NY Times photo caption suggested only pro-war demonstrators support the troops
A photograph appearing in the May 28 edition of The New York Times depicted a pro-Iraq war demonstrator standing across from a group of anti-Iraq war protestors in Lewes, Delaware. The caption read, "Jeffery Broderick, foreground, standing alone last week in support of United States troops as demonstrators for peace occupy an opposite corner" -- asserting in essence that Broderick, and Broderick alone, demonstrated in support of the troops while implying that those protesting the war did not.
The photograph, which accompanied a May 28 Times article headlined "Silence Speaks Volumes at Intersection of Views on Iraq War":
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, and here), various media outlets have suggested that opposition to the Iraq war and support for U.S. troops are mutually exclusive positions. The implication that those who oppose the war do not support the troops was repeatedly recycled by the media in 2006, when anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), were ejected from the 2006 State of the Union address for wearing Iraq-war themed T-shirts, and in 2005, when news outlets labeled Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) "pro-military," suggesting most Democrats are not.
Am I the only one that has noticed that the people that support the troops want to send them off to war to be killed, but the people that hate the troops want to bring them home? I hate the m-f-ing media.
Me am no Bizzaro media, me never lie. what you undertand when me no say that the people that support the troops want to send them off to war to be killed, but the people that hate the troops want to bring them home?
You said it best. Apparently in America if you do not agree that all these American soliders need to be sent to Iraq to die then we hate them. Thanks to the Republicans this notion exists in the MSM. I feel bad Cindy Sheehan has decided to leave the cause although I am sure she must be so frustrated with how things turned out in the Senate last week.
Apparently in America if you do not agree that all these American soliders need to be sent to Iraq to die then we hate them.
Apparently, it isn't only those who "do not agree". Read this from an actual survivor of the WTC AND Iraq. You liberals may want to pay special attention to #'s 5 and 10.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/superpatriot76/2007/may/29/9_11_wtc_survivor_quits_wall_street_joins_marines_fights_in_iraq
The guy is entitled to his opinion. I think it ludicrous to make the argument that the press ought to NOT expose the reality of Iraq because some guy going there might not like it. The truth will set you free. It is not the presses function to serve as a propaganda arm and SELL the war or make people feel good about it. It is to inform the people so THEY can make an informed decision about it. Basically this guys opinion had ZERO to do with the ridiculous frame that one guy supporting the war was supporting the troops and the protesters OF the war were not. I am sure they war protesters are doing EXACTLY what they think supports the troops. Its a dishonest framing, good job MMFA
Basically this guys opinion had ZERO to do with the ridiculous frame that one guy supporting the war was supporting the troops and the protesters OF the war were not.
That is your opinion, which counts as much as his. However, cpl Finelli's statements have a lot to do with this thread. He speaks of honor and patriotism. Something America needs more of, it doesn't need to learn to be cowards. That is what is being taught by those who protest against the war. Sure, you have every right to protest, but what you are teaching by doing so is cowardice! You are saying that you are afraid to participate in a function that gives you the right to protest. Do you protest against the war? Have YOU ever served in the military?
That is an interesting take on the occupation of Iraq. Tell us all, specifically, how our troops in Iraq are protecting and affirming our right to protest. Or better, how does Iraq threaten our freedom?
If you want to get down to it, violence is the ultimate act of cowardice and display of weakness. Violence is the opposite of power. Violence says that you have no confidence in your ability to change hearts and minds.
If you want to get down to it, violence is the ultimate act of cowardice and display of weakness.
Interesting. Which side of this conflict has the goal of "peace" in Iraq and which side advocates violence? Which side is being protested against by the many folk who are against this war? THAT tells me who the cowards are! Which side do YOU support? The peaceful side or the violent side? I would be interested to hear how you will equate terrorism with being the peaceful portion of that situation. Are you wiilling to explain it?
I wrote exactly what I meant to write. Shame on your ignorance if you don't get it.
Now tell us all how our freedoms are threatened by Iraq.
My freedom to travel is compromised by the threat of terrorism and my freedom to assemble is compromised by the threat of terrorism. I am not able to travel without the threat of a terrorist destroying buildings, structures that I may travel to and I cannot travel freely without undue delays caused by terroristic threats all caused by the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq.
Traveling has never been safe and our freedom to assemble has been limited, without sufficient justification or legality, by provisions in the Patriot Act. As far as undue delays go, security precautions would have served us better before 9/11.
Terrorists in Iraq? A handful, perhaps. Why would people bent attacking this country waste their time being targets for the most lethal soldiers around in a totally different country? Why wouldn't they go where the civillians are and the military isn't?
Frankly, the Republicans or conservatives or neo-cons or whatever you righties call yourselves these days, have been wrong every step of the way on terrorism, so much so that I'm amazed folks like you have the gall to think your input is valid.
Why don't you thugs just go away, let the real patriots do the work of the Just. You people have effed up the country enough for generations to come. Just go away until you can demonstrate a sense of humanity, you're horrible.
The occcupation of Iraq is breaking our military and Bush's refusal to acknowledge the new Congress, and the will of the people, highlights his betrayal. It is Bush's Constitutional duty to carry out the strategic mission set forth by Congress, it is his duty to see the troops are adequately supplied and protected. He has abandoned them after sending them into a burning building with no way out.
Bush is a punk, is breaking our military, and his supporters are accomplices to the crime.
The better way to quell terrorism has never been and never will be blunt military force. It takes international organization of intelligence gathering and sharing. It takes infiltration along with reliable information collection techniques, not this Jack Bauer torture crap. It takes military presence to insure that the political process is not derailed but it doesn't require bombs.
It is Bush's Constitutional duty to carry out the strategic mission set forth by Congress,
No, it is not. But that's a good parroting point that non-thinkers are good at repeating over and over.
Bush is a punk, is breaking our military, and his supporters are accomplices to the crime.
EVERY democrat supported the starting of 'his' war, but none have the stomach or spine to finish it. They would prefer to cut and run because they fear the terrorists and what the terrorists will do to them. They are still trying to find an appeasement point that will save them....but won't find one.
The better way to quell terrorism has never been and never will be blunt military force. It takes international organization of intelligence gathering and sharing. It takes infiltration along with reliable information collection techniques, not this Jack Bauer torture crap. It takes military presence to insure that the political process is not derailed but it doesn't require bombs.
