»Why Bush is a menace and doesn't deserve a second term«
|
|||
 Quote: then why didn't they take him out? if it is like you said they had one of the weakest miltary's in the world.. Take him out? Who? He wasn't liked because he suppressed Islamistic extremists. He was liked because he "stood up" against USAnians. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqWhy Bush is a menace and doesn't deserve a second term |
|
|||
|
May I remind everyone of "Jessica Lynch" who was hyped as POW beyond belief by constantly feeding the press with lies, lies, lies by Rumsfeld? There were no war heros, since.  posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 since when is rumsfeld running the media? if he was, I would think they wouldnt hate him as much. look, I don't give a damn about whether or not jessica lynch was a hero(ine). I really don't. you know what happened, the press heard the story, and put it through the same emotional amplifier that always use. just like when the plane got shot down in kosovo and all we could hear about was the captured pilot. it's what they do to get ratings. they blew it out of proportions and reported any little detail from anyone even remotely connected to the military. this was not some conspiracy masterminded by rummy, it was just the same old media hype. btw, they didn't make up the part where she was raped. that actually happened. Quote: There were no war heros not true. you just don't hear about the heroes. theirs just not enough time to cover the acts of heroism (or any other good news for that matter) when you're busy reporting everything that bad that ever happens. just because the media didn't report that american soldiers held their fire while a humvee drove right into enemy fire to rescue civilians who were pinned down, doesnt mean it didn't happen, and that similar events do not conitue to happen. why is it that so many people are eager to believe it when someone accuses the troops of commiting atrocities, but refuse to consider the possibility that they ever do anything good? posted by makeitstop |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 makeitstop: they didn't make up the part where she was raped. that actually happened. And what about the part where the ambulance carrying her back to the US troops was fired upon - by U.S. Troops A frickin' Ambulance for gawds sake. 
Another Private Shoeman 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: why is it that so many people are eager to believe it when someone accuses the troops of commiting atrocities, but refuse to consider the possibility that they ever do anything good? because those that oppose the war find it easier to paint the picture of us as the bad guy... does anyone even realize the restrictions put on our troops so we don't get a shitstorm of criticism? we have a no shoot policy where the troops can't shoot unless shot at first...how scary and frustration must that be? and when the enemy runs and hides in a mosque or school or hospital we can do nothing yet we the "bad guy" get brutally condemned whereas these cowards are just fighting for their country that was invaded, but hiding behind women and children to do so
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: since when is rumsfeld running the media? He is not, but since US has too little experience with propaganda, they will take everything the Defense Minister says as truth. May I also remind of the pre-written White House interviews? Where reporters were only allowed to ask questions as written in the script? Disgusting. Quote: they blew it out of proportions and reported any little detail from anyone even remotely connected to the military. this was not some conspiracy masterminded by rummy, it was just the same old media hype. No it wasn't. Rumsfeld constantly pictured the Iraqi doctors as monsters while they were very helpful. Quote: not true. you just don't hear about the heroes. Yup, since the Lynch fiasko we don't hear much about them. And I also refuse to declare preemptively invading soldiers as "heros". No matter what they do. Quote: because those that oppose the war find it easier to paint the picture of us as the bad guy... No because Bush attacked one of the weakest countries in the world preemptively. Quote: does anyone even realize the restrictions put on our troops so we don't get a shitstorm of criticism? The only restictions I know of have been established after the Abu Ghraib torture incidents: Now the use of cameras is restricted. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: btw, they didn't make up the part where she was raped. that actually happened. Says who? She herself doesn't remember anything. Wonder whether that's just another propaganda for the book about her. In the book, author Rick Bragg writes that scars on Lynch's body and medical records indicate she was sodomized, but that Lynch recalls nothing...
"From the time I woke up in that hospital, no one beat me, no one slapped me... I mean, I actually had one nurse, that she would sing to me," she told ABC. "I'm so thankful for those people, because that's why I'm alive today." posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: because those that oppose the war find it easier to paint the picture of us as the bad guy... So those that oppose the war consider the ones who started it as in the wrong!
Sounds reasonable
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: So those that oppose the war consider the ones who started it as in the wrong! Sometimes I cannot distinguish between a post and Chinese. What? Rephrase please. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Sometimes I cannot distinguish between a post and Chinese.
What? Rephrase please. Sure. Quote: So those that oppose the war Anti war people Quote: consider Think Quote: the ones who started it The U.S. Quote: as in the wrong! are the bad guys 
Which is why The ONEder Man: ...those that oppose the war find it easier to paint the picture of us as the bad guy... posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: So those that oppose the war
Anti war people Quote:consider Think Quote:the ones who started it The U.S. Quote:as in the wrong! are the bad guys so marl what do you consider the people with the mass graves in their backyards...misunderstood? 
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
i have a moral question... was it more wrong to go to war on false evidence or to let the mass killings in iraq continue and sit idly by and do nothing? and don't disect my question...answer it honestly  posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: i have a moral question... was it more wrong to go to war on false evidence or to let the mass killings in iraq continue and sit idly by and do nothing? That evidence was falsified to justify war suggests that the mass killings were not enough of a reason - at least to some. It's these people whos morality should be questioned. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: was it more wrong to go to war on false evidence or to let the mass killings in iraq continue and sit idly by and do nothing? It would have been better to go after terrorists. Or North-Korea. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: The ONEder Man: i have a moral question... was it more wrong to go to war on false evidence or to let the mass killings in iraq continue and sit idly by and do nothing? That evidence was falsified to justify war suggests that the mass killings were not enough of a reason - at least to some. It's these people whos morality should be questioned. first, what evidence was "falsified" to justify the war? it just seems a bit of a stretch to say that someone was able to control every inteligence agency one earth! and you know what, to a lot of people and organizations, mass murder, torture, rape, oppression, genocide, etc. arent enough to actually doing anything. these include france, germany, russia, china, kofi annon, michael moore, john kerry (at least, when the polls tell him that) the entire muslim world and so on. these are the ones who eed to seriously re-examine their morality. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 23:16 php B.B. |