War Over?

[Zephyr]

today going to school i saw the troops getting ready to pull down the statue. and i see a crowd of iraqi citizens clapping for the americans. looks like the war is near an end all that is left is clean up of the scattered iraqi forces. i wonder where saddam is now.... they say hes probably dead, but then there are reports that he may be in Russia escaping in the convoy earlier....

[SaiBurgerJerBer]

Welllll SHIET, atleast maybe the war can stop and people will stop getting killed. I say Saddam is in a cave somewhere with Oasma. There playing chess or something haha they hate each other but they hate America more so since misery loves company they will chill together and play chess for awhile =-)

[GTS Jeff]

u saw this on what station?

[hjr]

they NEED to find Saddam and throw him in jail. Just saying that they killed him in the bombing of that residential area isnt going to do anything without a body. And a body there wont be with those bunker busters they are using. If there is a chance that he got away, then the average Iraqi will be less enthusiastic about cooperating with the US, cause there is always that chance he got away and has a group of supporters ready to terrorise the local folk.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
u saw this on what station?

CNN and Foxnews

[98type_r]

war's not over, baghdad's just been liberated. that's all

[B17a]

Originally posted by Zephyr
today going to school i saw the troops getting ready to pull down the statue. and i see a crowd of iraqi citizens clapping for the americans. looks like the war is near an end all that is left is clean up of the scattered iraqi forces. i wonder where saddam is now.... they say hes probably dead, but then there are reports that he may be in Russia escaping in the convoy earlier....

Getting a little worried about a draft? You know, if it drags on, they'll have to replenish troops, nowhere else to look but the high schools of America, where else will they get new recruits who know how to handle a gun! :rofl: :rofl:

[Glowrider]

Getting a little worried about a draft? You know, if it drags on, they'll have to replenish troops, nowhere else to look but the high schools of America, where else will they get new recruits who know how to handle a gun!

There is no shortage of people willing to pick up a gun and get in with the infantry.

[Killumanti]

I dont think its over yet, they just have control over baghdad....

[B17a]

Originally posted by Glowrider


There is no shortage of people willing to pick up a gun and get in with the infantry.

I know, I was just fuckin' with Zeph. I'm sure there's lots of Canadians too who are willing to jump over. Did you know an aboriginal Canadian can join the US military?

[sexualbanana]

a lot of saddam biographers think that saddam is actually hoping to be killed by the military so he can go down in glory. he'd much rather be killed than run according to them

[4wheeldrift]

The coalition might have control of most of baghdad, but pacifying iraq is going to be a long, bloody process.

[Phats]

he may yet be a martyr for some middle east anti-american groups, he may end up doing more damage dying than he did living

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by Zephyr


CNN and Foxnews propaganda

[Glowrider]

propaganda

Yeah. The video of the statue being pulled down in the town square, then the head being pulled off and dragged around the town in celebration by Iraqi citizens...was completely fake.

:rolleyes:

What really happened, is that Iraqi forces crushed the Coalition efforts to remove Hussein from power. The statue was not of Saddam Hussein, but George Bush. Infact, it wasn't a statue. Hussein captured President Bush and had him sealed in carbonite. He was planning on selling it to a cosmic bounty hunter by the name of Boba Fett, but instead, Hussein's army of the willing, decided it would be cooler to dehead the inanimate President Bush, and drag it around the town.

Grow up man.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
propaganda http://www.globeandmail.com/series/cartoon/images/8tueedcar.gif

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Glowrider


Yeah. The video of the statue being pulled down in the town square, then the head being pulled off and dragged around the town in celebration by Iraqi citizens...was completely fake.

:rolleyes:

What really happened, is that Iraqi forces crushed the Coalition efforts to remove Hussein from power. The statue was not of Saddam Hussein, but George Bush. Infact, it wasn't a statue. Hussein captured President Bush and had him sealed in carbonite. He was planning on selling it to a cosmic bounty hunter by the name of Boba Fett, but instead, Hussein's army of the willing, decided it would be cooler to dehead the inanimate President Bush, and drag it around the town.