Hypocrit!!! Which is it? More troops or pull the troops out? Which is it... stop the terrorists or appease them? I see you give NO suggestion for what to do with the terrorists when you find them. I guess you will prefer they run free, as long as they say 'I'm sorry'? I see you are loaded with ideas to find them, but NONE after you find them. Are you going to slap their hands or kill them? Are you going to "teach them a better way"? I believe terrorists hate the US BECAUSE of liberal ideals. Thank YOU for setting up this entire situation that YOU blame Bush for!!
by provisions in the Patriot Act. As far as undue delays go, security precautions would have served us better before 9/11.
Well, at least we agree that there weren't any restrictions before terrorists started attacking America. And that was my point, which you now agree with, that terrorists have affected my freedoms. It's nice when liberals and conservatives can agree on such a volatile subject.
violence is the ultimate act of cowardice and display of weakness.
I wrote exactly what I meant to write. Shame on your ignorance if you don't get it.
Oh, I get it. You support the violent side and despise the peaceful side. Which makes you (and those who agree with your opinion) fit your description to perfection.
You might be able to use that argument on the 'little' people that have nothing more than coming in here and perhaps an occasional opinion peice in their local paper to say their peace.....
But what can be said about the loudest cheerleaders on Fox, CNN, basically all the other 'media' outlets, religious leaders and those that are part of the Bush regime or (name most of our so-called political leaders) that NEVER served, took every opportunity given them to use either their family name, status, or money to get deferment after deferment to not be sent to Vietnam but have zero problem sending those that are willing by attacking a country that did nothing to us in the first place?
Lets not forget, we supposedly are in a war against an ideology (terror) not supposedly Iraq, which wasn't true after Saddam's government was taken out, since then ithas been by definition - an occupation!
Terror wasn't much of a concern coming from Iraq but thanks to Bush regime foriegn policy and Cheney's Haliburton ties, it is now!
So, I have to say: Thank you GW and all your zombie soldiers for screwing the world worse than it was before.
Not sure how 5 and 10 are supposed to apply to Liberals. I only recall Democrats asking for a return of the draft -- as a strategy to make the rich white guys think twice about sending their own children to war. (There may be Republicans making the same argument. I only recall Democrats.)
As for #10, it is a shame that troops be demoralized by hearing that their mission is based on a series of lies from the Bush Administration. This administration ignored intelligence that didn't suit its goals, and promoted bad intel that did. Not sure why Liberals should feel guilty about THAT. Anyone who voted to put Bush in power are the ones who should hang their head in shame for that.
As for feeling like Teddy Roosevelt because you're riding in an armored convoy... well, I'm not really all that excited about invading sovereign nations so some guys can feel like rough riders. As we've seen with Iraq, such unwise invasions cause too much trouble.
Not sure how 5 and 10 are supposed to apply to Liberals. I only recall Democrats asking for a return of the draft -- as a strategy to make the rich white guys think twice about sending their own children to war. (There may be Republicans making the same argument. I only recall Democrats.)
As for #10, it is a shame that troops be demoralized by hearing that their mission is based on a series of lies from the Bush Administration. Not sure why Liberals should feel guilty about THAT. Anyone who voted to put Bush in power are the ones who should hang their head in shame for that.
It is totally understandable that you don't understand what it means to be loyal. It is totally understandable that you don't understand why news stories designed to demoralize our military are demoralizing to our military. You claim the democrats are the first to call for the return of the draft? Would you vote for one who promises it? Somehow I doubt it, I would think you would be afraid to enter the military during a war. Like all other promises by democrats, they only have 'face value', none of the democrats actually promise anything, only pretend they do. They claimed to support the war, then we find out they pretended to support the war. YOU like many others have forgotten what happened on 9/11. It's a pity that so many are like YOU. Fortunately, there are still brave Americans who will serve and die for your right to whine about lies. Let's forget about innocent people who need our help, just continue to whine about lies.
WHO called for liberals to feel "guilty" and "shame"? Not me. Perhaps you feel guilty and shamed, and that's why you brought up those words?
I had trouble reading past: "Read it and weap-its awesome."
Indoctrination, reeducation, "tear you down and build you up". mental and physical makeover. These are the necessary things the military does to a raw recruit. Some of this "rubs" off on the parents of a raw inlistee. Then factor in a key psychological quirk: watching you offspring being proud of turning into a souldier and going off to potentially kill people and to be killed makes it difficult to hold the thought that your offspring is now going to be the pawn in an egomaniacs power trip. To be for the troops and against what they are doing has got to be a difficult situation to be in mentally. I am refering to being in Iraq. A great deal of people still believe Iraq is responsible for 9/11. I saw a program on CNN showing a father and son in uniform, and in Iraq, being interviewed. After several months into their tour of duty, the father said we needed to be there and the invasion of Iraq was justifid as retribution for 9/11. The son said we should not be there. I wonder what percentage of our troops over there believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11. How in the Creators name can anyone believe what this father believes? Another young soldier recovering from wounds at W. Reed said he believes the people in charge have more experience in this and know what they are doing (with respect to fighting in Iraq). Sonds like brainwashing. Media Matters is sort of like Copernicus. The truth can be a very bitter pill when egos stand to be crushed. baby bush is going to start withdrawing troops soon and he will take credit for conceptualizing and implementing the withdrawl. And progressive- realists will still be refered to as "surrender monkies". baby bush is going to land someplace and give a news conference spewing forth in his "word salad" phrasiology, that he has been successful in Iraq and our mission has been accomplished thanks to his perspicacity and his steel resolve in spite of the presure from Americans that Hate America: the 70% against the occupation of Iraq during a civil war. I think I could sell a FLAT EARTH ATLAS depicting geographic areas where dinosaurs and man lived together in harmony and if that happened why can't everyone get behind bush's way of thinking? Thats the title
The Democrats just approved funding the WAR in Iraq, not the TROOPS.
Whereas the WAR needs to TROOPS to exist, the TROOPS are not dependent on the WAR for existence.
In fact, the WAR is the thing make more and more dead TROOPS.
