• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What's up with the media!?!?

Drum_corps912004

New member
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
The media, at least the coverage I receive from Chicago, tries to make it look like nothing good is happening from this war AND like everyone hates Americans "over there". IT'S NOT RIGHT! I have 2 cousins that served in Iraq and, there are many people that praise the Americans for the support, the media sure dosn't want to show that! I'm sick of it! American's constantly think about what has gone wrong with America rather than thinking about all the things that went right! Schools too, are this way. Before the war happened they didn't show all the middle easterners that hatted us, no, they showed all the one's beging for our help, well, they got it!

I guess my question is, why doesn't the media ever report something good that has happend. For once.
 
I guess my question is, why doesn't the media ever report something good that has happend. For once.

What do you want to hear?

That the Iraqies got to vote but it took months to form a half hearted goverment that cant even agree internally on key political positions?

That Iraqi children are now able to get into school which is good (not like they did not have school under Saddam though) but only if the parents allow them to go because of the huge risk of kidnapping? Or if the local goverment allows female students at all..one thing Saddam allowed no matter what.. but hey! I guess having armed guards at many schools is okay with you.. aint with me.

That the economy is booming? Going from nothing to something is also booming, and if an economy is booming then why the extreme high unemployement.. oh yea cause outsiders come and take the jobs Iraqies could do.. but hey! Also where are the big cranes and loads of building projects? With all the damage done by war, the skyline should be dotted with cranes and construction projects.. its not. Why because the security situation is so horrible.

That there is power and water 24/7.. well they cant report that because there is not power and water 24/7.. in fact its no better if not worse than it was under Saddam. Funny how Fox News reports from Bagdad almost every night (Bagdad time) and the background view of the city is pitch BLACK.

That the streets are safe?.. err no cant report that. Crime is huge, with gangs running parts of the city and kiddnappings being one of the number one indurstries there. That Bagdad and Iraq are competing with Rio, Sao Paulo and Johnasburg as being the most criminal cities and highest murder rates on the planet says something.

But they do have a functioning stock market (reported on a US network), a stock market that goes up for every time its bombed... oddly enough.

Face it the negative news stories totaly out wiegh the positive and getting to the positive stories is a life threating trek that most news organisations dont allow thier journalists to do.
 
PeteEu,

I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...

Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.

mak[ing] matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.
...
Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the countrys condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurateas accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive direction.

The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly desperate in Iraq in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990, long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape. In 1973, for example, when Saddam Hussein decided to expel all those whose ancestors had not been Ottoman citizens before Iraqs creation as a state, some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes in the space of just six weeks. This was not the temporary exile of a small group of middle-class professionals and intellectuals, which is a common enough phenomenon in most Arab countries. Rather, it was a departure en masse, affecting people both in small villages and in big cities, and it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.

Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets and we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the 1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed down. The oldest such center, at Ashrafiayh in southwest Iran, was formally shut when its last Iraqi guests returned home in 2004.

A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement, but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these cities. Since Saddams fall, they have been flooded with visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.

Over 3,000 Iraqi clerics have also returned from exile, and Shiite seminaries, which just a few years ago held no more than a few dozen pupils, now boast over 15,000 from 40 different countries. This is because Najaf, the oldest center of Shiite scholarship, is once again able to offer an alternative to Qom, the Iranian holy city where a radical and highly politicized version of Shiism is taught. Those wishing to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of Shiism now go to Iraq where, unlike in Iran, the seminaries are not controlled by the government and its secret police.