Grow up man.

Someone here didn't understand the concept...:confused:

He meant the government controlled media in the states is full of propaganda. Did you read about the three US A-10 warthogs that were downed in Iraq yesterday? If so, find it on cnn.com for me. It was no where to be found on the main page.

[Glowrider]

He meant the government controlled media in the states is full of propaganda.

...as it is in every country in the world. There's always going to be things the general public doesn't know about, and for good reason. Some things are better off being handled quietly.

I don't have a problem with some stuff not getting reported. What I do have a problem with is when the news reports delibaretly decieve the people that are viewing the reports. You know...like the ones that come out of Hussein's former Information Ministry.

[rsxrsx]

Originally posted by SaiBurgerJerBer
Welllll SHIET, atleast maybe the war can stop and people will stop getting killed. I say Saddam is in a cave somewhere with Oasma. There playing chess or something haha they hate each other but they hate America more so since misery loves company they will chill together and play chess for awhile =-)

In addition to SaiBurgerJerBer comments, :D

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Glowrider
You know...like the ones that come out of Hussein's former Information Ministry.

Yes, I know. Hitting closer to home, CNN and NBC news are better examples.

There has to be a problem when a world renowned journalist gets fired for voicing an opinion that was in direct conflict with what the US Gov'ts were saying, while others were forced to quit their attacks against the US gov't because it did not concur with their views...

[Glowrider]

CNN and NBC news are better examples.

I don't watch either of those. So...neener neener neeeenneerrr :)

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Weapon_R


Someone here didn't understand the concept...:confused:

He meant the government controlled media in the states is full of propaganda. Did you read about the three US A-10 warthogs that were downed in Iraq yesterday? If so, find it on cnn.com for me. It was no where to be found on the main page. Which government controlled media is that? You mean all those privately owned companies that report the news in the US? I think you are mistaking government regulated for government controlled. Yes, the US armed forces put limitations on what the media could and could not report, but that was limited only to sensitive information that might give away battle plans and put troops in danger unnecessarily. From the get go, CNN has been covering both sides, both what the US army is telling them and what the iraqis are claiming. There is an element of bias in everything, especially the news, but the good sources cover both sides of the story so you can make up your own mind who's telling the truth. An omission from the news does not mean that the source is totally untrustworthy. How many US news outlets even mentioned the fact that the president of croatia had been assassinated a few weeks ago? Its too bad the iraqi information bureau is shut down now. Now THAT is what government controlled media looks like.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
Which government controlled media is that? You mean all those privately owned companies that report the news in the US? I think you are mistaking government regulated for government controlled. Yes, the US armed forces put limitations on what the media could and could not report, but that was limited only to sensitive information that might give away battle plans and put troops in danger unnecessarily.

The simple fact that you've just admitted yourself that the US government has placed limitations on information has made your argument entirely irrelevant. If the media knows about it, it's not classified information. And if it's not classified, it should be reported. Limitations on the a so called privately owned company is just as worse as a state run media network. Either way, censorship and propaganda are applied.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
How many US news outlets even mentioned the fact that the president of croatia had been assassinated a few weeks ago?

Again, proving my point. This was the US-backed Croatian president, and it was almost completely censored from the general public. This serves two purposes:

1) The US does not want to acknowledge its failure in choosing a president that was NOT chosen by the people of Croatia

2) The US will not allow it's own people to realize that it's foreign policy is disliked throughout the world.

Both the Croatian and the president of Kabul (NOT Afghanistan, local warlords control the rest) were always escorted by bodygaurds and tight security wherever they went...And these are the presidents who are chosen by the people, for the people?