Randy
This is the standard in both D.C. and the media these days. If you support Bush and his criminal war, then you love america, you support the troops and are a great patriot.
But, if you stand up for peace, liberty and the Constitution - and oppose the war in Iraq - then you "hate america" don't support the troops, are part of the "blame america first" crowd, want us to lose, and all the other taglines they continue to spew.
The reality, though, is much different. It's these war lovers that are showing utter hatred for the troops and for everything this country stands for. They're willing to sacrifice lives and liberty to quench their thirst for power, profits and war.
It makes me sick.
Some further thoughts on this:
"The America-Haters Strike Again" - click here
Lets capitalize on the war monger, grease, sugar and bleached white flour eating christian "right" interbred mongoloids. Lets sell them a new American flag with 49 stars (California has benn thrown out of the union) around a vignet of Adam and Eve holding the great baby bush holding a assault rifle. We will sell lots of them. Anybody cutting me out of this copyrighted idea ( I am a graphic artist) will meet my lawyers. I will have a cross in the background and a halo will hover over the head of the great baby bush. I am going to be RICH I say.
The relevant question as it pertains to this site, is what is the media hoping to accomplish by selling these sort of stories. What do they hope to teach viewers/readers by constantly telling them that blindly supporting Bush policies and the Republican party is pro-American patriotism, but questioning these people and their policies is anti-american and against the troops who are just doing their job?
Is the media intentionally trying to tell their audience that unless they vote Republican or promote Republican policies they are to be marginalized, attacked, smeared or essentially fair game?
Yes... didn't you get the memo? You know, the one from Rove and Murdoch? We all did... Also, don't forget the new cover sheet on all the TPS reports... thank you!!
You are probably correct. It's probably just a coincidence that the same media that routinely ignores or downplays some of the largest anti-war protests the country has seen in decades ALWAYS covers the lone protestor who wants to continue the war indefinitely.
Must just be a coincidence that the media routinely acts as if supporting Bush and the war in Iraq and supporting the troops are synonyms while people who want the troops brough back to the safety of their homes and families are considered to be anti-American and anti-troops.
Oh. And it's probably also just a coincidence that the media routinely ignores the fact that the vast majority of American citizens wants the war to end and the troops brought home now.
But here's what I don't understand and perhaps only someone as wise as yourself can explain it to us lowly lefties. If it's just a coincidence, and the media isn't trying to sell a certain message, then why use those words? Why frame the debate in that way? Why not give equal time and voice to left wingers on their shows or in their interviews and quotes? Why do they always marginalize the majority when that majority supports Democratic policies but acts as if the majority is a mandate when it supports the Republicans?
Because frankly, you would think that if it was just a coincidence or an accident, then it would swing the other direction once and a while. But it doesn't. So you'll excuse me if I doubt that it is a coincidence and instead view it as a conscious effort to inflate right wing policies and demean left wing policies despite what facts or the majority of Americans actually want. It can only be described as a concerted effort on behalf of the media to frame events in a certain light. But maybe I'm wrong. Please explain it to me. Since you so sarcastically attempted to rebut me without using actual fact, logic or arguement...please explain to me why the media would possible ignore evidence and fact and the majority to focus on what one lone war-supporter has to say? And why is his protest treated as more legitimate or "pro troop" than the majority?
My man- you are preaching to the choir over here.... There totally IS a concerted effort to squeeze and mold the MSM into the ruling party's manifesto...
Lol. My bad. I took your response as being a sarcastic attempt to downplay my initial post without addressing the claims. I misunderstood.
fyi: Glenn Greenwald, in Salon, wrote an excellent, thought-provoking article along similar lines to this topic the other day, here.
Hahaha...In case you missed it, everyone supports peace except those darned islamofacists.
It seems to me that many people here conflate the words peace and withdrawal. Does anyone seriously think there will be peace if we withdraw our troops? Will Al Queda and the Batthists and the Shia militants suddenly make love and not war?
Lets be realistic. It seems to me most of the 'peace' loving liberals are really isolationists and only want to bring American soldiers home to keep them and them alone from being killed. (That is a legitimate position.) It seems to me most of the "bring 'em home now" crowd could care less if doing so means many more Iraqis or others end up being killed as a result.
I also never hear the "peace lovers" explain what the effects of an extremist or Al Queda take over of Iraq will eventually mean in terms of peace? Will Bin Laden retire to a cave in Baghdad and decide he will leave his neighbors and/or the U.S. alone? Will Iran sit idly by? Will they discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons? Or do you think they will they use Iraq as a client-state to export more terrorism to surrounding countries, Europe, and the U.S? What will happen with Hamas and the Palestinians? Will they then be mollified and stop their killing? Or will they be emboldened and take their jihad to their neighbors.
I, like everyone else want the U.S soldiers to come home but I am not convinced at all that doing so will not lead to more war and more killing. It seems to me that a pullout of U.S. soldiers will eventually lead to the opposite of peace.
If we are ever to reach an understanding of why some people believe supporting the troops means keeping them there, it seems to me that progressives like Populist need to stop characterizing those whom they disagree as "war lovers" full of "hatred for the troops and everything the country stands for". These are nice catch phrases if you are a kool-aid drinker but utterly meaningless in a serious discussion.
AA,
Can you ever make a statement about your beliefs without denigrating those with whom you disagree?
This is why people don't like you. It's not because they disagree with you.
Thanks for the chastisement on behalf of 'everybody', however I'm not sure which comment you are referring. Not that it matters but it seems to me you conveniently left that out.
As for liking me, I would have thought by now you'd realize I don't care if they do or if they don't.
I do hope you'll post a reply regarding the substance of my note.
AA,
If you re-present your points without any namecalling, I'd be happy to respond. I just can't get beyond the insults and put downs.
Those things make your "so-called" points meaningless.
I meant so-called "points".
skeptical,
Funny I don't recall you speaking out when progressives/liberals attack our President, Vice President, or all the conservatives who happen to express an opinion different than the prevailing far left agenda driven threads? Hmmmm? Apparently you don't see a problem with them do you?
You might as well face it. You have nothing to say and you said it clearly.
That not withstanding, I hope we can be friends. ;-)
Again with the name calling.
I asked you a simple question, yet you cannot answer it.