A third sign, this one of the hard economic variety, is the value of the Iraqi dinar, especially as compared with the regions other major currencies. In the final years of Saddam Husseins rule, the Iraqi dinar was in free fall; after 1995, it was no longer even traded in Iran and Kuwait. By contrast, the new dinar, introduced early in 2004, is doing well against both the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, having risen by 17 percent against the former and by 23 percent against the latter. Although it is still impossible to fix its value against a basket of international currencies, the new Iraqi dinar has done well against the U.S. dollar, increasing in value by almost 18 percent between August 2004 and August 2005. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians and Kuwaitis, now treat it as a safe and solid medium of exchange

My fourth time-tested sign is the level of activity by small and medium-sized businesses. In the past, whenever things have gone downhill in Iraq, large numbers of such enterprises have simply closed down, with the countrys most capable entrepreneurs decamping to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Iran, and even Europe and North America. Since liberation, however, Iraq has witnessed a private-sector boom, especially among small and medium-sized businesses.

It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.
 
oldreliable67 said:
PeteEu,

I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...

Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.



It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.

WOW!! Great post!!!
Here's some stuff that you might be interested in.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1840
http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html
http://www.savethecolors.com/
http://www.blackanthem.com/
 
oldreliable67 said:
PeteEu,

I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...

Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.



It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.


It's still not accurate. PeteEU gave a very good run down. Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.
 
BigDog said:
It's still not accurate. PeteEU gave a very good run down. Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.

And exactly how is it not accurate?

PeteEU did give a good run-down - but PeteEUs view is a one way street. Amir Teheri is a long-time observer of the ME whose qualifications as an observer strike me as considerably stronger than PeteEU's. That doesn't mean that PeteEU is 100% wrong or that Teheri is 100% right. It does mean that with both, one gets at the very least a more balanced view.

Your right: "good news and the media won't fix a single problem there." But there is, IMO, a need to be realistic and more accurate about the situation. A lot more pragmatism from both the Iraq doubters/critics and the Bushies would be helpful for everyone.

The "news" alone, good or bad, won't determine the outcome. But more accurate representations and information would keep all better informed and facilitate better decision-making.

It is not a "desire to be praised"; it is a desire for pragmatism and accuracy. To look only at the good things and ignore the bad is as undesirable as looking only at the bad and ignoring the good.
 
oldreliable67 said:
And exactly how is it not accurate?

PeteEU did give a good run-down - but PeteEUs view is a one way street. Amir Teheri is a long-time observer of the ME whose qualifications as an observer strike me as considerably stronger than PeteEU's. That doesn't mean that PeteEU is 100% wrong or that Teheri is 100% right. It does mean that with both, one gets at the very least a more balanced view.

Your right: "good news and the media won't fix a single problem there." But there is, IMO, a need to be realistic and more accurate about the situation. A lot more pragmatism from both the Iraq doubters/critics and the Bushies would be helpful for everyone.

The "news" alone, good or bad, won't determine the outcome. But more accurate representations and information would keep all better informed and facilitate better decision-making.

It is not a "desire to be praised"; it is a desire for pragmatism and accuracy. To look only at the good things and ignore the bad is as undesirable as looking only at the bad and ignoring the good.


I showed you in the other thread he is inaccurate. When evaluating sources you ask is this in other sources, as quick search shows that Iraqis are leaving Iraq, that power isn't up to prewar standards, that the violence is taking a toll, and that all the "good news" in the world will not make it OK. Every bit of good news is reported. Many sites have reported that with links often. However, when you measure and weight things, in order to be accurate and especially pragmatic, they are not equal. They will never be equal. For every single bad thing, there must be 10 to 20 good things. Check your psycology on that.

So, yes, it is inaccurate.
 
BigDog said:
I showed you in the other thread he is inaccurate.

Sounds like I overlooked something...to what other thread are you referring?

...disregard....found it...had overlooked....wil reply in that thread.
 
Last edited:
Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.

its not about "good news making a difference in the outcome"

its about ACCURATELY REPORTING WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.

its about giving TWO SIDES to the story.

you want to tell me that out of all we have done in the war on terror, out of all the lives we have lost on both sides over there, out of all the money spent, and the effort made......THERE IS NOTHING POSITIVE TO REPORT.

if you believe that, then you are truly hopeless.

the fact of the matter is, in this day and age, most people dont give a damn about the good things going on. blood sells, and the media knows it.

try for one second to do away with any political bias you may poses......and READ the first post in this thread. all he is asking is WHY DONT WE GET BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

I gotta tell ya, with all of the terrorist acts happening over there every day, there is no way you can convince me that just as many arent being prevented!!!! where are the stories about the terrorist acts that WERENT SUCCESSFUL?
 
sure, a school house was painted, meanwhile 120 iraqis were blown up.
It's weighing the bad against the good, and unfortunatelty the bad weighs more in Iraq.
 
