Iraq War Media Bias

[kestra]

If we show weakness to them, we are done. Period. They respect only one thing: Strength. That is our only hope to even begin to protect ourselves from radical Islam. Our current projection of strength is probably a huge reason why we have somehow, miraculously, not suffered another attack since 9/11. It sure as heck isn't because our borders and ports are strongly or competently defended.

Clearly shows of force have done little to weaken the resolve of the Iraq insurgency. Fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't!!
Still very little public discussion as what America has done to invoke this level of hatred and retaliation.

Do you know why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? Because he thought we were weak and wouldn't do anything about it.

WRONG!! Saddam invaded Kuwait because up until that time, the USA and Iraq were buddies, and Saddam figured the US wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait. It wasn't because he thought the US was weak. How would he come to that conclusion when it was the US who helped fund him? The US, and other middle east countries were funding Iraq against Iran. For a time, the US was officially neutral in terms of the Iran/Iraq war. Reagan and Israel decided that they'd rather see Iraq on the winning side, than Iran. So, billions were given to Iraq to buy what they needed. The US's position regarding Iraq at the time was little more than:"well, we don't like you gassing the Kurds, but we also don't want Iran to conquer your country....so here's a bunch of weapons and ammo to defend against an invasion. Remember, the US backed Shah was overthrown and replaced with the anti American Ayotollah.(The US also provided Iraq with satellite surveillance of Iranian troop movement)
But when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US was like 'holy fuck, if he controls Kuwait, then he could use it as a bargaining piece against the US.'(Kuwait owns 10% of the world's oil reserves) Iraq was now seen as big a danger to U.S. interests as Iran.
The UN backed plan was for getting Iraq out of Kuwait only. It did not cover overthrowing Saddam. The US figured he'd be overthrown internally.......and we all know how that turned out. It didn't happen. After the Gulf War, a number of very senior Bush administration officials, some of whom are in the new Bush administration, were certain Saddam Hussein would fall in six months, because that was the basic take in the American intelligence community,"

Another example of intelligence getting it wrong.
The Bush administration believes that in a post-September 11 environment, threats must be dealt with pre-emptively. Fighting terrorism is always linked with 911. While this is a valid link and association, this administration has fucked up their credibility by invading Iraq and not coming up with the goods. Any future invasion is going to be a hard sell to the American people.

Furthermore, you seem to really not understand that the majority of Americans are still fine with the invasion with or without WMDs. For me, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a far more compelling reason to invade than WMDs. It always was.

According to recent polls, 57% of polled Americans now say the invasion wasn't worth it.

You can be mad at the government or George Bush or whoever as much as you want, but if you were honest with yourself you'd know that you are simply mad at everyone who thinks differently about this issue than you do.

Clearly, I am passionate about this issue. I never paid much attention to politics until Bush Jr. first came to power. Everything about this man spelled trouble to me. It was just one of those feelings you get. We all get them from time to time. I will say that I am mad at people who will take the official story of the White House without analyzing it for themselves, and taking their word for it, when their actions show otherwise.

Perhaps I should mention again that after three opportunities to do so (once I was old enough), I have never voted for a George Bush- Sr or Jr.

For this, I commend you. Having said that, the limited choice Americans have when it comes to electing a president is truly disappointing. I confess, my knowledge of Canadian politics is alot less, but at least people have more choice.

Why would Bush, et. al., do something that they KNEW would make them look so bad? They could have easily sold the war on the basis of how evil Saddam Hussein was, and the fact that he had repeatedly violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire treaty. They didn't need the WMD reason. In fact, using the WMD reason delayed things enormously because it meant they had to wait for the UN to do their whole bureaucratic inspection stuff.

Yes, heaven forbid we go through bureaucratic inspection stuff!! Anything but that!! Much better to shoot first and ask questions later.
The US totally underminded UN inspectors, by the way; only to send their own in post-invasion, to come up with the same story. No WMDs.

Furthermore, if it was a lie, then why was everyone in on it- including George Bush's political opponents? Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and leaders from virtually every western nation thought Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs.

This is a good question! One that I've asked myself. At this time, I don't have an answer for it. This is not to say there isn't one out there.

But saying George Bush lied about the WMDs is just silly, crazy talk. It makes absolutely no sense. Whenever someone makes such a ridiculous, illogical, and irrational claim

I think it's perfectly valid, and one doesn't have to be irrational or blind by hatred to suggest it.
I wish I could fuck up royally at my job,maybe one that cost lives, and be given 4 more years for it. I could say 'if you don't keep me around, even worse things will happen. This other guy you're thinking of putting in my place, he'll fuck up even MORE than I have.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by kestra
Clearly shows of force have done little to weaken the resolve of the Iraq insurgency. Fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't!!