I am not talking about anyone but you, stop deflecting and answer my question or re-phrase your statement by taking out the insults and derogatory namecalling and I will respond.
Notwithstanding -- one word -- that, how much did you speak out when Clinton was being anally raped by Ken Starr and the endless (and fruitless) investigations?
Disagreement does not equal attack.
Until you understand that, you will never have a cogent point to make.
As Edward R. Murrow said, "Dissent does not equal disloyalty."
I sometimes find it hard to see how you can type with your lips so firmly planted upon the posteriors of the Administration. It does account for your huge blind spots. You just can't see around those asses.
Hey, doya really wanna take a vote?
help me out here... show me the insult(s) that have hurt your feelings? I thought this position was well-stated.
Cannon,
All modesty aside, I did too. :-)
Lots of assumptions were made (such as pulling out of Iraq would result in Al Qaeda taking over Iraq -- totally unsupportable.) That makes your post difficult to bother with because even responding tends to lend credence to ideas that many of us find fundamentally flawed.
But when you refer to those you oppose as "peace lovers" -- that is, in quotes -- you mock them. That diverts from your points and attacks those who disagree with you. And you say you do this because the opposition refers to people with your opinions as "war lovers" or "war mongers." You're response is to react in kind? Seems to defeat the purpose of wanting a dialogue, if you ask me.
I think you are both delusional. Not saying anything about namecalling but there wasnt a scintilla of logic to be seen in your post. If that is the best thinking you can do you need to work on your cognitive abilities.
It was well stated, but has no basis in reality.
Every statement he made has an insult in it.
AA - You provide some interesting points, but these are questions that can't be answered. My reply would be the position our troops are in right now is unwinnable. As long as we are there, Al Queda will never leave nor will we ever force them to surrender. And, the Iraqi govt has little incentive to provide the security necessary for us to leave because it is our troops that are getting killed; not theirs. The Iraqi govt and people need to stand up for themselves and police their own land. Our brilliant administration has put our troops in a situation they cannot overcome by simply overpowering the enemy. As long as our troops are there we'll continue to see the casualty figures continue to rise. At some point, somebody needs to say enough is enough and get them out of this situation.
For starters... PLENTY of Iraqis are being killed every day over there. How dare you state that only our troops are being killed.
Second... if the soldiers were allowed to fight as they were trained we could win this war. Instead, they are fighting with their hands behind their backs. They can't shoot until shot at, they can't blow up mosques even if the enemy and his weapons are inside. Thank our leadership for that... the troops are doing the best they can given the absurd rules of engagement hey are forced to work with.
And the CANNONBALL has left reality!
Well, the private military contractors in Iraq are bound by no code of conduct, why are they not demolishing everything in sight?
Because destroying the symbols of Iraqi culture is no way to win hearts and minds.
You forgot...Brits, Pakistanis, Indians,etc...does it become more of a reality if we point out that PEOPLE are being killed? And the statement about blowing up mosques is just a remark to stir up people on this thread. Try again soon.
A typical chickenshit "The politicians backstabbed the troops argument." That one's so old, even Hitler used it (about WW I), and here in Ameica, the Vietnam War supporters who are so delusional that they never recognized Vietnam was a civil war in which we had no business, nor could we "win" it, go on using thatat tired old meme.
It a damn good thing that you were not around in WWII with your ideology.... otherwise my and your happy A$$ would not be on this bulletin board. Wait I'm blond and blue eyed I may have made it.
A typical chickenshit "The politicians backstabbed the troops argument." That one's so old, even Hitler used it (about WW I), and here in Ameica, the Vietnam War supporters who are so delusional that they never recognized Vietnam was a civil war in which we had no business, nor could we "win" it, go on using that tired old meme.
I'm really getting tired of all of the conservatives who say that the Rules of Engagement are "tying" our hands behind our backs.
Have you ever fought under any "Rules of Engagement"?
If so, explain what you were prevented from doing?
If you haven't had to fight under any "Rules of Engagement", you should sign up and get back to us after you have.
Again with the totally unsupportable contention that the REAL problem in Iraq is we just arent killing enough innocent people. Just how many need to DIE to satisfy your seemingly endless bloodlust anyway?
Demintx,
Thanks for the reply. I would argue that there are answers to those questions. I realize that we don't know for certain what will happen if we pull out now, but what would be your best guess?
As for you opinion that the war is unwinnable, I am not at all convinced of that. It seems to me that we said the same thing in Viet Nam. I have read in many places the North Vietnamese were beat but hung in there because they saw that the American will to stay until victory evaporated. Their ability to persist led them to defeat the U.S. not their military prowess. The results speak for themselves. If I remember correctly as many as two million died in Viet Nam and Cambodia and Laos after the American pullout. Was that peace?
Historically speaking the losses in Iraq have not even come close to Vietnam or WWII or the other wars. (Nobody needs to say that one loss is too many. I understand that point.) So it seems to me that the only thing that can beat us right now is ourselves.
I believe you cannot let these terrorists win because they will take that success and use it again and again to gain in an effort to create a global caliphate. I don't like being there and I don't like people dying, but I am still stuck by the idea that a U.S. pullout will lead to increased islamofacism and increased war in that part of the world. It seems to me the increased instability resulting from a U.S. pullout will lead to further wars and further killing of both U.S. soldiers and people from all sorts of countries.
I see you're still completely missing the point and showing you have no idea what's going on. There is no war in Iraq except a civil war in which we aren't any of the sides, just trying to prop up an artificial government. I hope I don't have to go over what has happened every time we've tried to create a government that would favor us over their own people or installed a leader that ended up being a dictator. You're trying to compare apples to oranges and you and I and nobody else knows what the outcome would be. Remember that Iraq was a predominately secular country before we invaded. Whether it stays that way in the future isn't going to be decided by us.
--"I have read in many places the North Vietnamese were beat"--
Yeah. Scholarly sources like the "pundits" on townhall.com, the Rush Limbaugh Show, and various other right-wingnut revisionists and pro-Iraq Warmongers say it's so, so it must be true.
If it weren't for those very, very reputable historians, one might be tempted to say your statement is a semi-trailer truckload of horses#!t.
