Yankees go home!

[Jocko]

Hard to believe, eh?

I'm sure that's very hard to believe.

Specifically, hard to believe for some people, apparently like you, who assume that America is evil and clinging to illusions that we're there for (pick all that apply):

* lusting after arab blood
* oil
* colonial conquest
* plain ol' American evil

And people like you who maintain an inexhaustable supply of benefit of the doubt for murderous dictators who defy your precious UN, and never an ounce of trust in the freest nation on earth.

Yes, I can see where someone like you may have a problem in believing in purity of purpose. Excellent point.

I have to congratulate your country for the "nice" propaganda that plants everyday into its citizens' heads. However, it may not last for too long. There is a thread around in this forum where you can see pictures of what's going on, a picture of reality.

If you're referring to the American dead and captured, I assure you that our "propaganda" hasn't overlooked that either. Next argument please?

Or rather, I should ask for your first argument, instead of innuendo and propaganda.

But expecting something like that from you, well...

I find that a little hard to believe.

Why don't you give any credibility to the iraqi man's words?

Why don't you give credibility to the pictures of liberated Iraqi villages showing the locals gleefully tearing down symbols of Saddam?

I can only assume that you have decided that Iraqis are more free to express their true feelings under Saddam than when they are freed.

So excuse me for not putting any weight behind the words on one frightened Iraqi citizen. When this war is over, and the tenor changes, we'll just see how pro-Saddam he really is.

 

[Jocko]

headscratcher4,

If you were the President of the USA, then I would support the War. You have noble reasons. But, reality and History say that the US agenda is far from just liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

Meaningful examples, please?

I think that we have to draw a line there. There is no doubt in my mind that the US troops do believe that they are fighting against tyranny and that their mission is to liberate iraqis.

But, we know that the reason behind this war is just to gain political power in a very oil-rich region.

Examples? Support? Evidence? Reasons? Anything other than another parroted opinion with no backup?

It is the less[sic] they can do.

I find myself saying this more and more these days- There's just no pleasing some people.

You are right. And I really want to be wrong about it.
We'll have to wait to see if the country don't just go from one subjugation level to another.

Rest assured that you are wrong if you think anything could be much worse that what we're replacing.

 

[Troll]

You think it may take months?

Are you suggesting that two powerful nations with the best armament in the World are not capable of defeating Iraq (the size of California) in a fast and effective way?

Well, my point is that most of the failure of the coalition forces to defeat Saddam is because there is a strong support within the country, and there is a strong anti-US feeling around the region.

If the purpose was soley to beat and defeat Iraq, we could have glassed them over in a day. You should be aware of that. But since you apparently are just being a sarcastic little fellow I'll refer you back to superchart's post.

 

[c0rbin]

Bah. When big business gets an opportunity to florish in Iraq under a legitimate regime, everyone there will benefit.

Does anyone on this board think that Bubba Joe is going to be flown in to work in Iraq?

I would be willing to bet that, in addition to not having to worry about being gassed or raped or tortured or starved so Saddam and his ilk can live in lavish palaces and build monuments to themselves, that a lot of economic benefits will fall into the lap of a liberated Iraq and its people--men, women, and children.

Now maybe we could have tried to talk Saddam into giving his people a chance, but I doubt it.

 

[Q-Source]

I'm sure that's very hard to believe.

Specifically, hard to believe for some people, apparently like you, who assume that America is evil and clinging to illusions that we're there for (pick all that apply):

* lusting after arab blood
* oil
* colonial conquest
* plain ol' American evil

And people like you who maintain an inexhaustable supply of benefit of the doubt for murderous dictators who defy your precious UN, and never an ounce of trust in the freest nation on earth.

Yes, I can see where someone like you may have a problem in believing in purity of purpose. Excellent point.




If you're referring to the American dead and captured, I assure you that our "propaganda" hasn't overlooked that either. Next argument please?

Or rather, I should ask for your first argument, instead of innuendo and propaganda.

But expecting something like that from you, well...

I find that a little hard to believe.




Why don't you give credibility to the pictures of liberated Iraqi villages showing the locals gleefully tearing down symbols of Saddam?

I can only assume that you have decided that Iraqis are more free to express their true feelings under Saddam than when they are freed.

So excuse me for not putting any weight behind the words on one frightened Iraqi citizen. When this war is over, and the tenor changes, we'll just see how pro-Saddam he really is.

You are a poor deluded guy. If you want to live in a Hollywood manufactured dream, why should I wake you up?

Q

 

[Q-Source]

If the purpose was soley to beat and defeat Iraq, we could have glassed them over in a day. You should be aware of that. But since you apparently are just being a sarcastic little fellow I'll refer you back to superchart's post.

