Your President will make a speech to the nation on Wednesday night and everyone expects that he will announce a troop "surge" in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers.
God help us.
.jpg)
1.08.2007
Death. Death. Death.
Your President will make a speech to the nation on Wednesday night and everyone expects that he will announce a troop "surge" in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers.
God help us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
But if we get 20,000 more troops over there we can complete the hands across Iraq campaign that W has so wished for!!!
If every single one of those soldiers were killed this year, it would still fall short of the number of people killed by drunks on our own soil. At least soldiers volunteer, can defend themselves, are trained, have proper expectations as to their circumstance and are honored. Victims of drunk drivers just get killed. And a free smoke detector would probably save as many lives this year as will be lost in Iraq. More people will be murdered this year by people who once were in jail for murder than will be killed in Iraq. War is awful, so are a lot of things.
So drunk drivers are justification for soldiers dying in Iraq? Huh?
Hey Barry why don't you take all your drunk pot-head pussy friends and move to Canada or France.
It's tough to prove a negative. How many deaths have been prevented by America's presence in Iraq?
If we extrapolate from the 3,000 people who were killed on one day (September 11, 2001 for those who have forgotten), an estimated 5.7 million people have not been killed (3000 x roughly 1900 days) because terrorists have been prevented from attacking.
This ignores, of course, the greater numbers who would have been killed with the terrorists' use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
(And yes, I know that no link between Iraq and 9/11 has been proven. However, the absence of attacks for five years indicates that there's some connection between Iraa and terrorism.)
wordkyle, you again demonstrate a complete lack of logic. I know you must be smarter than you appear in this blog. When you talk of "only" 3,000 deaths you ignore the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis - or don't they count? Some of you claim we need to be in Iraq to avenge the Iraqis killed by Saddam. However, we are now responsible for more of their deaths than Sadddam. As far as murders and car accidents, consider what we might have done in this country with the more than $100 BILLION we've spent on this unnecessary war.
FYI, I do support our military involvement in Afghanistan and think we should have better pursued that effort. Remember, it was Osama bin Laden and his cohorts using airplanes (not WMD) that attacked on 9/11.
I get it. Extrapolastrategery!
71,319,000 people saved since Pearl Harbor. If we would have kept killing those Japanese we could have saved the whole country by now.
Maybe we should occupy McDonald's next. While were at it we should bomb the tobacco farms in North Carolina.
Anon 1:48 PM: The word "only" does not appear in my comment. Talk to me about logic after you have actually read the post you purport to respond to.
kingfish: You have illustrated my point exactly. America's response to the Japanese attacks was hard, brutal, savage, and without hesitation or any of the traitorous yammering of opposing politicians. Nearly everyone worked together to defeat the enemy.
Compare that to the Democrats and the mainstream media, who hope for and have worked toward America's defeat. (Anyone for war secrets from the New York Times?)
wordkyle, your entire post of extrapolation based upon 3,000 killed on 9/11 is ludicrous. Do you actually suggest that the terrorists would have continued killing 3,000 a day unless we prevented them by doing whatever it is that you think has prevented those daily attacks? You're not that goofy, are you? (The “only” in the previous post refers to your earlier posts comparing our military losses in Iraq with our earlier wars.)
As for blaming Democrats and mainstream media for the disaster in Iraq - it just doesn't wash. Please also note that many or most Republicans are now turning against the failed policies of the Bush administration. When are you going to wake up?
And God help all the innocent people that are getting killed right here in the US by illegal immigrants.
More troops and 1 billion in cash so more Iraqi with connections can leave their country and set up villas around the world.
Best strategy, make current Iraqi politicians live outside the Green Zone and they will get serious about sectarian strife and militas.
George brought civil war to Iraq. Our good men should not stand between the two groups, nor should our cash fund this silliness
Where is he going to get 20,000 more troops? According to CBS on Friday the military said they only had 9,000 more troops.
12:17 & 1:48 Agreed! Twisted logic.
WordKyle: If we kill everyone who is not an American, how many lives have we saved? How do you like that Extrapolastrategery?
Barry, Keep up. The new buzz word being used by the libs is escalate not surge. You're welcome.
If you think the absences of attacks on our shores is due to anything other than God's grace (and I can't explain that) you're nuts.
Osama hasn't stopped. Our idiots have done nothing to make us safe! If anything, they have created more zealots. They haven't even shut down the madrasa schools in Saudi Arabia where the hate is being taught for fear of hurting our oil friends.
Best guess? It takes a long time to plan something that will top 9/11.
Another scientific link brought to you by TxSheehan. She believes everything the drive by media tells her.