If you think for one second that the Viet Cong were just about to give up in 71 when the peace movement began getting real steam your delusions are beyond my abilities to help you. I suggest you read Chomsky's Political economy of Human rights or get professional help. Probably that many WERE killed or thereabouts by Pol Pot in Cambodia no one had much good intel about Laos but there was NOT a real bloodbath in Vietnam. Certainly nothing beyond the standards of revenge killings after every civil war including France after the Vichy were tossed out.
Your guesses about what MIGHT happen if we leave must be seen in the context of you rightwingers being right about exactly NOTHING so far in Iraq. As for letting the terrorists win I say it is a win for them if we keep up with your lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. The Caliphate meme is dumb. I am sure al Queda would LIKE to see such a thing but their ability to bring such a thing about is comparable to me being able to jump to the moon. There is no such thing as an Islamofascist. Fascism and Islamic fundamentalism are miles apart in ideology, both are evil and other than that have zero in common you only how the absolute simplicity of your talking points when you use such a meaningless phrase.
Solon,
The Vietcong were a non-issue in 1971. They were essentially eliminated as a effective fighting force after the first Tet Offensive in 1968.
Well, let me be the first to correct all of (or as much as I can) your logical and fallacious assumptions and ideas.
Take a good hard look at the statements and resulting lies this administration made in the run-up to this war. Doesn't exactly seem like they were supporting peace, does it?
I think I can speak for most if not all the liberals here when I say that we're torn in wanting to bring troops home if there was one shred of evidence that doing so would make things worse. So far, all your predictions, as a neo-con, have borne out to be completely and utterly wrong. So when you keep hinting that things will blow up in Iraq after we leave, there's no reason to put any value in that.
And again, you're assuming, completely with no basis in reality, that Al Quida, or some other extreme group will force themselves into power. Even suggesting Al Quida would take over is hilarious since they number in the low 1000s. Do we think that killing in the area will stop when we pull out? Of course not! Somehow you're saying that us being in the area is minimizing violence in the area is insane! You must watch Faux News where there's no news at all!
As long as we're overextending our armed forces in the Iraq and essentially only putting bullseye's on their backs, and enflame (as oppose to the over-politicized "embolden") hatred for us in the region and drastically reduce our abilities to do any sort of diplomacy in any country in the region.
If you really want to support the troops, you should be calling for more rotation, getting more home more often, policies to help the families left here at home for 2 or more years, you should be screaming for better and more efficient heal care and faster responses to veterans returning injured, calling for a way to replace needed National Guard units with regular forces, calling for a way to reduce the number of troops there while increasing their effectivness.
If you do this instead of blindly following your party propaganda and spouting party talking points, maybe you'll get taken more serious here and in other places.
Congratulations, you have just reiterated the core of the policy that kept us in Vietnam for 10 years, that if we left, things in Indochina/Iraq will worsen and eventually lead to Communist control of the world/terrorist will flock to our shores.
Both arguments begin with an improvable WHAT IF premise based on fear, fear and more fear.
The Vietnamese killed US soldiers because they wanted them to GO HOME. Same is true in Iraq. We are an occupational force, and the last thing an Iraqi ever wants to see again is another United States soldier or person. Like most of us, they just want to be left the eff alone.
Randy
"The Vietnamese killed U.S. soldiers because they wanted them to go home".
False. The government of North Vietnam continued tp perpetrate this war in an effort to overthrow an independent goverment in the South. their goal was obviously reunification. Many in the South fought gallantly to prevent such a thing. It's not a though all Vietnamese wanted us out. There were certaintly geo-political issues such as prevention of the spread of communism which played a central role in our government justifying the war to us. It should not be forgotten that many people in the South at that time did not want to live under the control of the North. American soldiers were not the only ones to die for South Vietnamese freedom.
---"most of the "bring 'em home now" crowd..."
Which is a majority of Americans, in case you forgot.
Which, with very few exceptions, favor a responsible withdrawal of troops---regardless of your "now" Straw Man.
You have made the false assumption that those of us who favor troop withdrawal from Iraq have no concept of what it takes to neutralize terrorists. You also assume that only military action can suppress terrorist activities. The greatest implicit fallacy in your post is that by killing innocent people in Iraq that that somehow helps Iraqis. That by ceasing the killing will create even more death.
We know it takes more than blunt military force to quell terrorism. We also know the truth, that the troops are occupying a country that is in the midst of civil war.
Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq. This is his mess. It is his job to carry out the strategic mission set by Congress. For six years with his willing accomplices in Congress and usurpation of executive power, through the war powers act, the mission was militarization. Now he has a new congress whose mission objectives reflect the overwhelming consesnsus of U.S. citizens and he is being obstinate and defying us. He is betraying our soldiers in defying us.
Does anyone seriously think there will be peace if we withdraw our troops?
Do you seriously think there will be peace if our troops stay? How much more time, money and American lives is your version of peace in Iraq going to take?
Will Al Queda and the Batthists and the Shia militants suddenly make love and not war?
Do you seriously think that al Qaeda will be less inspired to attack us after we build 14 “enduring” bases in Iraq and a $600 million American embassy in Baghdad? Our PRESENCE is what drives them to attack us.
It seems to me most of the "bring 'em home now" crowd could care less if doing so means many more Iraqis or others end up being killed as a result.
There are already many more being killed as a result of our presence. A majority of Iraqis view the presence of American forces as a detriment to their safety. Our military has performed above and beyond, but they are a fighting force that’s designed to destroy an enemy, not build nations.
I also never hear the "peace lovers" explain what the effects of an extremist or Al Queda take over of Iraq will eventually mean in terms of peace?
On what basis do you believe that al Qaeda would take over? I think the feuding sects in Iraq’s cvil war would probably have something to say about that.
I, like everyone else want the U.S soldiers to come home but I am not convinced at all that doing so will not lead to more war and more killing. It seems to me that a pullout of U.S. soldiers will eventually lead to the opposite of peace.
Too late, Bush’s ill-conceived invasion has already brought us there.
Overall, you and those who think like you continue to live in denial of the root of the problem: our presence and influence in the Middle East. The Islamic Revolution was spurred by U.S. support of the Sha of Iran. Osama bin Laden began his jihad against the U.S. when the Saudi Government allowed Bush ‘41 to stage a war against Saddam Hussein on holy land.