And let me refer YOU back to the response I gave to Jocko.

 

[Jocko]

You are a poor deluded guy. If you want to live in a Hollywood manufactured dream, why should I wake you up?

Q

So that's how you handle it when someone points out the gaping holes in your arguments.

I'd waste more time on you, but I'd rather just let the unfolding events of the next few months prove me right.

You know they will.

 

[Q-Source]

So that's how you handle it when someone points out the gaping holes in your arguments.

Sorry, I just can't cope with people who cannot hold a civil discussion with me. I don't like the tone of your posts.

Peace.

Q

 

[Jocko]

Sorry, I just can't cope with people who cannot hold a civil discussion with me. I don't like the tone of your posts.

Sorry. I guess I'm one of those super-senstive folks who takes offense at the implication that I'm deluded and/or brainwashed by Hollywood simply because I believe the coalition's aims in Iraq are indeed virtuous, and having bucketloads of evidence to support it.

You can bitch and whine about "tone" all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong, your implications of stalemate are baseless and your grasp of the situation badly slanted in the worst traditions of European snobbery.

Peace.

We're working on it.

 

[LeFevre]

If you agree you aint brainwashed, if you dont you are. This seems to be true for both sides.

 

[Q-Source]

20 Iraqi civilians killed by two US missiles, a human error, they say.

We may put on the hairshirt of morality in explaining why these people should die. They died because of 11 September, we may say, because of President Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", because of human rights abuses, because of our desperate desire to "liberate" them all. Let us not confuse the issue with oil. Either way, I'll bet we are told President Saddam is ultimately responsible for their deaths. We shan't mention the pilot, of course.

Robert Fisk

I wonder what the families of those dead people should do. Hate Saddam? or... hate the USA that killed their men in order to liberate them...

 

[Jocko]

20 Iraqi civilians killed by two US missiles, a human error, they say.

Robert Fisk

I wonder what the families of those dead people should do. Hate Saddam? or... hate the USA that killed their men in order to liberate them...

Last I heard, the military said that all missles were on target. They intimated that AAA or SAM fire may have fallen there- sounds tenuous, but it's possible.

In any event, it's all the more revealing when you automatically assume that ever tragedy is the fault of American incompetence. How about a thread about Fedayeen shooting soldiers in the back when they try to surrender? How about a thread about the human shields, hiding T-55 tanks in hospitals and gun caches in schools?

We, at least, have PROOF that it was them.

But I don't suppose that would interest you one bit.

 

[renata]

20 Iraqi civilians killed by two US missiles, a human error, they say.

Robert Fisk

I wonder what the families of those dead people should do. Hate Saddam? or... hate the USA that killed their men in order to liberate them...

Q-Source
NPR ( not a right leaning organization by any stretch of the imagination) reported yesterday that prior to this incident, all the casualties were from anti-aircraft fire. Apparently, a large proportion of them fall into the city, and explode there.
Furthermore, yesterday NPR had interviews with survivors of this attack. While a portion were upset, most were surprised more than upset. They had been used to American accuracy. One of the interviewees indicated there is a military facility in close proximity.

Finally, this morning there was a report on NPR that there are some indications the damage was from an Iraqi missile, not a US one.

 

[Q-Source]

Last I heard, the military said that all missles were on target. They intimated that AAA or SAM fire may have fallen there- sounds tenuous, but it's possible.

In any event, it's all the more revealing when you automatically assume that ever tragedy is the fault of American incompetence. How about a thread about Fedayeen shooting soldiers in the back when they try to surrender? How about a thread about the human shields, hiding T-55 tanks in hospitals and gun caches in schools?

We, at least, have PROOF that it was them.

But I don't suppose that would interest you one bit.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no PROOF of the missiles in the residential zone?, are you saying that those dead people are fake?

Jesuschrist, you really refuse to see reality.

About your suggestion, there are enough threads here that speak of the "heroism" of the USA troops and the "noble" reasons to attack Iraq. We don't need any more threads to support what you all already want to believe.

I am just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no PROOF of the missiles in the residential zone?, are you saying that those dead people are fake?

There is proof that something exploded in a residential zone, and that civilians died. There is no proof that it was a U.S. Missile.

If you are going to get your "facts" from Iraq Propaganda Central, the debate over 'who refuses to see reality' will be a short one.

 

[Q-Source]

NPR ( not a right leaning organization by any stretch of the imagination) reported yesterday that prior to this incident, all the casualties were from anti-aircraft fire. Apparently, a large proportion of them fall into the city, and explode there.
Furthermore, yesterday NPR had interviews with survivors of this attack. While a portion were upset, most were surprised more than upset. They had been used to American accuracy. One of the interviewees indicated there is a military facility in close proximity.