ProudAmerican said:
its not about "good news making a difference in the outcome"

its about ACCURATELY REPORTING WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.


The reporting has been accurate. No where in the world do they report that traffic went well today or that a school was painted beyond the local level. News has limited time constrants and properly prioritize. Since they do not weigh equal, they do not get reported equal. Nor should they.

That said, they do get reported.
 
oldreliable67 said:
PeteEu,

I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...

Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.

It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.

Nice link. As for his experiences and mine.. I have lived in the region for 15 years and do know a bit about the area, but yes his experiences are probally greater considering he was born there (if I read it right).

However there is some spin the quote and his motives being an Iranian have to be taken into account.

First off the refugee issue is some what true, however he fails to mention who the people who fled were and what religious background and tribal affiliation they had. This has a big impact on the "flooding of refugees". Almost all were political with religious and tribal problems thrown in. Almost non were economic. With Saddam gone, these refugees have of course returned in force, however there are still a lot that have not because of the security concerns. I know a few who have attempted to return but were told by relatives in Iraq to wait til it was safer.

Secondly he mentions that more pilgrims goto Iraq now that Mecca and Medina.. yes that is true, however he fails to mention the background. Saudi Arabia limits the numbers of pilgrims to the holy sites, both officailly and unofficially. Controlling 3 million people at one location is extremely hard, just think about 12 million.. thats reckless. Also he fails to mention correctly that many have been bared by Saddam to goto these shrines... Iranians who make up a HUGE majority of that branch of Islam were banned from going to the holy sites in Iraq... heck even the Saudis attempted to ban them from Mecca because of voilent demonstrations by Iranians that cost hundreds of lives. In other words.. there are a lot of people who need to do a lot of catching up.

He also mentions the exiled clerics.. almost all returned from.. Iran. Do you really think that they did not adopt Irans extremes views... get real, thier true colours are already showing in the south of Iraq and politically the majority of Iraqi parties have affilation some what with Iran.

As for the economic view.. yes I have said it before.. going from nothing to something is a huge leap, but it still does not mean much. Economics in the region is very controlled and can not be compared to the west. There is no doubt that Iraq's economy has gone forward since the fall of Saddam.. I doubt anyone would deny that.

But back to subject.. there are few positive stories and they are deafend by the hundreds that are killed every week.
 
PeteEU said:
as for his experiences and mine.. I have lived in the region for 15 years and do know a bit about the area,

Thanks very much for the feedback on that article. It seems to me that your experiences in the area are pretty unique among DP posters, so please continue to contribute these valuable insights!:good_job:
 
BigDog said:
It's still not accurate. PeteEU gave a very good run down. Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.
It's not a desire to be praised, it's WAR. Let me give you an analogy:

You and another person are competing for the same position at your place of employment. You are committed to you employer and to doing what is best for him and to treating the people in your charge fairly. The other guy is not committed and only wants the position because it gives him the authority push around some people he doesn't like, even though they are good employees and fully committed to well being of the company. If he gets the job, these people will be mistreated and the company will suffer. Now, you don't like to blow your own horn, but if you don't, the other guy gets the job and your company and the employees will suffer.


This is the scenario that is playing out in Iraq. There is a choice between two groups and the one that is committed to Iraq's peaceful and progressive future gets little good press and the one that is attempting to re-establish a terrorocrasy is getting vast amounts of press, some bad, some sympathetic and some that is actually supportive. It's not about being praised, it's about making sure that evil men do not rule Iraq once again. It's about people who are opposed to what we are doing wanting to see us fail, even if it means that the rape rooms are re-opened and the poor people of Iraq go back to a medievel era quality of life.
 