The Grand Oil Party will never learn the lessons on the Middle East.
" Our PRESENCE is what drives them to attack us. "
Sorry, but that is bunk. Al Quaeda is attacking France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Indonesia -- all places that were either against the war in Iraq or we have no involvement in.
There mission is to establish muslim states all over the world. Our presence is irrelevant to their mission.
Leather,
Exaclty who or what is AlQueda? When did this title become world-famous? Doesn't it mean foundation or something like that? Or will we just use it to connect all terrorists, even thise terroists ofIraq origin killing our troops?
Sorry, the only bunk is what you are spewing.
Germany supports the U.S. by allowing extensive military basing. They are also active in Afghanistan operations.
Spain's president was proudly supporting Bush's bloodbath in Iraq before the Madrid attack cost him his job.
Contrary to what Bill O'Reilly has you believing, France has supported the "War on Terror" by providing, for example, Naval strength during Operation Enduring Freedom and logistical support for Operation Anaconda.
October 12 2002, Bali, Indonesia Car bombs outside nightclubs popular with foreign tourists kill 202 people, 91 of them Australians. An Indonesian Islamist group with Al-Qaida links is blamed.
When did al Qaeda attack Spain?
When did al Qaeda attack Germany? German officials do suspect that al Qaeda is planning attacks against American military personnel and tourists in Germany.
When did al Qaeda attack Russia? Al Qaeda was initially blamed, but the school attack in September 2004 was committed by Islamist Chechen rebels.
I guess the reason AL Queda blows up other muslims is because they're..well, they're there. .
I don't believe the U.S. is going around the world setting up these extreme madrassses that instill this hatred and religious intolerance from an early age.
The fact that we're there is an excuse to attack us. It's the ideology that must be wiped out. That or it continues to spread.
ohh, and i suppose the muslim perpetrated genocide in Darfur is because of Bush Too.
Your argument has more unpluggable holes than Courtney Love
I guess the reason AL Queda blows up other muslims is because they're..well, they're there. .
Please cite an incident where al Qaeda deliberately targeted other Muslims. I don't doubt that it has happened, but my guess would be that they do not subscribe to al Qaeda's version of Islam. Perhaps the targets were Muslims who are embracing the virtues of democracy or materialism instead of the law of Islam, or were allying themselves with the west.
It's the ideology that must be wiped out.
By invading and attempting to rebuild a country that did not attack us, nor had the capacity to do so? Yes, we must do everything that we can to stop the spread of terrorist ideology, but creating a chaotic, deadly terrorist training ground the size of Texas is not the way to go about it.
ohh, and i suppose the muslim perpetrated genocide in Darfur is because of Bush Too.
I never mentioned Darfur because it is a complex crisis that is confined to one region of the world and has nothing to do with America's Middle East predicament. Bush has nothing to do with the underlying causes of the crisis, but he certainly has the power to do something about it. Now that the original reasons for war in Iraq have proven to be complete BS, conservatives still cling to Saddam's brutality toward his own people as reason enough to invade. Why invade Iraq when hundreds of thousands are dying and millions are being displaced in Darfur? Why do conservatives suddenly and conveniently feel so inclined to see vengeance for the past victims of Saddam's regime? What was that you were saying about "unpluggable holes?"
---"Our presence is irrelevant to their mission"---
On the contrary, our occupation of Iraq is the greatest marketing and recruitment bonanza al Qaeda could ever have dreamed of.
You tried this worthless talking point before. When they attacked Spain they WERE in Iraq. Both France AND Germany ARE in Afghanistan. The Russian thing is a Chechnyan/Russian war of more than a decade and Indonesia is the worlds most populace Islamic country with their OWN problematic dynamics with the fundamentalist terrorists. We are all for going after the terrorists. Al Queda is a problem we need to deal with that is completely seperate with the problem in Iraq. They were actually afraid we would leave too quickly. Staying there is doing al Queda a favor.
Let me deal with your total disconnect to reality and bizarre logical fallacies one by one
It seems to me most of the "bring 'em home now" crowd could care less if doing so means many more Iraqis or others end up being killed as a result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Iraqis OVERWHELMINGLY want us gone. Its flat ridiculous to say we have to stay in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqis THAT WANT US GONE.
I also never hear the "peace lovers" explain what the effects of an extremist or Al Queda take over of Iraq will eventually mean in terms of peace? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never hear war advocates explain how THAT is supposed to happen. Iraq still has an awful lot of military hardware and there is no reason to believe that the country that WAS the most secular in the Islamic Middle East is somehow going to become enamored of the al Queda message. They have been wiped out militarily twice in the last 15 years why would anyone think the country would risk ANOTHER invasion by becoming an al Queda proxy? The crystal ball you rightwinger use for Iraq has proven itself to be 100% INACCURATE. Why in the world would anyone with a lick of sense meet another rightwing Iraq prediction with anything but peals of laughter?
Will Bin Laden retire to a cave in Baghdad and decide he will leave his neighbors and/or the U.S. alone? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Osama Ben Forgotten? HE lets go get him, you DID know he isnt in Iraq right? Only in the degraded minds of rightwingers would leaving Iraq mean forgetting Osama.
Will Iran sit idly by? Will they discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And this has WHAT to do with Iraq? Wont Iran be easier to deal with once the threat on their border is gone? Iran recently had elections and the hardliners were defeated soundly. This is NOT an immanent threat, this is something we can deal with IF we stop making new enemies exponentially and use the diplomatic carrot and stick approach.
Or do you think they will they use Iraq as a client-state to export more terrorism to surrounding countries, Europe, and the U.S? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Are they doing that? Cough up yoru evidence of Iran sponsering ANY terrorism against Europe or the West. Iran is sponsering groups fighting Israel but NOT Europe OR US.
What will happen with Hamas and the Palestinians? Will they then be mollified and stop their killing? Or will they be emboldened and take their jihad to their neighbors. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
More bigotted paranoia. Cough up any evidenc in the last 20 years of Hamas or Palestinians committing any terrorism against anyone except Israel. Another situation that has NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ.