3:05 anoNINNY: That came from the military. military commanders have told Bush they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq,
Can you provide proof that they are wrong?
If it comes from CBS or the New York Times, I discount it totally. They have lied to you too many times yet you still believe them
Washington Post is the source.
3:22, And Bush and the boys have NOT lied to you? You just must be kidding!
Clinton, Kerry, and all their minions were telling the same lies that Saddam had WMD's. Yet you believe them. Had Clinton not gutted the CIA, maybe both parties would have had credible intelligence.
What is it Sheehan? The Post or CBS. Get your story straight. Both of them are biased.
Lets send 20,000 cheap tampons to Txsheehan !
Kyle, I understand what your point is and if you think that exposing the fallacy in your logic validates your point, then there is no sense in arguing about it.
Let me leave you with this. Four times in our history we have experienced dealing with an armed insurgency using guerrilla tactics . First was the U.S. South versus the English during the Revolutionary War. The insurgents won. The second was the U.S. versus rebels in the Philippines. The insurgents won.
The third was Vietnam. The fourth is in Iraq now. We aren't winning.
We could send Patton, Jesus, and the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch and it isn't going to stop those people from killing us or each other.
3:42, Can't let the "blame Clinton" line go by. Please recall who was controlling Congress for the last 6 of Clinton's 8 years – the Republicans. It is the Congress that appropriates the $$ for government agencies. It was the Republicans who reduced the CIA budget and “gutted” the agency.
As for the WMD claims, many in the CIA doubted their existence but their advice was ignored by Bush. Congress is aware of only what is supplied to them. Some of the sensitive intelligence material is supplied to only selected members. Bottom line is there was no solid evidence of WMDs - only suspicion (and the knowledge that we had supplied chemical weapons to Saddam some 20 years earlier). We went to war with no evidence.
kingfish and various "anons": As I said, it's tough to prove a negative. The extrapolation was meant to be extreme. While all of us regret the loss of a single life unnecessarily, we don't know how many lives have been saved because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces in Iraq. Giving the running totals, as the mainstream media do every day, does not help the situation, and in fact makes it worse by encouraging those people who want to kill American troops.
By the way, I believe the war in Iraq has been mishandled. Too much importance has been given to who we might "offend" versus killing those who would kill us.
I agree with you on one thing there, your right in that is hard to support negative. Especially in Iraq. The media has to report something. They cannot report troop movements on a day to day basis, and I think its fair to report losses of troops because that is what is happening. It is the truth. Now I agree that there is some bias in reporting. But do we want to live in a society with the media simply acting as propaganda for the government?
This war has given the current Administration perceived cause to manipulate and trample upon personal liberty and the Constitution. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is swill.
If you are going to conquer and rebuild a country in your own liking, you better damn well have a plan to do it. They didn't and still don't. Unacceptable.
Now, in reality no matter what we do there, it will end badly. Not just for us, but for them too. This President has really screwed everyone good. The worst part about it is day by day Iran gains more and more power over there.
I wish I knew of a solution to point to here, but I don't know of one. As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War, if your enemy is greater, evade and wait til you are stronger. In Iraq, we could have 500,000 ground troops and still not be able to get that job done.
We can all sit here and point fingers at each other, but the reality is all of those bastards in Washington sold our boys and girls out for what? WMD's? Hell I would believe that before i would ever believe they were just doing it for Democracy.
My Halliburton stock is doing well though, and after all, that is what really matters.
Kingfaggot. You can't even agree with someone correctly. You can't prove a negative, not support a negative.
Not sure if the Pug reader taught you reading comprehension. Perhaps you should go back and re-read his postings then mine.
Tell you what, give me your address and I will do my part for illiteracy and send you a hooked on phonics.
I think that north wind is blowing up your short robe and affecting the optical nerve that runs from your brain to your asshole that gives you that shitty outlook on life.
One thing is for sure, you are the asshole from up north of Decatur that probably wishes your optical nerve worked. Its understandable, your brain is choked from all the shit running through it. As for my outlook, I would rather have mine than yours any day. At least it is realistic and not a lie.
Shall I continue to dis-robe YOU or have you had enough?
You shouldn't troll on the internet. In the words of one of my good friends, I don't win, YOU LOSE!
Kingfaggot, You need to be in on the group hug. I'm sure you would enjoy all the reach arounds. You remind me of my dog when I am kicking his ass and he looks at me and says, Have you had enough?
You win, I can't top dog kicking.
Typical liberal. Cut and run. I was looking forward at your feeble attemtp to expose, out and own me. But I do enjoy having one less liberal weenie to put down.