Drum_corps912004 said:
I guess my question is, why doesn't the media ever report something good that has happend. For once.


Im not sure why ANYONE is shocked at this.

Bad news sells, good news does not.

Think about BEFORE the war, BEFORE 9/11.

Was the media a happy go lucky oh here is your uplifting news for today type of thing ?

NO
 
faithful_servant said:
It's not a desire to be praised, it's WAR. Let me give you an analogy:

You and another person are competing for the same position at your place of employment. You are committed to you employer and to doing what is best for him and to treating the people in your charge fairly. The other guy is not committed and only wants the position because it gives him the authority push around some people he doesn't like, even though they are good employees and fully committed to well being of the company. If he gets the job, these people will be mistreated and the company will suffer. Now, you don't like to blow your own horn, but if you don't, the other guy gets the job and your company and the employees will suffer.


This is the scenario that is playing out in Iraq. There is a choice between two groups and the one that is committed to Iraq's peaceful and progressive future gets little good press and the one that is attempting to re-establish a terrorocrasy is getting vast amounts of press, some bad, some sympathetic and some that is actually supportive. It's not about being praised, it's about making sure that evil men do not rule Iraq once again. It's about people who are opposed to what we are doing wanting to see us fail, even if it means that the rape rooms are re-opened and the poor people of Iraq go back to a medievel era quality of life.


This is not at all like that. If I do a job and it is a failure, talking on the positive will not make it a success. In fact, trying to pretend it is will only secure my doom.

And the news has nothing to do with who rules in Iraq, which is a real problem if anyone thinks they do. Securing the country will determine that, not the news.
 
BigDog said:
This is not at all like that. If I do a job and it is a failure, talking on the positive will not make it a success. In fact, trying to pretend it is will only secure my doom.
Do you think that one the two employees in my analogy is us?? Wrongo boyo. The two employees are the Shias and Sunnis, one is dedicated to a progressive, postivie nation, the other is committed to a return to a gov't by terror.

And the news has nothing to do with who rules in Iraq, which is a real problem if anyone thinks they do. Securing the country will determine that, not the news.
The news has a huge impact on who rules in Iraq. Public perception in Iraq and in the int'l community is critical. These terror attacks are not desiigned to create fear within the Iraqi people, they are designed to create a media buzz. The Iraqi people have already made it clear that they are not going to be intimidated as long as they have a way of countering the attackers. This is done by use of the Coalition forces and the rising IA and IP forces. But, if we leave, then the anti-Iraqi forces (those killing Iraqis on a daily basis for the express purpose of creating fear and returning Iraq to it's Baathist roots) will start taking over Iraq once again by use of fear. This is the goal of the terror attacks: to create a perception that we can't help the Iraqi people, so we might as well leave. The media is THE key player in this. They are terrorism's greatest ally. Take some time to research 4th generation warfare. See what the reality of the enemy we fight is and what thier primary weapons and tactics are.
 
faithful_servant said:
Do you think that one the two employees in my analogy is us?? Wrongo boyo. The two employees are the Shias and Sunnis, one is dedicated to a progressive, postivie nation, the other is committed to a return to a gov't by terror.

The news has a huge impact on who rules in Iraq. Public perception in Iraq and in the int'l community is critical. These terror attacks are not desiigned to create fear within the Iraqi people, they are designed to create a media buzz. The Iraqi people have already made it clear that they are not going to be intimidated as long as they have a way of countering the attackers. This is done by use of the Coalition forces and the rising IA and IP forces. But, if we leave, then the anti-Iraqi forces (those killing Iraqis on a daily basis for the express purpose of creating fear and returning Iraq to it's Baathist roots) will start taking over Iraq once again by use of fear. This is the goal of the terror attacks: to create a perception that we can't help the Iraqi people, so we might as well leave. The media is THE key player in this. They are terrorism's greatest ally. Take some time to research 4th generation warfare. See what the reality of the enemy we fight is and what thier primary weapons and tactics are.