It seems to me that a pullout of U.S. soldiers will eventually lead to the opposite of peace. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
We are at WAR right now that IS the opposite of peace. So what you are saying with an incredible lack of logic is we will create what we already HAVE. How in the world does it make sense to say that you THINK, MAYBE if we leave Iraq we MIGHT have what we are already in the midst of so we shouldnt leave Iraq, that has to qualify as one of the most icredibly illogical statements I have read recently.
it seems to me that progressives like Populist need to stop characterizing those whom they disagree as "war lovers" full of "hatred for the troops and everything the country stands for" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When your side stops characterizing the call for peace cut and run or surrender then get back to me.
These are nice catch phrases if you are a kool-aid drinker but utterly meaningless in a serious discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again you criticize what your side has PATENTED. The rightwing are the masters of EXACTLY what you are taking him to task for does the term good for the goose mean anything to you?
What a smackdown, Solon!
Let me deal with your fallacious logic bit by bit, there is so much of it.
It seems to me most of the "bring 'em home now" crowd could care less if doing so means many more Iraqis or others end up being killed as a result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The vast majority of Iraqis want us to go home. EVERY poll WE have ever taken shows this. It is the hieght of arrogance not to mention it cannot withstand one seconds moral scrutiny to say we have to stay for the sake of the Iraqis no matter WHAT they want. lovers" explain what the effects of an extremist or Al Queda take over of Iraq will eventually mean in terms of peace? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And I have never seen any of you war lovers explain why that is likely to happen. First Iraq was the most secular country in the Islamic middle east, they had a taste of cosmopolitan modern civilization. They have women judges, doctors, college professors exactly why they would suddenly embrace al Quedas lets return to the 14th century jihad mentality defies reason. Iraq was also destroyed by two military invasions in the last twenty years why would they do the ONE THING that assures another one? Secondly you guys SUCK at predicting what will happen in Iraq you have a 100% failure rate at such predictions why in the world would anyone in their right mind hearing another rightwing prediction react to it with ANYTHING except peals of gut wrenching laughter?
Will Bin Laden retire to a cave in Baghdad and decide he will leave his neighbors and/or the U.S. alone? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Osama ben Forgotten? Lets get him only in the false dichotomy ruled world of wingnuts does leaving Iraq mean forgetting about Ben Laden, in fact it was Bush who says he doesnt think about him much, Bush decided a more profit friendly war in Iraq was more important than getting Ben Laden. So this is not even close to a point as to why we ought to stay in Iraq, I mean you DO know he isnt there...RIGHT?
Will Iran sit idly by? Will they discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And this has WHAT to do with Iraq?
Or do you think they will they use Iraq as a client-state to export more terrorism to surrounding countries, Europe, and the U.S? <<<<<<<<<<<
You want to cough up some evidence Iran is exporting terrorism to Europe and the US? I have never seen any nor even heard the claim MADE. They support groups like Hezbollah which only EXISTS because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Hamas which is using vile terrorism to get their homeland. Much like Israel did to get THEIR homeland. However I have never seen any evidence of Iran supporting terrorism against either Europe or the US.
will happen with Hamas and the Palestinians? Will they then be mollified and stop their killing? Or will they be emboldened and take their jihad to their neighbors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the past twenty years can you cough up ANY evidence of Hamas or the Palestinians doing this? Cough up a SINGLE example of Palestinian terrorism not aimed at Israel in the last twenty years.
It seems to me that a pullout of U.S. soldiers will eventually lead to the opposite of peace. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Got to be in the running for one of the most illogical things ever written on this site. We are at WAR that is already the opposite of peace. Are you REALLY telling us that you THINK, MAYBE, despite your complete failure to predict ANYTHING regarding Iraq, that if we leave Iraq we run the chance you THINK of getting what we already HAVE? Man, really that was bad.
it seems to me that progressives like Populist need to stop characterizing those whom they disagree as "war lovers" full of "hatred for the troops and everything the country stands for". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah when your side stops with the cut and run, surrender and traitor rhetoric get back to us
These are nice catch phrases if you are a kool-aid drinker but utterly meaningless in a serious discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YOUR side perfected this technique the mischaracterizations come from YOUR side much more often than ours. Does the term good for the goose mean anything to you?
AA -
The notion that the U.S. presence in Iraq is necessary to keep the peace is utterly risible. A large contingent of uncomfortable, trigger-happy Americans with big guns does not keep the peace, it causes more conflicts. The ethnic/religeous tensions in Iraq will always exist, and perhaps it would be best to partition the country (although look how that worked out in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh), but the U.S. presence in Iraq has been demonstrated to exacerbate these tensions to a much higher degree. In addition, the Government is spending an inordinate sum of money building an embassy in Iraq that will rival the Vatican in size, along with 14 hardened bases of comparable size. Meanwhile the Iraqis have intermitent electricity, overloaded hospitals, overpriced food, poor job prospects, and poor education. They look on at their imperialist oppressors and they feel anger and rage. How can anything with the destructive power of the U.S. Military be a force for peace (and don't throw WWII at me, all that did was engender the Cold War and a nuclear freaking arms race).
AA -
The notion that the U.S. presence in Iraq is necessary to keep the peace is utterly risible. A large contingent of uncomfortable, trigger-happy Americans with big guns does not keep the peace, it causes more conflicts. The ethnic/religeous tensions in Iraq will always exist, and perhaps it would be best to partition the country (although look how that worked out in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh), but the U.S. presence in Iraq has been demonstrated to exacerbate these tensions to a much higher degree. In addition, the Government is spending an inordinate sum of money building an embassy in Iraq that will rival the Vatican in size, along with 14 hardened bases of comparable size. Meanwhile the Iraqis have intermitent electricity, overloaded hospitals, overpriced food, poor job prospects, and poor education. They look on at their imperialist oppressors and they feel anger and rage. How can anything with the destructive power of the U.S. Military be a force for peace (and don't throw WWII at me, all that did was engender the Cold War and a nuclear freaking arms race).
Isolationists? How about people who don't believe that unilaterally invading a sovereign nation and toppling its government is a morally justifiable act (it certainly isn't legal according to international treaties and accords)? That lying to the citizens (aka WE THE PEOPLE) of the country you represent is treasonous? That killing children and women and the old and infirm by the thousands with daisy cutters, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, laser guided bombs, tank guns, phosphorous, napalm and fully automatic assault weapons is not how to win friends and influence people.