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Weapon_R


The simple fact that you've just admitted yourself that the US government has placed limitations on information has made your argument entirely irrelevant. If the media knows about it, it's not classified information. And if it's not classified, it should be reported. Limitations on the a so called privately owned company is just as worse as a state run media network. Either way, censorship and propaganda are applied. There are things that should be reported during a war and things that should not. Information that directly affects the operations ongoing should NOT be reported. Theres a reason why operational items are a secret. I am not a big fan of the US's dirty little war, they certainly would have had it coming to get their noses bloodied, but at the same time I don't want to see thousands of US troops coming home in body bags because some yahoo reporter feels like telling everyone and their dog where they are and what they are up to. Theres no need to make it any easier for people to kill each other than absolutely necessary. if the iraqis really wanted to know where the troops are, its not like it would have taken them a lot of effort to find out using the same methods as the US used to find their troops. There was a time when the idea of reporters embedded in combat units would have been laughed off completely. The media outlets were given rules they had to accept to be attached to the units. Voluntary censorship (agreeing to the rules the military wanted) is something else entirely from government forced censorship. The US news outlets were attached to military units at the militarys behest. What they giveth, they can taketh away. The situation is no different from you getting your drivers license suspended. The reporters had the priveledge, and not the right to be attached to the US military units. Heraldo broke the rules laid out allowing him to be with that unit and he got punted, as he should have. From outside the military units, the media could have said whatever the hell they wanted and no one could have stopped them. Some of the smaller media outlets did, and there was no great outcry from the masses. Despite what you seem to think, there was absolutely nothing stopping the US media from continuing to report protests and casualties and suchlike. If you went away from the major US networks, you could have seen all of that you wanted to. If the big networks decided to stop showing certain things, they have their own reasons just as a business owner has a reason for carrying one brand over another. No one puts a gun to a business owners head saying you must carry brand A over brand B any more than the government made the media shut up. They chose to shut up for their own reasons, they weren't forced. And just as you are free to choose which brand you want to buy, there is nothing forcing you to stay with the big networks either. The guy who got canned from MSNBC for talking to the Iraqi TV station maybe shouldn't have lost his job, but he did because the people he was working for (2 independent news outlets) felt what he did was inappropriate. If your boss feels you are doing something you shouldn't be, you're going to get fired too. That situation is no different. He could have fought for his job if he wanted to, just like you can if you feel you are let go for no good reason. Why he didn't is his own business, not a conspiracy.



Originally posted by Weapon_R
Again, proving my point. This was the US-backed Croatian president, and it was almost completely censored from the general public. This serves two purposes:

1) The US does not want to acknowledge its failure in choosing a president that was NOT chosen by the people of Croatia

2) The US will not allow it's own people to realize that it's foreign policy is disliked throughout the world.

Both the Croatian and the president of Kabul (NOT Afghanistan, local warlords control the rest) were always escorted by bodygaurds and tight security wherever they went...And these are the presidents who are chosen by the people, for the people? [/B] That president of croatia and the one before him, was elected by a democratic process. He was chosen by the people of that nation to lead them. His regime might have had US approval, but he most definetly was not a US puppet. He very much wanted to align croatia more with western society, to modernize croation and turn it into a power. He caught a bullet from the hardliners who thought this was a bad idea. There always people who will disagree with the majority. Some countries harldiners are more visceral about expressing their discontent than others. Croatia ended up in a civil war because of just that. Just because someone travels with bodyguards doesn't mean that the masses are out to kill them.

Afghanistan has been an unmitigated disaster, as have all US attempts at nation building. Hell, they are in a war right now because of one. Iraq, if the US stays in is going to be just as bad. But Croatia was not US nation building, I suggest you go back and start doing some actual reading about a UN sanctioned action (security forces in croatia to stop a civil war and a UN monitored democratic election) before you start making statements that are blatantly false.

And as for the US trying to pull the wool over the populations eyes, I don't think thats really necessary. Most US citizens are so arrogant they really don't give a damn either way what other nations or other people think of them. The whole "freedom fries" thing is exhibit A. The US ambassador tongue lashing canada is exhibit B. There's plenty more where that came from.

