To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23877
23876  |  23878
Subject: 
Re: The Essay (was Re: The status of Iraq from a soldier who is there.)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 4 May 2004 20:54:34 GMT
Viewed: 
781 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
  
   Meoli sent the following essay and photos via e-mail to friends and relatives back home, and he gave The • Inquirer permission to print them because of his belief that the “liberal • media” are misreporting the progress of the war and U.S.-Iraqi • relations.

Not the “liberal media” again!

You do know that it is a matter of public record that slightly • over 80 percent of American journalists are registered Democrats right?

I’m not sure how relevant that is (if true).

Its relevant because most printed editorials in my local papers are • liberal propaganda.

Your comment sounds more than a little subjective.

  
   I’d imagine it’s the view of the editor and owner that hold sway. Remember, every-single-one of • Rupert Murdoch’s 50+ papers supported the war... he also owns Fox News.

Yup, that is a good source of conservative propaganda.

So we agree that your country’s main TV news source is not liberal?

  
   The right leaning nature of the media (TV, newspapers & radio) in the USA is • a fact.
  1. How many left-wing radio stations are there?
  2. How many right-wing radio stations are there?
  3. Is Rush Limbaugh a registered Democrat?

See overall the media is dead center. That is why liberals think it • is right wing biased and why conservatives think it is leftwing biased.

So what is your point? Does the media have a liberal bias or not?

  
  
  
   Was it them who hid the WMD from George?

You also know that John Kerry in early 2002 (and Bill Clinton when • he was president) are both on record as stating that sooner or later • America would have to deal with Saddam and his WoMD. Either way I have said it • before I will say it again, that should not have been the reason for going • there in the first place.

   Did they invent the story about • this picture? Or even this • story?

People die in war.

Are you condoning these actions?

No.

Good.

   See, what do Iraqis fighting the US, US soldiers who abuse Iraqi prisoners, and Catholic Priests who abuse children all have in • common? They are all statistically insignificant minorities who cause great harm • to a few individuals and undermine the progress/postions of the respective • groups to which they belong.

Wow; this sounds just like ‘Nam! When will the helicopters evacuate the embassy?

Reports suggest that the abuse of Iraqis may be institutionalised.

  
  
   The real question is whether their deaths are in vain,

Wrong. The real question is: where are the WMD?!

As the US lost track of an Atomic Warhead for a few decades and only • found it by accident while digging a new foundation in a military base (a • story posted by Dave! a while back, I am sure you could search for it easy • enough) I have no doubt that it could be a century or two before enough of Iraq is • dug up to know for certain. The point being is that the intellegence, while it • may very well have been false, was not intentionally fabricated to support • the war as some liberal propaganda would have us belive.

Really?

Bush on 911 to Richard Clarke: “go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way.”

Richard Clarke: “But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this”

Bush: “I know, I know, but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred”

WMD or not, Bush wanted Iraq.

   After all, as I already stated, even Clinton when president, was on record as saying sooner or later • the US would have to deal with Saddam and his WoMD.

The UN was dealing with him; Blix was doing a great job.

  
  
   as the media would have us belive, or if our grandchildrens children • will actually have a chance at growing up in true peace for the first • time in human history because of their sacrifices.

Show me how this “war” has reduced the risk to you or your • “grandchildrens children”.

I note you have NO ANSWER TO THIS!

   The people making the real sacrifice are the Iraqis.

Yeah, they actually have a chance at freedom for the first time • since Saddam overthrew the Democracy from an elected position 30 some odd years
ago.

…yep, and Washington helped him every step of the way. Now Bush has installed his own puppets.

  
  
   Of course there are still a lot of countries whose leaders treat their people as cattle rather than • humans. I can’t figure out why people think true peace will ever exist with • a dictorship.

Is Saudi Arabia a dictatorship? Egypt? Bush supports them both!

   (Of all the crap, as with any politician, coming out of Dubbya’s mouth at least he understands that.)

So why is he funding the Uzbekistan security service (who boil • people alive)? Why does he support Saudi Arabia & Israel? What was he • doing in Venezuela and Haiti?

Search google for “Venezuela bush coup”…

Very good you have pointed out what will really cause us to • inevitably lose the war on terror.

Thank you!

   Peace with a dictatorship is a farce, and in my opinion condeming the people of those countries to a fate worse than if we • simply wiped those countries off the map. Of course I realize that you • think I am a “looney” for beliveing that a slave’s exsistence is worse than death • and that nuking a country is better than allowing its people to suffer a • dictator’s rule.

-Mike Petrucelli

P.S. Trivia question: How many Veitnamese civilians were slaughtered • by the Viet-Cong within the 2 weeks after US troops withdrew from the • country at the end of the Vietnam War?

I have no idea. Is it more than the >3,000,000 killed by Washington in S Vietnam/SE Asia? Care to estimate how many of them were civilians?

By 1965 the Washington’s (The Pentagon Papers) stated aims in Vietnam were:
  1. 70% Avoid defeat
  2. 20% Keep S Vietnam out of China’s hands
  3. 10% Help the people of S Vietnam “enjoy a better, freer way of life”.
Don’t be fooled, the Vietnam war was not about “freedom”.

Trivia Q for you:

S Vietnam’s elected leader was President Diem. Which superpower had him killed when it looked like he’d opt for peace with N Vietnam?

Scott A



Message has 2 Replies:
  Being realistic
 
(...) (URL) Things are worse> than I understood: the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief Cofer Black has been quoted as saying about interrogation techniques that "after 9/11, the gloves came off". It is now being reported that there have been (...) (20 years ago, 4-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: The Essay (was Re: The status of Iraq from a soldier who is there.)
 
(...) And yours aren't as well? (...) Fox is hardly the country's main news source. The much more liberal leaning ABC, NBC, and CBS are the big three. (...) Re-read the previous sentance as it answers your question. (...) The UN has never in its (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: The Essay (was Re: The status of Iraq from a soldier who is there.)
 
(...) Its relevant because most printed editorials in my local papers are liberal propaganda. (...) Yup, that is a good source of conservative propaganda. (...) See overall the media is dead center. That is why liberals think it is right wing biased (...) (20 years ago, 4-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

20 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR