How the US(and others) will LOSE (page 4)

DakotaRed

You believe only reporting the bad is somehow "fair and balanced?" People die in war, that's a given. But, there are many incidents of good that never get reported. I witnessed more than a few myself.

How many are killed in England everyday from traffic accidents, Simon? If like the US, it is probably scores higher than is killed in Iraq daily. Yet, where is the outcry?

Had many of your fellow countrymen and later on, Americans not been willing to face dangers and death, you just might be goose-stepping and chanting seig heil today. Are Iraqis any less deserving?

Why not click on the links I provided and read for yourself what the Democratic led delegation to Iraq had to say and then find it in mainstream media. You may claim to not remember me complaining, but I have been very critical of the US media for well over 30 years now. For the longest time, mainstream media was all we had to read or listen too. Lately, through the internet and groups like Foxnews, we have another side to compare with.

But, good news doesn't sell, does it? It also flies in the face of the seething love some have for foreign countries.

Simon

I think the US news media have an obsession with 'bad news' and disaster ... all helps to keep the population afraid, controllable and better consumers I guess. It is not the same everywhere, some countries have a lot more in-depth analysis and also report 'feel-good' news.

How many are killed in England everyday from traffic accidents, Simon? If like the US, it is probably scores higher than is killed in Iraq daily. Yet, where is the outcry?

True. The same comparison could be made with the Sep 11 deaths and road deaths or, for instance, the much higher number of under 5's that die in the 3rd world every day from preventable diseases and malnutrition. Where is the outcry? Good question. Some people criticise countries who don't do enough or as much as they could and some people chose t oreligiously defend them imagining it makes them patriotic.

Had many of your fellow countrymen and later on, Americans not been willing to face dangers and death, you just might be goose-stepping and chanting seig heil today. Are Iraqis any less deserving?

Of course, the big difference is that Germany was an aggressor and our fight was in defense. Iraq is different - they have been invaded.

But, good news doesn't sell, does it?

I don't think it sells in America. Maybe it's because of the media / political setup there. Politics does seem to be so based on money it's almost untrue and this inturn feeds into the media and vice versa. If I could wish one thing on America it would be that there was a cap on political spending and donations ... I think this would fix a lot of problems.

It also flies in the face of the seething love some have for foreign countries.

'seething love' ? Hands up everyone who knows what that means!

Englishman

Sorry, but I believe that the invasion of Iraq was essential. The fall-out of deaths occuring is minimal. 30,000 British troops are in Iraq, one of them is my nephew. My son has just finished 12 years in the Army with the 9 / 12 Royal Lancers.

We have an effective army and guys with the heart to fight battles, why should they have sat at home and let Saddam run amok?

We don't do that and neither do the Americans!

Thank God.

Englishman.

DakotaRed

Simon, maybe you are right about the differences in our medias, but from what I've seen in UK media so far, they appear very much similar to me. Of course, I've only been viewing UK media for a few months, not years.

Iraq (meaning the Saddam Hussein government, not the people) is far from a non-aggressor. He was also far from "contained" as some feel. When the coalition ousted him from Kuwait 12 years ago, given the knowledge we all had of him, the UN and the coalition should have gone on and taken him out then, in my opinion. But, the same ones wanting him to remain in power today were the ones wanting him left alone back then. Why? For their own financial reward, I believe.

Had previous administrations not decimated the intelligence community by disallowing so much human intelligence gathering, maybe a clearer picture could have been developed, but nothing we can do about yesterday today.

Don't take the "seething love" statement personal, it was a general statement about all nations. Every nation has too many that can't accept differences and still get along. History has shown us that. When they can't and start trying to cause harm to others, someone needs to step in and adjust their attitudes.

SixofNine

Iraq (meaning the Saddam Hussein government, not the people) is far from a non-aggressor. He was also far from "contained" as some feel.

Every day that passes without wmd's, shows just how well contained Saddam was. In fact, I think it is fair to say that for all intents and purposes, Saddam was fully contained, in regards to being a threat to the world.

Now, you may say that he was a real and present threat to his own people, and you'd be right, but even that could have been far better contained w/o a full scale occupation of Iraq. Saving Iraqi lives simply was not the purpose of this mission.

The options we had other than the course we took, are many. There were probably 100 different ways to handle Iraq that would hve been better than the PNAC plan.

Simon

I think we've done the whole "should we / shouldn't we" about the war.

Whether war was the necessary action to deal with Saddam or not, the simple fact is that the problem (Saddam) was one of America's own making so all the claims of saving the Iraqi people are a bit hollow when they only suffered because he was put there in the first place.

It's better not to break the vase than make even a half decent job of repairing it.

DakotaRed

Every day that passes without wmd's, shows just how well contained Saddam was.

Six, perhaps you could read David Kays speech about WMDs again and the efforts to interfere with the search as well as what has actually been found. Then, please explain the peaceful purpose for the vial of live botulinium that was discovered there.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

If it's too difficult to click on the link and Simon doesn't mind, I'll post the entire article for you.

As for "containment," the knowledge of him offering to pay upwards of $25,000 to families of suicide bombers and discovery of the terrorist training camp, with a mock up airliner, south of Baghdad, shows me that he was quite active outside of Iraq while remaining inside.

DakotaRed

the simple fact is that the problem (Saddam) was one of America's own making so all the claims of saving the Iraqi people are a bit hollow when they only suffered because he was put there in the first place.

I guess you're right, Simon. Reminds me of British aggression against Hitler back in the 1930s. Afterall, Hitler hadn't fired a shot against Britain when they declared war on him. Neville Chamberlain even had a signed and sealed pact with him. Seems you just can't trust warmongering Democratic nations against peaceful and loving dictators anymore.

Englishman

I guess you're right, Simon. Reminds me of British aggression against Hitler back in the 1930s. Afterall, Hitler hadn't fired a shot against Britain when they declared war on him. Neville Chamberlain even had a signed and sealed pact with him. Seems you just can't trust warmongering Democratic nations against peaceful and loving dictators anymore.

Heh.

Now then, D.R, you know that we warned him about going into Poland.

Plus, Brit aggression? We've never yet ever declared war on, um, Portugal!

Englishman.

ISP

The US and UK need to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. They know it. Its just a matter of doing it so that people think they 'won'.

ISP

How the US(and others) will LOSE

Share this