[hjr]

I personally feel that CNN for sure is biased to a great extent. This may be for reasons of audiance and whatever else, but it is also an indirect control in place by the US government. Think of it this way. When the Pres. or Colin or Rumy holds a press conference, there is nothing to say that they wont completely ignore say CNN's journalists. So CNN reports things the US government likes, and they are rewarded with questioning presidence. As another example, look at the reporters in the field. What they are shown is very suceptible to manipulation. The army could make it so that they see almost nothing of the war and therefore have nothing to report on, IF they are consistently bad mouthing the situation. And there are many more indirect ways that the gov. can and i assume does use to control what goes out through the media.

I feel that the British Network BBC is the best i have seen. Now if you get down to the street level, British Tabloids are probably the worst in the world. So one way or another, a person has to take everything they see at face value. Most of the time its true, most of the time its biased, and most of the time they are just repeating what has been said 30 times before.

[EstoMax]

bah.. i hate threads like these.. too long posts.. enough already

max

[Glowrider]

I feel that the British Network BBC is the best i have seen

Let it be known that the BBC did not show the statue falling. They instead cut to an earthquake.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by hjr
I personally feel that CNN for sure is biased to a great extent. This may be for reasons of audiance and whatever else, but it is also an indirect control in place by the US government. Think of it this way. When the Pres. or Colin or Rumy holds a press conference, there is nothing to say that they wont completely ignore say CNN's journalists. So CNN reports things the US government likes, and they are rewarded with questioning presidence. As another example, look at the reporters in the field. What they are shown is very suceptible to manipulation. The army could make it so that they see almost nothing of the war and therefore have nothing to report on, IF they are consistently bad mouthing the situation. And there are many more indirect ways that the gov. can and i assume does use to control what goes out through the media.

I feel that the British Network BBC is the best i have seen. Now if you get down to the street level, British Tabloids are probably the worst in the world. So one way or another, a person has to take everything they see at face value. Most of the time its true, most of the time its biased, and most of the time they are just repeating what has been said 30 times before. I personally feel thats a pretty pesimistic and paranoid view, as my posts should show. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Weapon_R]

4WheelDrift: We could continue the argument til next year, but you have your opinions, and I have mine.

I will be the first to admit that I watch CNN on a daily basis. I also turn to Al-Jazeera and find a common ground between the two. I've found that Al-Jazeera reports the news that really matters, whereas CNN only does so when the US is doing well. For example, Al-Jazeera was the first large news organization to show American POWs (provided by Iraqi TV) while the US consistently denied this. Do you think that the US government would have said anything if Al-Jazeera did not show the world? I hardly think so.

Despite what you think, the US needs organizations like CNN and NBC just as much as the news stations need to be on the sidelines with the US troops. It was never a secret to anyone where the US army was advancing into Iraq. The only secrets that aren't showed by the American news channels are the instances where American soldiers are beating the tied Iraqi POWs while they are on their knees (submitted to the world via Al-Jazeera). How come this isn't shown to the public? Because it is not news worthy? I come to wonder how you can sit back and applaud the news organizations for reporting an extremely one sided news approach to the war in Iraq and not feel cheated out of the truth while arguing that it's all about business.

As for the Serbian president that was assassinated (I suggest you read into this a little further and follow your own advice before you attempt to impose your opinions on others), the US removed the previous regime through force, devastating the country, and leaving the entire region to fend for themselves. Ask anyone who has come from the balkans and find out for yourself whether or not the region is even half as good as it was before. Whether or not there was a "democratically elected" president, the one that was there previously was removed through force by an invading country because they did not share the same views. Before you say that he was a ruthless dictator, why not ask yourself why they havent removed Kim Jong II, Jiang Zemin, Bashar Assad, or Mohammad Khatami - all more ruthless and more threatening to the US than the Serbian nation would ever be.

Also direct your attention to the actual Serbian "supervised" election. Less than half of all Serbs voted in the election, nullifying the first poll. Several nationalist parties boycotted the election process. The entire election process was a failure from the beginning.