Follow the news much? How many attacks on US soil have there been since 9/11?

Furthermore, the Iraq insurgency is a pathetically weak act of desperation.

Originally posted by kestra
WRONG!! Saddam invaded Kuwait because up until that time, the USA and Iraq were buddies, and Saddam figured the US wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait. It wasn't because he thought the US was weak.

How old were you in 1991? What you just said is just so incredibly false I can only shake my head.

Originally posted by kestra
Any future invasion is going to be a hard sell to the American people.

That is because we have become outrageously soft and weak as a culture. We actually freak out about whether or not this term or that term might "offend people" instead of worrying about things that matter. Parents give children a "time out" if they see them picking up a stick and pretending its a gun. Good lord, what kind of spineless group of worthless pansies are we becoming?

Originally posted by kestra
Everything about this man spelled trouble to me. It was just one of those feelings you get. We all get them from time to time.

Yes, it is quite clear you have an irrational hated of George Bush that is based on "feelings you get" rather than facts.

Originally posted by kestra
I wish I could fuck up royally at my job,maybe one that cost lives, and be given 4 more years for it.

Here you go again assuming that there is no way to think about something other than your way.

Most people don't think he "fucked up royally." For example, I am amazed that there have been no more terrorist attacks on our soil. That is a laudable achievement.

George Bush has pretty much done exactly what he said he was going to do. Just because someone does something you don't think they should do, doesn't mean they "fucked up royally."

In fact, Bush has been extremely successful at doing the things he felt should be done. It is perfectly reasonable to wish he hadn't done them, or to say he should have done different things, but saying he "fucked up royally" is just being blind to reality.

[kestra]

Furthermore, the Iraq insurgency is a pathetically weak act of desperation.

Call it what you want, but the insurgency, (which would be called a rebellion 60 years ago, but that sounds too romantic nowadays) is hardly weak and desperate. It takes balls to strap explosives to yourself and press the detonator, regardless if you agree with their reasons or not.

How old were you in 1991? What you just said is just so incredibly false I can only shake my head.

You don't have to take my word for it. These events are documented far and wide.

That is because we have become outrageously soft and weak as a culture. We actually freak out about whether or not this term or that term might "offend people" instead of worrying about things that matter. Parents give children a "time out" if they see them picking up a stick and pretending its a gun. Good lord, what kind of spineless group of worthless pansies are we becoming?

No, it's because the reasons for invading Iraq continued to be revised and changed after WMD weren't found.
The US will need to beef up their 'solid intelligence' if they expect to sell another war to Americans.

Yes, it is quite clear you have an irrational hated of George Bush that is based on "feelings you get" rather than facts.

My hatred is very rational, and your attempts to label me otherwise will not hold. Bush lied and the US media are weak and pathetic when it comes to accountability and offering alternative viewpoints on the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration lied America into war -- and the press of America not only won't acknowledge it, it still acts as if they can trust the White House.
So, America is betrayed twice: by the chronically lying Bush Administration and by the Mainstream Media and the right wing radio programs for the GOP propaganda message points of the day.

Before the invasion, members of the Bush Administration held up Amnesty International reports that described the treatment of Kurds by Saddam Hussein.

In 2003 Rumsfeld apparently trusted AI's credibility on violations by Iraq, but now that they are criticizing the United States he has lost his faith again. Anyone who publicly criticizes this administration gets a target painted on their backs for their efforts. On the other hand, sing the propaganda of this administration and your career will not only be safe; it will probably flourish.

George Bush has pretty much done exactly what he said he was going to do. Just because someone does something you don't think they should do, doesn't mean they "fucked up royally."

You can be steadfast and do exactly what you say you're going to do, by say, driving your car directly off a cliff with your family in it. It's not going to win you any credits in my book for 'staying the course'.

[tharun]

Kestra, I believe, said this:

I don't hate America. I just hate those who drape themselves in your flag, and claim to represent American virtues and values, all the while undermining them.

I'm just going to post a link to a website, it's nothing to do with Kestra, but what (s/)he said seems very appropriate for the dude who made this site (check out the videos).


Team Infidel


It's all well and good having pseudo-free speech, but when you get fuckwits like this, making websites like this, it doesn't do much for the US's world image.

Sure it says people are 'free' to do what they want, but of all the 'free' things they do, making websites like this isn't good for the US's global standing, or more specifically, US soldiers and citizens in Iraq or other muslim countries.

Anyway, enjoy the videos on that site. And hope borderline anti-American folk in Iraq etc. aren't watching it coz it might just push them over the edge into outright hatred.

-tharun