans in Iraq. We're going to lose, and we're going to lose huge.

Edit: Or perhaps you still think the Germans were still right?

[GigantorX]

We are not the Germans in Iraq. We are the Americans in Iraq. Quite a big difference. Using battles from World War II and trying to compare them to the American war in Iraq makes little sense. You are trying to make connections where there are little to none. Different rationales for engaging, different home fronts, different enemies, tactics etc. Stalingrad was a gamble on Germany's part, a gamble in which they lost.

And what are your reasons for us losing, and "losing huge" You're language and demeanor in this exchange leads me to believe you are rooting for a loss. I could be wrong, maybe, maybe not. Also, were the Germans right about what? The entire war, Barbarossa, or the push into Stalingrad to capture the Caucasus mountains? And "tommywishbone" please give me the lessons that I need so desperately I do need a lecture from you!!! (end obvious sarcasm) Please, quit with the "young man" bullshit, you have no idea how hold I am or the age of many other people on this board. Dispense with the condescension, especially because you have shown you are not above anyone else on here.

Hope This Helps!

[tommywishbone]

"...You're language and demeanor in this exchange leads me to believe you are rooting for a loss....'

    Of course I'm rooting for a loss. I'm always on the side on the right. The people who are right. They're right and we're wrong. That's got to be easy to grasp.

PS.The only way to win this arguement is for you to admit that bush is right and Iraq needs to be destroyed, and all it's people killed. Your play my friend...

[daddy8ball]

We're the Germans in Iraq?

I don't think so.

Circa 1940 Germans wouldn't put up with 1/100 of the bullshit we do.

(No shooting at mosque, etc.)

[vikingpower]

Looks like bush & his gang didn't realize mass murder and genocide weren't that much fun.


end of rant...

before the invasion you killed about 2.5 million with sanctions ... so another 500k with sectraian violence isnt really that bad

bush and cheney knew exactly how this war would progress ... all they wanted was to establish permanent bases on the other side of iran (the first side being afgan) ... now they are flanked and once negoiatins with othr surrounding states are secured for logisics regarding air support and whatnot ... boom ... more death, er i mean freedom !

[gcb]

Hey we're just giving them the freedom to think our way or not at all 

[GigantorX]

Actually, no, that is not the only way to win this argument. Nice try though. And where did Bush say that "Iraq needs to be destroyed and all its people killed", because he would have actually needed to say that for me to agree with it.

And now that we are where we are in Iraq, who is "right"? Those who voted in the two democratically held elections and want peace or those who choose to fight and murder civilians and turn Iraq into a well funded breeding ground for genocide and terrorism? I really think that should be easy to grasp.also if you are referring to the latter as being those that are "right" then I think you need to reexamine your position. You sound like Michael Moore when he tried to compare that mass murding thugs that are currently blowing up children to our Revolutionary period Minutemen.... It's good to try and sound profound once and a while but geeze

[240 is Back]

Iraq is a big pile of oil and location.

Saddam was old, and his kids were clods.

SOMEONE was gonna rob them.  If it was China or Rus or Iran, we would have suffered.  Gas prices, security, and overall economy. 

Better us than them.  You're a moron if you think it's not about oil or position. 

[Mr. Intenseone]

Iraq is a big pile of oil and location.

Saddam was old, and his kids were clods.

SOMEONE was gonna rob them.  If it was China or Rus or Iran, we would have suffered.  Gas prices, security, and overall economy. 

Better us than them.  You're a moron if you think it's not about oil or position. 

Enough with the "it's all about the oil crap".

BTW, like everything else, it was bound to go up, I pay over three bucks a gallon for milk for my kid and coffee is even more..........it's all relative, if I'm not mistaken the US prices are still cheaper than Cananda and Europe and most Asian countries, I haven't researched, but I think I am correct.

And if you think we're stealing the oil, where the hell is it?

[vikingpower]

you are securing access to resources, stroking your economy, and (some people) are looting the treasury

stick to the bible joe