The World Wants Obama

[Peter Parka]

No--I'm not--simply pointing out that perspective is everything. What is a "just" war? When is military action justified? In 1945 it was easy to determine an enemy. In 2008, they fight like cowards--they kill innocent people, they hide like rats. And we've had ENOURMOUS success in crippling Al Queda. That's something you know nothing about because the media doesn't want you to know that.

Here--read this regarding Al Queda:

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled



Now seriously--have you read ANYTHING like that anywhere? No--and you would likely not because you my friend are being fed exactly what they want you to be fed. What I find interesting about people on the left is they think the only kind or propoganda is positive propoganda from the right, but the absence of accurate reporting by the left wing media is every bit the propoganda as presenting false facts. And if you beleive you've been presented accurate facts, you are really naive.

As you can probably guess, I dont read the Washington post the same as I wouldn't expect you to read the Harlow Star. I read a lot though and Iraq has nothing to do with AlQaeda. I support the war in Afghanistan because it does. if we really want to find Bin Laden, its not a secret that the mountains on the borders of Pakistan is when we need to be concentrating our efforts. Al Qaeda only made it through to Iraq because there was no tyranical leader there to stop them any more.

 

[Fox Mulder]

By the way--I never heard of the expression "take the piss" -- I like it though so now I'm going to use it!

 

[Peter Parka]

Yes--always like the way you Brits can take the piss--got much better senses of humor too than the average American. Also, the women are more looser, but that might be just based on the impression wednesday's made on me!!! :24::24::24:

Hell you havent been to Essex! Lookup jokes about Essex girls, the're not that untrue!

 

[Fox Mulder]

As you can probably guess, I dont read the Washington post the same as I wouldn't expect you to read the Harlow Star. I read a lot though and Iraq has nothing to do with AlQaeda.

That's not true at all Peter--this is HUGE misconception that has widespread belief. Here's where the confusion comes from (bear with me a minute please and take an open mind on this). The AB crowd (anti-Bush) have made the claim (unsupported) that one of the reasons Bush attacked Iraq was a link between Hussein and 9/11 and in fact there is no link. As far as anyone can tell Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 (I have my doubts on that but there is no evidence and you need evidence to prove an assertion). Now Bush never said there was a link between Hussein and 9/11.

What Bush said was there was a link between Al Queda and Iraq and that is true. Al Queda had training facilities in Iraq. But what the AB crowd has done is sieze upon that subtle distinction and use it to discredit Bush and the invasion into Iraq by making the claim that Bush alleged a link between Hussein and 9/11--he never did.

Now I don't care whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not--that's your perogative. But at least know the facts--don't base the opinion on facts that are actually not true.

 

[Peter Parka]

That's not true at all Peter--this is HUGE misconception that has widespread belief. Here's where the confusion comes from (bear with me a minute please and take an open mind on this). The AB crowd (anti-Bush) have made the claim (unsupported) that one of the reasons Bush attacked Iraq was a link between Hussein and 9/11 and in fact there is no link. As far as anyone can tell Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 (I have my doubts on that but there is no evidence and you need evidence to prove an assertion). Now Bush never said there was a link between Hussein and 9/11.

What Bush said was there was a link between Al Queda and Iraq and that is true. Al Queda had training facilities in Iraq. But what the AB crowd has done is sieze upon that subtle distinction and use it to discredit Bush and the invasion into Iraq by making the claim that Bush alleged a link between Hussein and 9/11--he never did.

Now I don't care whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not--that's your perogative. But at least know the facts--don't base the opinion on facts that are actually not true.

See, I'm British and our official reason givenfor the war in Iraq was that Saddam could attack us with WMDs within 20 minutes.

 

[Fox Mulder]

As you can probably guess, I dont read the Washington post the same as I wouldn't expect you to read the Harlow Star.

Well its not just the Washington Post--I gave you the first link I found, and there is a big difference anyway between the Washington Post and the Harlow Star. But this is my point--if you talk to the people who actually have been to Iraq--the soldiers, they tell you a completely different story. They know the success they are having which is why so many of them support it so vigorously. In fact, many were there initially were shocked by what they read in the news.

Took me a while but I found a BBC article that completely jives (factually) with the Washington Post article, EXCEPT you will notive the BBC take specific quotes by General Petreous to an "hedges" them to downplay any success. Even their "title"


BBC NEWS | Middle East | No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

General Petraeus on the Iraq campaign

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there

Now reading that article, the BBC has "cherry picked" only the stuff they wanted from the Petraeus interview and completely hid the fact that there has been significant success in Iraq because Petraeus has said that and quoted as saying that.