I don't know about you but if someone kills my family by mistake, the less I can do is to be upset instead of surprised

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims.

They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam". BBC News

Renata:
Finally, this morning there was a report on NPR that there are some indications the damage was from an Iraqi missile, not a US one.

And how the NPR can determine if it was the iraqi missile and not the US missiles?

The fact is that the US were doing some manoeuvres around the zone, they recognise this:

U.S. Central Command Wednesday said it destroyed nine surface-to-air missile sites around Baghdad in the early morning. According to McChrystal [U.S. Army Maj. Gen.], the attack was separate from the marketplace incident, but added, "We can't make any assumption. CNN

Of course, they won't admit that some of those manoeuvres went wrong.

Q-S

 

[renata]

I don't know about you but if someone kills my family by mistake, the less I can do is to be upset instead of surprised

Please do not misinterpret my posts. Naturally the families would be upset. The interveiw was with survivors, not family members. However, this becomes a separate topic then- not "Was it a US missile that caused the damage" or " How do Iraqis feel about this incident and how it relates to the war as a whole" but "Would you feel upset if your family is dead". In a war civillian casualties are to be minimized, but they are expected. Have you asked relatives of Saddam's purges whether they were upset their families have been tortured and killed?

And how the NPR can determine if it was the iraqi missile and not the US missiles?

I don't know how. How can Iraq determine it was a US missile?

The fact is that the US were doing some manoeuvres around the zone, they recognise this:

Yes, one of the people interviewed on NPR said there was a large militry facility near the bomb site.

Of course, they won't admit that some of those manoeuvres went wrong.

They admitted when some of their missiles landed in Iran. They admitted when a missile hit a bus of refugees going to Syria. There are so many reporters there, if a soldier sneezes the wrong way, we will know. The only party there who practices misinformation is Iraq.


I see you quoted BBC news. Interesting article on it in Washington post today
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34033-2003Mar26.html

But on Tuesday's edition of "BBC World," Washington anchor Mishal Husain seemed to regard British military reports of a local revolt in the southern Iraqi city of Basra with skepticism.

"Iraq has denied that there's been any uprising at all," she said before airing a clip of the Iraqi information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf: "I officially deny the hallucinations from the Americans, through CNN and others." The invaders have "found resistance," he said. "They have found death." Claims to the contrary were just "propaganda."

Next was an interview with the Lebanese ambassador to the United States, Farid Abboud, who worked the conversation around to U.S. support of Israel and "5 million Jews controlling 5 million Palestinians, who happen to be the natives of the land."

As for official Washington, reporter Matt Frei did a piece that questioned what President Bush was doing during the run-up to the war: "Playing ball with his dogs on the South Lawn of the White House. It is the image of a man remarkably unfazed -- he likes to delegate." This did not sound like a compliment.

On another day, Doucet, who anchors from Jordan, declared that "many commentators say it's not just Saddam Hussein who is under attack, but Iraq, its dignity and honor, and the honor of the entire Arab world." A reporter read a headline from an Arab newspaper: "A Day of Glorious Losses."

....

British Member of Parliament Alice Mahon said this week that the BBC "is almost alone among reputable news media in failing to cover the deaths and injuries to Iraqi civilians." According to London's Morning Star, Mahon contended that "their blatant bias does not reflect the concerns of the majority of the people in Britain, who still remain unconvinced of the case for war."

But Times of London columnist William Rees-Mogg offered the opposite view, calling the BBC "defeatist. . . . Americans are thought of as people who recklessly bomb innocent civilians; therefore, to a BBC editor, a picture of an injured baby in a Baghdad hospital is an entirely natural event, to be shown repeatedly."

Even the BBC's defense correspondent has criticized the company's coverage. In an internal memo leaked to London's Sun, Paul Adams wrote from Qatar: "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties.' This is simply NOT TRUE."

 

[Jocko]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no PROOF of the missiles in the residential zone?, are you saying that those dead people are fake?

I said nothing of the kind. I said there was reason to NOT immediately assume it was an American missile, and that reason is growing stronger by the hour as you saw in Renata's posts.

You are the one twisting the fact of civilian deaths into a presumption of guilt.

Jesuschrist, you really refuse to see reality.

No, I merely recognized harebrained speculation and propaganda when I see it.

About your suggestion, there are enough threads here that speak of the "heroism" of the USA troops and the "noble" reasons to attack Iraq. We don't need any more threads to support what you all already want to believe.

I am just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.

You cannot balance facts with irresponsible speculation. The debate is not just about word count, but rather who can prove what. And you've come seriously unprepared.