[Toms-Celica]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/dolighan.gif

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
I personally feel thats a pretty pesimistic and paranoid view, as my posts should show. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

How is that a pessimistic view? CNN reporters show only what the US tells them to show, and the US takes CNN around when there is something interesting to show. The US also censors what CNN can't show (US POWs) while allowing it to show Iraqi POWs. The list goes on. It is very seemingly likely that the US and CNN have an agreement.

[hjr]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
I personally feel thats a pretty pesimistic and paranoid view, as my posts should show. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Fair enough. I never used to think this way, but if i were in their shoes, i would do the same thing. and thats what convinced me that that is whats going on. I admit its pretty darn pesimistic but i resent being called paraniod. Paranioa is for stoners and consipericy theorists. Both of which i am not.

[Toms-Celica]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/SaddamBest/SaddamBESTgifs/fairrington.gif

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
4WheelDrift: We could continue the argument til next year, but you have your opinions, and I have mine. True. This is mostly an intellectual exercise, more than anything. I always did enjoy a good debate :D


Originally posted by Weapon_R
I will be the first to admit that I watch CNN on a daily basis. I also turn to Al-Jazeera and find a common ground between the two. I've found that Al-Jazeera reports the news that really matters, whereas CNN only does so when the US is doing well. For example, Al-Jazeera was the first large news organization to show American POWs (provided by Iraqi TV) while the US consistently denied this. Do you think that the US government would have said anything if Al-Jazeera did not show the world? I hardly think so. [/B]How is that any different or any better than the iraqis executing POWs, the iraqi militias turning their guns on iraqis civilians and the iraqi military using their own citizens as human shields. It isn't. Why were the iraqis not bothering to report some POWs at all either? Both sides were covering things up, trying to take moral high ground. Al Jazeera is the least biased and most free of any of the arab new outlets, they were actually trying to show what was happening on both sides. The iraqis were trying to deny their own, the US was denying their own, and someone had to be in the middle. If you want to be really specific, none of the media outlets from anywhere in the world should have been showing the faces of the POWs, its against the Geneva Convention.


Originally posted by Weapon_R
Despite what you think, the US needs organizations like CNN and NBC just as much as the news stations need to be on the sidelines with the US troops. It was never a secret to anyone where the US army was advancing into Iraq. The only secrets that aren't showed by the American news channels are the instances where American soldiers are beating the tied Iraqi POWs while they are on their knees (submitted to the world via Al-Jazeera). How come this isn't shown to the public? Because it is not news worthy? I come to wonder how you can sit back and applaud the news organizations for reporting an extremely one sided news approach to the war in Iraq and not feel cheated out of the truth while arguing that it's all about business. [/B]See my previous statements. Al Jazeera was also the only network to show the bodies of US troops with obvious execution style gun-shot wounds to their heads in a morgue in baghdad after the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Platoon. Atrocites were commited on both sides that were covered up. I kept track of a few different news outlets, some US and others not, and I never felt cheated out of the truth by reading CNN. Somewhere between what CNN is reporting, and what the iraqis are reporting, and what everyone else is saying lies the truth. Every news agency has bias, and it is up to the individual to decide if what they are watching is the whole story or not.