Perception must be build with honesty, or it is useless. People see through deception. And frankly, like it or not, the Iraqi people know the security is failing regardless of what the media reports, and that is the point.

However, Bush is there greatest ally. He gave them the opportunity to bled and hurt us by being reckless and foolish. Read Scheuer. He has made one error after another, and you can't hide that with propaganda. The media is world wide and cannot be controlled completely by any government, so if you want to win such a fight, you have to act like you understand the media is there reporting. Knowing this, you don't do evil, unethical things. It really is that simple.

Secure the country. Then do good things in safety. If you are going to kill and torture, as Iraqis are doing (BTW, the Shia are killing more people than anyone), then the news will not be good. There is no way around that.
 
BigDog said:
Perception must be build with honesty, or it is useless. People see through deception. And frankly, like it or not, the Iraqi people know the security is failing regardless of what the media reports, and that is the point.

However, Bush is there greatest ally. He gave them the opportunity to bled and hurt us by being reckless and foolish. Read Scheuer. He has made one error after another, and you can't hide that with propaganda. The media is world wide and cannot be controlled completely by any government, so if you want to win such a fight, you have to act like you understand the media is there reporting. Knowing this, you don't do evil, unethical things. It really is that simple.

Secure the country. Then do good things in safety. If you are going to kill and torture, as Iraqis are doing (BTW, the Shia are killing more people than anyone), then the news will not be good. There is no way around that.

How does it feel to be a casualty of war? You've been targetted and hit by the terorists using 4th gen. tactics. By their creation of a false impression of what we are doing in Iraq, you have been turned into an ally of the terrorists. Yeah, I know you don't want to believe it, but when you attack the enemies of the terrorists, you are doing exactly what they want.
 
faithful_servant said:
How does it feel to be a casualty of war? You've been targetted and hit by the terorists using 4th gen. tactics. By their creation of a false impression of what we are doing in Iraq, you have been turned into an ally of the terrorists. Yeah, I know you don't want to believe it, but when you attack the enemies of the terrorists, you are doing exactly what they want.


This is the kind of response someone with a weak argument makes. Such Ad homien attacks do you an injustice. Surely you can do better.

The hearts and minds of the ME are being fought for and you can't win them with propaganda, not false proaganda any way. You have to secure the country and actually do something that matters more than the death and distruction they are facing now. Without security, their minds cannot be won.

The major error was being unethical and invading in the first place. That act alone put us behind the eight ball. But we have compounded that error with many, many errors since, nearly all of which can be traced back to poor leadership.

And you simply can't pass the buck to the media or anyone else.
 
BigDog said:
This is the kind of response someone with a weak argument makes. Such Ad homien attacks do you an injustice. Surely you can do better.

The hearts and minds of the ME are being fought for and you can't win them with propaganda, not false proaganda any way. You have to secure the country and actually do something that matters more than the death and distruction they are facing now. Without security, their minds cannot be won.

The major error was being unethical and invading in the first place. That act alone put us behind the eight ball. But we have compounded that error with many, many errors since, nearly all of which can be traced back to poor leadership.

And you simply can't pass the buck to the media or anyone else.

OK, I'm kind of a simple, bottom-line kind of guy, so...
Which benefits the terrorists more, media reports of problems or media reports of successes. You said it yourself, we're in a war for hearts and minds, but you have bought into the lie that the majority of Iraqi citizens are still in the balance. They're not. They have made up thier minds that they want a peaceful nation w/o the people who are creating the havoc that is occurring there. They recognize that the terrorists are the cause of the problem, not the Coalition. They recognize that the presence of Coalition troops in Iraq is their best hope for a stable future. But you won't hear that in the media, because it doesn't sell and it doesn't line up with the political bias of most editors/producers.