You do such a great job of owning yourself, it's tough to compete with that.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
kingfish: I completely disagree with you about the role of the media and the job the media have done. There is a lot of other news regarding Iraq. The incessant trumpeting of American deaths, to the exclusion of everything else, damages the country in several ways:
* It encourages our enemies.
* It demoralizes our own troops.
* It affects public opinion, which in turn affects politicians' decisions (although it shouldn't.)
* It betrays the trust that we have placed in our media.
The New York Times took it upon itself to reveal intelligence secrets. In this case, the media took an active role against the health and safety of Americans. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.
I'm not saying American deaths shouldn't be reported, only that they have been reported way out of proportion to the entire picture.
Kyle,
I thought I was clear. I agree there is bias. There is also bias in the link you provided. Is Private Joker from Full Metal Jacket still writing for them?
The NYT is terrible also. Personally, I like to read the Guardian UK. The English still have credibility. We can go down the list of American and Islamic media and not find one without bias.
That is not why we are losing this war. We are losing because are enemy has a shorter supply line, more manpower, and better tactics to achieve what it wants. That is the fact.
We may leave with a government in place in a year or so, but you can replay the footage of the fall of Saigon, because that is almost inevitable barring an escalation of hostilities in the region. Even then, more will die.
I doubt our enemies are as influenced by our media as they are by their own religion. Our 'friends' don't even want us there anymore.
I understand what your points are and they are very similar, in fact identical to the situations in Vietnam.
kingfish: Given that bias is inherent, responsible journalism should try to balance the biases. It has instead overwhelmingly been biased toward negative information regarding Iraq. The news on the link I gave is not known to the vast majority of Americans. The Left has helped our enemies win the propaganda war.
As to comparisons with Vietnam, I'll let those interested in how different the two conflicts are read this article by military historian Frederick Kagan explaining the differences.
Kyle,
You and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the media is to blame for our soldiers inability to stop the insurgency. I believe they are doing their best but our military is built upon defeating a conventional foe. They did that, but then the game changed. They only control pockets of the country and cannot stop the flow of munitions and men from the borders. There are again too many people willing to martyr themselves and not enough coalition soldiers to stop it. The media can scream all day we are winning but that doesn't make it so.
You stated, the left has helped our enemies win the propaganda war. Propaganda? Well, I thought the "Mission Accomplished" campaign was pretty convincing. Even more convincing than the "Stay the Course" campaign. What should the left say? Again, we can say we are winning and the Messenger could claim the South won the Civil War. But that isn't the truth.
We are running out of time, we do not have a plan, and the status quo is the insurgency appears to be intensifying. American soldiers are dying. I don't know what else the media can possibly say to make that seem better.
Perhaps we need Schultz from Hogan's Heroes to say, "I see nothing, I know nothing."
The terrible conditions in Iraq are demonstrated each time our officials tour the country - they sweep in at night to the "green zone" and move around in heavily armored convoys. NOBODY voluntarily moves outside very small secured perimeters. Contractors can't do any of the good works due to lack of security. My nephew just spent a year with the 4th ID hunkered down on their base in Baghdad - never moved off base for the entire tour (except for R&R in the US). The place is a dangerous mess. Most reporters can't even move around safely to report any "good" news - if there is any.
Take the blinders off. It's not the messengers - it the mess they have to report.
kingfish: Your citing of the "Mission Accomplished" sign is a perfect example of the anti-Bush bias of the media. Bush was ridiculed and antagonistically questioned about the sign for months after it was used.
You're arguing that either 1) Media coverage of Iraq has not been biased, or 2) If there is a bias, that it doesn't matter.
I assert that media coverage has been tremendously biased and that it has hurt American efforts.
wordkyle: "Mission Accomplished" sign is a perfect example of the anti-Bush bias of the media."
Clearly, you are too far gone to see that the sign was a perfect example of Bu$h's use of propaganda. Since the ever-changing mission was not accomplished the media was appropriate to point that out.
A "Surge" in late night comedy:
"President Bush is expected to announce that he is now sending more troops to Iraq, despite the fact that his general, his military analysts, members of congress, and most of the American people are against the idea. The reason he's doing it? To give Iraq a government that responds to the will of the people."
---Leno
I don't think we should send more troops over there. Is that the extent of his "new plan"? My problem with going in the first place, was that it was based on Iraq not keeping the many UN resolutions they signed, BUT who made the US the UN enforcers? That's what I don't understand.
Bush was ridiculed by the media for "Mission Accomplished" because it wasn't true. The job wasn't done, it still isn't done, and it looks like it will never be done. That isn't bias, that is the truth.
Thats like the head coach of the Abernathy Antelopes saying to y'all that they won the state title in football when we all know they didn't.
I thought we agreed that there was bias, and on both sides of the spectrum. It doesn't matter what you and I think, or the media is saying. We are not winning.
Are you advocating the solution in Iraq is merely the slant of a story being published? You must be smarter than that.
I guess it is too much to ask the ultra right-wing to see things as they are and not as they wish them to be.
Now that we are losing, we haven't found WMD's, and there is a civil war, you want to BLAME the media. That dog wont hunt. If you want to to know what the real bias is, I would like to read the piece of intelligence about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their location. Who published that?
If there is failure to answer for, I believe they ought to start at the top. Bush and his faction of his party had control of both houses of Congress. At least I read that in a newspaper somewhere but perhaps its biased.
This is America, it is still okay to change your mind and admit you were misled.
Kingfaggot, I know Lubbock has poor education government run schools but there is no excuse for you to think that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was for the whole Iraq war. It was put up for the mission of the aircraft carrier and the sailors that serve it. The mission for the aircraft carrier was accomplished otherwise it would still be over there. Simple minds are a terrible thing to waste. It's not funny until someone gets hurt, then it's hilarious.
Kingfish: Questions about Iraq were appropriate. Continuing hostile questions about a photo op months earlier were not. There is NOT bias on both ends of the spectrum. It is emphatically and overwhelmingly Liberal, pro-Democrat, anti-Bush, anti-Republican.
Back to the original topic: by constantly trumpeting the number of American deaths, the media has actively worked against American interests. Barry's title of his original post is typical of the coverage.
The American media bristles at the thought of being used for pro-American propaganda, yet willingly broadcasts enemy propaganda. Abu Ghraib was on the frontpage for over a year. How much coverage of beheadings did you see?
I commented earlier that I thought the war in Iraq has been mishandled. If America is losing, then the American media got its wish, for which it has worked so diligently.
So the media should not report the number of American deaths in Iraq?
The media should not report the widespread sectarian violence occurring daily in Iraq?
If they did not report this, I believe they could not then be referred to as "reporters". If they did not report this, I think they should be called the worst kind of propagandists. This would be very similar to the way the Iraqi media "reported" events to their citizens during the previous wars under the Hussein regime (reports of "glorious victories" and no mention of Iraqi casualties).
Please count me among those citizens who want the facts reported to me, whatever those facts may be. I am an adult, and I do not want unpleasant facts concealed from me for my own protection (or for any other possible reason I can conceive).
If you would rather hide your head in the sand, please feel free to do so. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy being informed through the free flow of uncensored information and ideas guaranteed to me under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it.
hhl: You're late to the discussion, and apparently haven't read my previous posts. You commented in ignorance, and with an insulting tone. Apparently the First Amendment is wasted on you. If you had bothered reading, you would have seen my "7:50 PM" post, where I said:
"I'm not saying American deaths shouldn't be reported, only that they have been reported way out of proportion to the entire picture."
I'll count you among those citizens who shoot first, then look to see what you're shooting at.
kingfish: Our discussion started sounding familiar, and this afternoon I remembered why. It's like Jules and Vincent in "Pulp Fiction."
Vincent Vega: "You're saying a foot massage don't mean nothing, and I'm saying it does."
WordKyle: I can give you example after example of right wing media bias but I'm not going to because you are too far gone.
It's a little late to try to change history. Scott Mclellan said that the White House had the Mission Accomplished banner made for the Bu$h photo op and the text of Bu$h's speech contains this: ..."my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq..."
And your attempt to try and lay the blame for this failure on the shoulders of the American people is predictable and expected. I wrote about it on my blog today. Bu$h is the failure and he is the one to blame.
Are you mainlining O'Lielly and Limpbaugh?
WordKyle: I can give you example after example of right wing media bias but I'm not going to because you are too far gone.
It's a little late to try to change history. Scott Mclellan said that the White House had the Mission Accomplished banner made for the Bu$h photo op and the text of Bu$h's speech contains this: ..."my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq..."
And your attempt to try and lay the blame for this failure on the shoulders of the American people is predictable and expected. I wrote about it on my blog today. Bu$h is the failure and he is the one to blame.
Are you mainlining O'Lielly and Limpbaugh?
You liberals fighting with wordkyle ARE typical. I think I saw where wordkyle agreed with some of your points, and yet y'all don;'t agree with ANYTHING he has to say. It's all "you're wrong, wrong,wrong," followed by namecalling and insults.
