Coalition Forces Have Upper Hand in Iraq

Post Reply New Topic

So if I were to come to your house and shoot you for no reason whatsoever, and then we later found out you were the Zodiak killer, I would have been one hundred percent justified and free to go?

so have you not read anything at all that i've been saying and decided to make an ignorant post? is that about the jist of it? yeah, okay.

The basic idea of your post is that the ends justified the means; that we have done the Iraqis some favour despite not meaning to. That is what I interpretted anyway.

and you missed the part where i disagreed with the BS reasons why we're there, the directionless "leadership" right now with iraq in general. the idealism that holds no weight behind the actions.


or how earlier i was attacking both bill clinton for being an idiot and lying about getting a blowjob and the republicans for being power hungry idiots who capitolized on that instead of concerning themselves with real issues....which is kinda the same thing now with gay marriage and that idiotic amendment proposal...there's no way in hell that'll ever get enough votes to pass but they keep pushing it because it's a distraction from the poor job that the current administration is doing.


we're lead by a rich brat who's had everything handed to him and it shows.


that being said, i also say that there should be an iraq war...just not this one. there should have been this war in 1998 but without all the BS and poor leadership. look up what the ba'athist party manifesto is sometime....saddam was very intent on his massive war. but at the same time, i think us starting the war when we did was horrible and having bush do it was even worse because that guy couldn't even hold up a decent internet argument rather less actually hold a real debate about such a serious issue as war.


anyways, i don't appreciate being pidgeon-holed into simply being some conservative or some "the end justifies the means" kind of person. if i come off that way, it's more because we're there now and that can't be reversed. nor can the lives lost or the damage done to our nation's image by the torture camps, CIA secret flights, military tribunals, and everythign else. i just hope that we can get a leader that actually will work to make the best out of what's happening and make the right decisions...not just the decisions that are best for PR and his corporate buddies. and i say his with confidence because, well, our society is still too sexist to ever elect a female president....that and i hope hillary clinton or condoleeza rice don't get elected president.....they'd both be horrible leaders and would both pose different threats to our liberties and freedoms.

Well, this particular war I'm completely against. Atrocities have happened all over the world, and did we do anything about it? Not often if they didn't have oil, or something else we wanted. Years back, the U.S. had dirty dealings with the very people who they blame it all on today. I don't think they will be taking any more photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Maybe under certain circumstances there could be a need for a war, but this whole thing was handled BADLY.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6332

Newsweek... weren't they the ones responsible for printing the false story about US soldiers mishandling Quarans in Guantanamo?

it is true to say that there have been qurans "mishandled".

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek ... rt_516.htm

although regardless, i fail to see the relevance of your comment.
because the interviewee worked at one time for a publication that
was forced to withdraw a story, the basic premise of which is true,
he is not then reliable? neither the article linked, nor the interview
it refers to, were published in newsweek.

I have no idea what you were trying to say, other than that you didn't understand my point and that the "basic premise" of the article was right.

1) I shouldn't have to explain simple concepts. Figure it out for yourself.

2) No.

i thought i was quite clear, but i'll spell it out for you in simple terms.

1.) i was firstly informing you that the basic premise of the newsweek
article about the mishandling of qurans was in fact correct, as per
the link that i provided which sites several european newspapers
carrying stories to that end.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek ... rt_516.htm


2.) i was then questioning how your original comment had any relevance
to what i first posted. neither the article in question nor the interview cited
therein were published by newsweek. simply the fact that the interviewee
had been an employee of newsweek, and newsweek had published an
entirely unconnected article that they were forced to retract (although the
basic premise of the article was true) has no bearing on the validity of the
article that i posted.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6332


your simple concept was flawed, hence my questioning of it.

1) The link you posted re: the false article about Quaran mishandling has nothing but alleged eye-witness accounts from Guantanamo inmates. In other words, no real evidence that such a thing took place.

2) I did a little research on Rod Norland. Your original post made it sound like he was a government official who might actually know something. But what he is, is an ex-journalist who's been grinding the axe against Iraq since the beginning of the operation. He's lost no chance to compare the Iraq war to Vietnam and Korea. He also cites urban legends and flat out untruths as facts in his crusade against the war. For example, he claims that Iraqis only get electricity for about 5 hours per day, a myth explained/debunked at this link. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /62586.htm

It's right and smart to be cynical when considering what's being said to you by the US government. But you leftists have to learn to control your urge to leap on every bit of anti-war claptrap that comes up simply because it might prove your points. While some reports have some truth mixed into them, Rod Norland's is simply propaganda, and factually worthless propaganda at that.

clearly you didn't actually read the article i cited:




no, my post never made any suggestion of this.


again, this is incorrect. by his own words, he went to iraq in full support of the military operation there.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/


perhaps his opinion is that these comparisons are legitimate?


here is just one of a number of articles i've read lately that seems to concur with his opinions.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 090905.ece
the full article here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062006D.shtml

He's lying.

Last edited by McJeff on 17 Jul 2006, 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

okay. whatever you say.

It stops sass-mouthing its intellectual superior or else it gets the hose.

can you repeat that in english? i have no clue what you are trying to say.