I'm not passing the buck for the problems in Iraq, but I'm not going to ignore the media's part in it, either. The terrorists know how to use the media to their best advantage and they take full advantage of the media's bias to help them. The reason the terrorists keep attacking Iraqi citizens is not to directly control the Iraqis, but to break down our resolve. This is what 4th generation warfare is all about. It's a tactic wherein a weaker opponent breaks down an opponents commitment to winning by creating a false impression that the cost of winning outweighs the benefits of winning. It's primary goal is to break down confidence in their opponents leadership, to make sure that every cost (lives, money, time etc.) is over-emphasized and exaggerated in thier impact, to cause their enemy to lose their resolve. This is the tactic we are fighting and it's target is people like yourself. The terrorists want to make you an enemy of their enemy and have succeeded far too often. This is what I was referring to in my prior post. It's the age-old concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The terrorists have made you the enemy of their enemy, making you their friend. This does not mean that they are your friend, but it certainly means that you are their's.

Take some time to study 4th Generation warfare. See how it was applied in Viet Nam, see how the Germans used a variant of it when taking over Norway (they applied it from a position of strength), see how the Russians used it at the end of WWII to take over most of E. Europe and keep the west from intervening. When you truly understand how 4th gen. warfare works, take an objective look at yourself and see if you can see how you've been targetted and hit in this war for OUR hearts and minds.
 
The major error was being unethical and invading in the first place.

tell us at what point it would have become ethical? how many years and resolutions of defiance? how many dead Kurds. how many mass graves, rape rooms, and people thrown from buildings to their deaths?

I submit the major error would have been to wait untill AFTER Iraq had proven itself a threat.....as we did in Afghanistan with the taliban and al queda.

I submit had we done something about that problem before hand, we might not have lost 3000 innocent civilians.

It really comes down to one thing. to we want to be pro-active, or reactive in this war on terror.

I can give you the names of 3000 dead people that wish we would have been pro-active.

do we know for SURE we could have prevented 9-11? of course not. but one thing we do know for an absolute FACT. Not being pro-active damn sure didnt help things any.
 
ProudAmerican said:
tell us at what point it would have become ethical? how many years and resolutions of defiance? how many dead Kurds. how many mass graves, rape rooms, and people thrown from buildings to their deaths?

I submit the major error would have been to wait untill AFTER Iraq had proven itself a threat.....as we did in Afghanistan with the taliban and al queda.

I submit had we done something about that problem before hand, we might not have lost 3000 innocent civilians.

It really comes down to one thing. to we want to be pro-active, or reactive in this war on terror.

I can give you the names of 3000 dead people that wish we would have been pro-active.

do we know for SURE we could have prevented 9-11? of course not. but one thing we do know for an absolute FACT. Not being pro-active damn sure didnt help things any.

Since Saddam had nothing to with 9/11, your proclimation means little. The fact that anyone would say something so wrong is testement to the wrong headed thinking going on regarding this subject. The 9/11 commission was clear that the only thing that might have prevented 9/11 was the FBI and the CIA talking to each other.

Now, as to ethics. Ethics are not morals. Ehtics are when you uphold agreed upon standards even when you disagree. A lawyer has to follow a standard no matter what he personally believes or how fustrated he or she may or may not before. If they violate a standard, even if the reason appears just, they are called before the law board to face charges and punishment for unethical behavior. No matter how popular it is with you, when the US broke its agreements, it was unethical.
 
Since Saddam had nothing to with 9/11, your proclimation means little

you are so predictable!!!! It makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

The fact that anyone would say something so wrong is testement to the wrong headed thinking going on regarding this subject.

I never said he did. its leftist twisted thinking that wants to claim something was said that wasnt, because you dont have an answer to my question.

The 9/11 commission was clear that the only thing that might have prevented 9/11 was the FBI and the CIA talking to each other.
absolutely. had the FBI and CIA communicated better, they could have known before hand that 9-11 was a possibility, and done something to prevent it. you know, they could have been PRO ACTIVE. thanks for making my point for me.

I wont bother to respond to your last paragraph since it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with my point.

so, do you think we should be pro-active, or simply reactive in this war on terror?
 
Back
Top Bottom