Look in the mirror and tell me if you don't see anything wrong with how y'all act. All of you are making his point for him: "Liberals hate Bush, no matter what he does or doesn't do, and anyone who believes differently is called names or are republican puppets."
And the fact that all you can do is insult him makes all of you look like the fools...
WK: At the time I posted, I had read every comment. I was just going along on my merry way, watching the fireworks, until I read where you said: "By constantly trumpeting the number of American deaths, the media has actively worked against American interests."
At that point, I figure I know everything I need to know about you.
By "trumpeting" do you mean, for example, placing this news on the front page? Should they put it on page 21? Or maybe they should put it back in the classifieds in small print with the public announcements regarding tax liens?
In other words, let's not hide these facts by censoring them. Let's just not make a big deal out of them. After all, it's just a few dead poor people every week. Nothing that the public need concern itself with. Not front page material.
Barry's original post is typical of media propaganda against bush? Anti-republican? Since when is calling the public's attention to dead American soldiers considered anti-American?
I submit that YOU are anti-American for proposing that we hide these facts. Or just not "trumpet" them. By which I conclude you mean we should not promote them as being important. Otherwise, what do you mean?
Yes, let's focus on the positive news coming out of Iraq. Which is what, exactly? Please, fill my head with this information. Believe me, I've been looking for it.
hhl, thanks for taking up the responses to WK. You seem thoughtful and reasoned. WK continues to repeat the gibberish that got us into and keeps us entangled in the mess of Iraq. Name calling is not required - reasoning and logical discussion is.
hhl: The good news you requested is at the link I gave in the "7:50 PM" post that I recommended you read before. In that post is also my real opinion about reporting American deaths, rather than your mischaracterizations of my opinion.
Yes, putting the running death toll on the front page every day to the exclusion of any positive news from Iraq (see abovementioned link) is one-sided, biased, and works as enemy propaganda.
If reading that tells you everything you need to know about me, then fine; this isn't about you or me. Attacking the messenger is what Liberals resort to when they're losing the debate.
ANON 11:59 PM: I'm still waitng for the "reason and logic" from those who defend the media's one-sided, anti-American bias. It ain't happened yet.
WARNING: Hilarious satire alert. Bu$h apologists are at risk of aneurism
Silly Wanker and the Victory Factory
An analysis of the media with links to back up the claims is HERE
It shows, among other things, that media dollars go to the GOP and the talk shows have a LOT more right wingers than left as guests. I've put all this information on here before and eventhough there is concrete proof as in fianacial records you won't believe it because O'Lielly says so.
txsharon: 1) Your links don't even say what you say they say. 2) No mention is made of the actual news that's reported. Anyway, one Liberal website quoting another Liberal website hardly constitutes "proof."
Here's a website that painstakingly documents Liberal bias in the media.
Please keep posting. Every time you post it makes my case stronger.
WordKyle: You didn't read the article OR follow the links. I did follow the link you posted and here's what I found:
the "Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias,"
Come on...
Please keep posting. Every time you post it makes my case stronger. And millions and millions of Americans are finally seeing through the O'Lielly and Limpbaugh BS.
You're accusing me of "attacking the messenger"? I guess I must be stoopid, because that appears to be an exact description of what you've done througout this entire thread: criticize the media for reporting bad news on Iraq.
WordKyle: You didn't read the article OR follow the links in the article which went to independent studies.
I did follow the link you posted and here's what I found:
the "Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias,"
The PURPOSE of the website is not neutral but to prove their point. Come on...
Please keep posting. Every time you post it makes my case stronger. And millions and millions of Americans are finally seeing through the O'Lielly and Limpbaugh BS.
hhl: The media has crossed the line from being a messenger to being a player. That's my complaint.
txsharon: Thanks for posting twice. Please never stop. Post more. Don't let your lack of evidence or credible arguments discourage you. (And your clever wordplay is just the right touch!)
Interested readers can see the evidence at the link I provided earlier. Coincidentally, the Media Research Center has a report on the anti-American slant by CNN and MSNBC in their coverage of the Iraq war. Thanks, Sharon, I would never have found it without you.
Let's see how many people follow your link. LOL
Please, never stop.
Thanks for the headsup.
"The Iraq War on Cable TV"
Honestly wordkyle, you've lost every bit of chance that I will believe what you say after this:
If we extrapolate from the 3,000 people who were killed on one day (September 11, 2001 for those who have forgotten), an estimated 5.7 million people have not been killed (3000 x roughly 1900 days) because terrorists have been prevented from attacking.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in this blog. I honestly hope you don't believe what you typed.
Post a Comment