gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
gordontravels said:Of course it's just more of the same but, is it really? This is from todays New York Times:
Headline: "Bad Iraq News Worries Some in G.O.P. on '06"
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 18, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - "A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.
Some said that the perception that the war was faltering was providing a rallying point for dispirited Democrats and could pose problems for Republicans in the Congressional elections next year."
The rest of this article goes on to quote Republicans and Democrats that are generally against the war. I just wonder if you caught the important wording of this article. I wonder if you realize that the wording puts the New York Times and the media in this country right at the beginning of what people are led to think. I'll give that to you right here and right now:
"A stream of bad news out of Iraq"
There is plenty of opportunity for "reporters" to give us good news out of Iraq. There is plenty of good news out of Iraq to report. I read an article the other day where a reporter responded to that very question by saying that they couldn't get "out" to find those "good" stories because it was a war zone. I wonder what happened to reporters being able to ask questions.
So we hear that 4 Marines died in a bombing. Was the reporter there when the bomb went off? No. It was part of a daily briefing where the military men stand at the podium and give information on casualties and how operations are progressing against the terrorists. Every single day these "reporters" have the opportunity to ask questions. Their "news" organizations want them to ask questions. What questions? Don't you think they discuss that? Good? Bad? Don't you ask yourself don't both "good" and "bad" exist?
"A stream of bad news out of Iraq"
Dam it New York Times and let some of those "good" news stories in Iraq swim upstream. :duel
KidRocks said:Duh!
It's time someone pointed out to you dittoheads that that is what newspapers are all about. That that is what the "media' is all about and that includes FoxNews and their propaganda outlets.
War, drugs, killings, murders, rapes, gory accidents, all of those headlines sell! Always been that way always will be that way and it is not about to change no matter who's in office, republican or democrat.
The media is not about "good news", the media is about "dog bites man"!
You want good news? Go live in China! I'm sure they print all the "good news" thats fit to print!
Would those be good questions, or bad questions? You don't want to ask too many questions around the US military in Iraq. Unless you care to whined up in Abu Ghraib, or out of the country, or out of the Green Zone, or worse, in their cross-hairs.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
There is plenty of opportunity for "reporters" to give us good news out of Iraq. There is plenty of good news out of Iraq to report. I read an article the other day where a reporter responded to that very question by saying that they couldn't get "out" to find those "good" stories because it was a war zone. I wonder what happened to reporters being able to ask questions.
I couldn't agree with you more!Originally Posted by gordontravels:
These incidents were during the time and under the intelligence control of the Clinton Administration with President Clinton as Commander in Chief and his hand picked officials that ran the CIA, FBI and the most important, National Security. Still I'm surprised that the New York Times would report this even though it is front page material and is buried 12 pages back. The rest of the national media that regularly reports what the NYT's reports has taken the "bury it" hint though and you don't hear about it on CNN or the major networks. FNC is the exception to what is the usual rule.
Gotta dig folks. Gotta at least try to get the rest of the information that your media refuses to report. It's the only way to be more than informed in bias mode. You deserve to have all the information so the Republicans and Democrats might be held accountable instead of just mouthing a party line. Party lines are pretty long and you can get tired standing in them. That's what these parties count on.
gordontravels said:Of course it's just more of the same but, is it really? This is from todays New York Times:
Headline: "Bad Iraq News Worries Some in G.O.P. on '06"
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 18, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - "A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.
Some said that the perception that the war was faltering was providing a rallying point for dispirited Democrats and could pose problems for Republicans in the Congressional elections next year."
The rest of this article goes on to quote Republicans and Democrats that are generally against the war. I just wonder if you caught the important wording of this article. I wonder if you realize that the wording puts the New York Times and the media in this country right at the beginning of what people are led to think. I'll give that to you right here and right now:
"A stream of bad news out of Iraq"
There is plenty of opportunity for "reporters" to give us good news out of Iraq. There is plenty of good news out of Iraq to report. I read an article the other day where a reporter responded to that very question by saying that they couldn't get "out" to find those "good" stories because it was a war zone. I wonder what happened to reporters being able to ask questions.
So we hear that 4 Marines died in a bombing. Was the reporter there when the bomb went off? No. It was part of a daily briefing where the military men stand at the podium and give information on casualties and how operations are progressing against the terrorists. Every single day these "reporters" have the opportunity to ask questions. Their "news" organizations want them to ask questions. What questions? Don't you think they discuss that? Good? Bad? Don't you ask yourself don't both "good" and "bad" exist?