Seriously--why did the NOT report any of the positive things he said or "spin" them as negative? Because that particular journalist does not want to anything positive said about Iraq--the BBC has been against it and a big opponent of it--and they have not given a fair appraisal of the successes there regardless of whether the invasion was justified or not.

 

[Peter Parka]

The success in Iraq isn't the issue, the reason for invading a country posing no threat to us is though.

 

[Fox Mulder]

The success in Iraq isn't the issue, the reason for invading a country posing no threat to us is though.

Well you are correct--that is certainly an issue for reasonable debate. But how we got on this topic was pointing out that you are going to get a "slant" from the media, no matter how credible you think it is.

 

[Peter Parka]

I still think that BBC news is morecredible that picking from admittedly biased news sources to backup your thoughts.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I still think that BBC news is morecredible that picking from admittedly biased news sources to backup your thoughts.

Well its certainly has high standards of journalistic credibility, no doubt, I don't deny it, but there is a lot of wiggle room in presenting "facts" even with very high standards.

And the Washington Post (which I cited above) is considered a liberal newspaper. Wikipedia says:

The Washington Post is the largest and most circulated newspaper in Washington, D.C. It is also one of the city's oldest papers, having been founded in 1877. It is widely considered to be one of the most important newspapers in the United States due to its particular emphasis on national politics, and international affairs, and being a newspaper of record.

So if you read about success in Iraq in the Post you can bet its factually true because that Newspaper like the BBC is anti-Bush and anit-Iraq.

 

[Fox Mulder]

BTW--check out my last post in the "Injured Vietnam Vet" thread--you will get a kick out of it!

 

[Peter Parka]

I think I will bow out of this for tonight, I'm so drunk I'm missing some of my own posts right now. Still think you are full of shit though!

 

[Fox Mulder]

Still think you are full of shit though!

Conclusive evidence I am correct!!!

 

[Alien Allen]

I think I will bow out of this for tonight, I'm so drunk I'm missing some of my own posts right now. Still think you are full of shit though!

Conclusive evidence I am correct!!!

actually the only thing it proves is that the guy can handle his liquor pretty damn well.

 

[Fox Mulder]

actually the only thing it proves is that the guy can handle his liquor pretty damn well.

Well, I put a nasty pissing on him!!!

 

[Alien Allen]

Well, I put a nasty pissing on him!!!

if you say so :24:

 

[Fox Mulder]

if you say so :24:

You just don't know how to speak Englander. Giving the "piss" means "busting balls" in American!

So, for example, you are always giving the piss to Lumpy and Strauss!

 

[Alien Allen]

You just don't know how to speak Englander. Giving the "piss" means "busting balls" in American!

So, for example, you are always giving the piss to Lumpy and Strauss!

I knew that you dumb ass.

admit it. you been drinking tonite.

 

[siasl]

What Bush said was there was a link between Al Queda and Iraq and that is true.

hmmm....technically, you are correct....but it is a fine distinction, indeed

gotta question....why haven't we toppled the pakistani government, the jordian government, the saudia arabian government, the syrian government, and a half a dozen other governments in the mideast and in southeast asia?

because we thought iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
no
because we thought hussein had them, and (some of us) convinced ourselves that HIS ambitions were global...in the political enviroment immediately after 911, the concern was about al queda and the weapons of mass destruction.....hussein's weapons of mass destruction....the man we feared had global ambitions, mingling with a terrorist group who'd just proved they could attack america

we just sorta ignored what nearly every expert was quick to point out....that the strongman had, at most, regional ones.

the finery of your distinction is only that iraq has different letters in it than hussein.....the two words were damn near synonyms until the hussein regime was ended.

now that they refer to two different things again, your distinction sounds huge.....7 years ago, it was merely semantics

 

[Fox Mulder]

the finery of your distinction is only that iraq has different letters in it than hussein.....the two words were damn near synonyms until the hussein regime was ended.

So your contention is that Hussein and Iraq are damn near synonymous and that gives liberals the right to totally distort the truth? :confused

So I guess Bush and the United States are synonymous? Or Blair and the UK?

Come on--that's a contrived excuse for the distortion of truth.