Originally posted by Weapon_R
As for the Serbian president that was assassinated (I suggest you read into this a little further and follow your own advice before you attempt to impose your opinions on others), the US removed the previous regime through force, devastating the country, and leaving the entire region to fend for themselves. Ask anyone who has come from the balkans and find out for yourself whether or not the region is even half as good as it was before. Whether or not there was a "democratically elected" president, the one that was there previously was removed through force by an invading country because they did not share the same views. Before you say that he was a ruthless dictator, why not ask yourself why they havent removed Kim Jong II, Jiang Zemin, Bashar Assad, or Mohammad Khatami - all more ruthless and more threatening to the US than the Serbian nation would ever be.[/B]You must be reading a far different history book than I am, because from my research the US NEVER invaded serbia. My understanding of things is thus: The US was there at behest of the UN with other NATO peacekeepers. Peacekeeping and invading are by nature quite far seperated. After the fall of the iron curtain, things went to hell in a handbasket because of racial and religious tensions. The whole situation in yugoslavia was a mess because none of the individual nation states could agree on who should be in charge. The communist party still had a lot of support, and was indeed the first elected government in 1990. But it didn't take long for peoples opinion of the strongly nationalist communist party to change once things fell back into the same old rut as before the iron curtain dropped, and civil war broke out. The document that ended the first civil war was not terribly popular with anyone in the area except for the countries leaders (who by that point had shown their true colors, quite different from the ones they were elected under), so inevitably things fell apart again because the leaders of the nations were not listening to the people. It doesn't take much work for elected officials to turn a country back into a police state again, as the people in the Republic of Yugoslavia found out in 1991, and again in 1993, and again in 1995. The US is well known to have fueled the fire in an effort to collapse one of the last communist regimes in europe, but they didn't have to land a whole load of troops there and lay waste to the place to force a regime change. Forcing a regime change is iraq, all the serbians and croats and everyone else in the region needed to decide for themselves was a nudge and they took care of things themselves, much to the US state departments horror. They would have decided themselves to go berzerk anyways, left to their own devices. It had happened often enough in the past (see the civil war of 1991-92). When your people have been slaughtering your neighbours for thousands of years, its a rather tough habit to break. NATO troops (amongst them 8500 US troops) showed up at the United Nations request to settle things down yet again in 1995, since the bosnians, serbs and croats had once again proven they couldn't do it on their own.

Originally posted by Weapon_R
Also direct your attention to the actual Serbian "supervised" election. Less than half of all Serbs voted in the election, nullifying the first poll. Several nationalist parties boycotted the election process. The entire election process was a failure from the beginning. [/B] If the nationalist parties boycotted the election process, the only people they screwed is themselves by removing options from the people, options that might actually allow the people to make a decision that everyone in the country can stand behind. Many of the people were scared to come to the polls, afraid that if the hard line nationalists were voted in it would result in oppression again, and terrified that they would be subject of retribution for their votes for someone else. Old habits die hard, and the collective mental damage of so many years of oppression doesn't go away over night. Theres no reason why armed UN peacekeepers should have had to keep watch at the polls.

In the end, its all a question of perspective.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by hjr


Fair enough. I never used to think this way, but if i were in their shoes, i would do the same thing. and thats what convinced me that that is whats going on. I admit its pretty darn pesimistic but i resent being called paraniod. Paranioa is for stoners and consipericy theorists. Both of which i am not. I'm sorry if you feel offended, but once again its my opinion and I don't mean to offend you. You come across more like a conspiracy theorist than anything else, talking about the US government covering things up behind the scenes, etc. I don't want to come across like I'm implying you are a whacko or anything because I'm not, I'm just stating my impressions that I derive based on the contents of your posts. My personal feeling is that there is enough protection built into the US media system to keep the government from controlling anything too much. If the people suspect they are being manipulated, the accountability into the system will prove them right or wrong, one way or another.

[4wheeldrift]

The idea of taint in the media is a question of perspective:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1980191.stm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/643471.asp

[hjr]

great links.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by hjr
great links.

I found this quote to be most interesting (from the MSNBC.com article):


That brings us to the final lesson here: what passes for news in America. For the past 10 years, roughly since the idiotic O.J. Simpson trial, the language of marketing has entered American newsrooms like a badly targeted cruise missile. Talk of plot lines and demographics, sexiness and “water-cooler” appeal have polluted a mission that is protected by its own constitutional amendment. Celebrity journalists interview celebrity dimwits about their sex lives, while American foreign policy is left running on auto-pilot.

The hard truth is that the U.S. media left America as unprepared for these terrorist attacks as any Air Force general or CIA bureaucrat. As we dropped bombs on Iraq for 10 years running — justified or not — the U.S. media failed to report on it. Then suddenly, on Sept. 11, we think “We’re at war” when in fact there hasn’t been a day since the Gulf War ended when an American aircraft hasn’t locked onto a target with a missile or bomb. We were at war, it’s just that the media didn’t think it was interesting enough to tell you about it.

That’s our lesson to learn.