"A stream of bad news out of Iraq"
Dam it New York Times and let some of those "good" news stories in Iraq swim upstream. :duel
scottyz said:I've heard it said that most of the reporters in Iraq never leave the Baghdad Hilton. Their news comes from military briefings or whatever. IMO there isn't much good to report. The Army has announced we're spending 4 more years there and it appears Iraq stands a good chance at becoming another Islamic state.
gordontravels said:We have lost 1800+ dead since we invaded Iraq. I have heard mention from commanders in interviews saying the figure of insurgents killed after the initial invasion has been near 50,000. Even if it's half or less, better there than here.
cnredd said:[SACASM RANT]
If the less than 2000 US soldiers killed is Bush's fault, as the left proclaims, then whose fault are the terrorists' deaths? Saddam? Bin Laden? Some Muslim Cleric that told them to go to Iraq?
Isn't there a "Cindy Sheehan" of the Muslim world, holding court outside of a mosque asking why do their sons have to die for an unjust war?
And where are the organizations that are anti-war? Why aren't they in Iraq scraming to the insurgency that there is no war that is justified? Why aren't the Veterans for Peace & CodePink telling the insurgents that "peace is the only way?"[/SACASM RANT]
Reporters that go on patrol with troops don't ask tough questions for fear of being banned to go on patrol with troops or sent to Abu Grhaib.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
I am quite sure that there is plenty of good news to come out of Iraq. I don't have any doubts that our military is doing the job they were trained for. Yes, military briefings are the primary way to get information along with the imbedded reporters that actually go on patrol or other missions with our troops.
Originally Posted by gordontravels:
Reporters are known for asking questions. Isn't that what a good reporter should do? Here's some questions I think they should ask:
How many of our guys were killed today?
[How many of our guys shot innocent Iraqi's today?]
How long are we going to be in Iraq?
[How long are we going to occupy Iraq?]
When are the Iraqis going to be able to take over most of the operations?
[When are the Iraqis going to be given control of their economy?]
How many hospitals have we built?
[How many hospitals have we destroyed?]
How many children are receiving innoculations against major diseases?
[How many children are contracting cancers and disease as a result of our use of depleted uranium munitions?]
How many villages have electricity that never did before?
[How many hours of electricity do Iraqi's get per day?]
How many villages have clean water and sewers they never had before?
[How many sewage treatment plants are still offline?]
How many schools have been built in Iraq by our forces?
[How many schools have been built outside the green zone?]
How many children under 12 can go to school now that couldn't before now?
[How many children under 12 have lost their parents at US check points?]
How many schools have been renovated?
[How many schools have been renovated by 500 pound bombs?]
There's evidence to suggest it was the Iranians had a hand in the gassing's.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
Oh and: How many people have been saved from genocide at the hands of Saddam if you were to average the years and the hundreds of thousands he killed with gas or a bullet? Don't forget to count the women and children.
No, this war is about censorship of the media while we annex and privatize the Iraqi economy.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
Of course if the reporter asks how many insurgents we have killed they won't get an answer because unlike the much different Vietnam War, this war is not about totals but about democracy and the absence of genocide that was produced by a maniac and his family and friends.
I agree.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
I don't see becoming an Islamic State to be a problem for Iraq or the United States. If democracy leads to an Islamic State then that state will welcome all persuasions. There are Islamic States in the middle east and other places in the world that understand that it isn't Islam but the perverts that pervert the religion for their own purposes. Lebanon is a good example where many religions have led to Syria being finally pushed out by the people united for their own freedom. Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists are the problem, not the Islamic Religion or Muslims.
Insurgents make up only about 5-12% of the fighting in Iraq. The rest are Iraqis objecting to the occupation of their country.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
We have lost 1800+ dead since we invaded Iraq. I have heard mention from commanders in interviews saying the figure of insurgents killed after the initial invasion has been near 50,000. Even if it's half or less, better there than here; better them than those in Boston, Miami or San Francisco. Britain got a wake up call and security is tighter. Security is tight here in the states and we still have our freedom.
You're pretty callous when it comes to the deaths of other nations' citizens.Originally Posted by gordontravels:
Considering who we are killing, this is a good war
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?