You sure do liking getting people killed over your "what if?" fantasies. Please see a psychiatrist.
OK AA, I'll give it a shot:
1. I think the pro-peace crowd is partially trying to shed light on the fact that this war should never have been started, hence the peace part. I know that there are people who agree that we neer should have gone in, but we are there now and have to clean-up the mess. I would argue that every single day the evidence mounts higher that our presence there is doing nothing to reduce any potential violence there. There already is chaos, violence, and terrorism there and we are powerless to stop it. If we left, there is a good chance that things could get done to simmer down the situation. Read Juan Cole for some informed, intellegent ideas on why this is a probable scenario and what we could do to make it happen. He also does a good job of pointing out that our current military presence is basically nullifying any chance of resolution there (as if the daily news from there is not proof enough).
2. I won't speak for Populist, but I think that all rational people can agree that the people who got us into that war are "war-mongers" and have demonstrated time and again their disregard for the troops. I think that supporters of the administration at this point are associating themselves with those labels.
Of course none of this addresses the point of the post: that there are two sides according to the media, support the troops and anti-war.
There is are no such things as "islamo-facists" or "islamo-facism". Look up the definitions of theocracy and facism, then say something that relates to reality.
The media is balless. Bush is a coward. The present People of the United States bears no relationship to the founding people of the United States.
The founding people stood behind "give me liberty or give me death". The founding people stood behind "if you sacrifice liberty for security then you do not deserve to live."
The present people of the United States stands behind a coward called Bush. He is the chicken behind sacrificing liberty for security. He has demoralized this entire country along with the Republican and Democratic party. He made it so we can no longer hold our heads up and call ourselves brave.
America is cowardly to a point where they don't have the balls to cut the support the troop bull and say it for what it is which is support the war crimes.
America you have lost all respect for yourself. Lower your head to a spoiled frat boy with a yellow streak down his back called Bush. Lower your heads to a media turned White House steganographer. Lower your heads America and eat cake.
Only women have stood up. Dixie Chicks, Cindy, Rosie and no men. The men in this country are balless.
The democrats totally dropped the ball on this funding issue.... their first 'real' test to show they can stand up to Bush and co., and they acquiesce like they did years ago dropping the Brady bill...
"Only women have stood up. Dixie Chicks, Cindy, Rosie and no men. The men in this country are balless"
I never looked at it this way but you are right. Although Congressman Murtha as did Michael Moore. Women in my opinion understand this better.
Women stand up here because they can't in the Middle East.
Apropos of what, exactly?
Apropos of..?
I think the conservative posters are getting a little punch drunk on this thread.Quite a smackdown.
So why aren't WE taking on those who oppress women in the Sudan? In Saudi Arabia? Women were allowed far more freedom in Iraq until we invaded.
(Read the article I took this from.)
I like this *new* framework- You have to 'demonstrate' for peace (as if it's some new hot topic issue on the horizon of Americans' consciousness) and, obviously, CAN'T like your own military, while the 'lone', guy, 'standing up' for U.S. troops is shown as some stoic martyr...
In the immortal words of...oh...somebody --There you go again!!--What the hell kind of reasoning is it that if you want your military to come home and stop getting killed in a ridiculous situation is it not liking them?
Ignore my above comment :)
Harlequin I totally agree with your satement, especially the part about Bush being a Chicken Behind. I often think of him as a horse's ass also.
Another American, Have you bothered to look at the history of Iraq? This nation has been occupied or have had wars at least three(3) times a century and still exists as Iraq. We are not at war with Iraq, we are occuping THEIR country. Let's be honest, we went with the notion that WMD existed through "bad intel". The good "intel" went under the rug. We eliminated the bad guy, whose name will be forgotten in the next year, to give the Iraqs democracy. They voted. Then we decided that AlQueda was the enemy and they would take-over the country.(Honestly, we are not worried about them taking over Iraq, it is TOS..THE OIL STUPID. How many more reason can the Neocons come up with for us staying? A civil war--can't be that, it doesn't exist. Iran wants Iraq, doubt that, too many terroist will appear, yes, the Iraqs will then be the terrorists fighting a different occupying force...of course, they throw roses at our soldiers feet because they just love usoccupying their country.
An above post point to the DOMINO theory in VietNam....with a little Chinese checkers thrown in. But now, don't we have Diplomatic relations with those hordes. Finally, the Administration decided to at least meet with the enemy...Iran. Maybe, just maybe, they can get beyond the notion that all these people want to do is kill us...I think the spoils of oil is really want their leaders thrist for...Hell, what can it hurt to talk to these people. People seem to talk with one another here and are definitely on opposite sides. WHY NOT? And most importantly, let's get the soldiers home safely with their families because as hard as it is for me to say this, they are dying for nothing. If you disagree, explain to me what they are dying for, PEACE or the Everlasting WAR on Terror.;
As penance, I would assign the NYT - and every other Corporate Media outlet in the nation - the daily task, page-1, above-the-fold picture of Bungle, over the caption of "Thinks the raise is too much"; beside a smiling Hillary/Obama Bold-captioned "3.5% raise for military".
The NYT caption reads: ""Jeffery Broderick, foreground, standing alone last week in support of United States troops as demonstrators for peace occupy an opposite corner". If that implies that the peace demonstrators do not support the troops, doesn't it also imply that the counter-demonstrator is anti-peace? Either side could allege bias with that logic.
The other guy is for continuing the war. He was a counter-demonstrator. That means he was for continuing the war, the exact opposite of what the large group of demonstrators was advocating.
Continuing the war is the exact opposite of stopping the war, so if the demonstrators were for stopping the war (peace), then I guess you could say that the lone demonstrator was anti-peace. It's not bias. It's reality.
On the other hand, saying that you want the USA to stop waging war in Iraq says nothing about whether or not you support the troops. Identifying that lone demonstrator as someone who supports the troops, as opposed to the group of demonstrators, was a false premise, and that is a distortion of reality, and that's why Media Matters pointed it out.
Is the anti-war sentiment declining, as one of the Democrats' favorite "PROTESTER" Cindy Sheehan has dropped out?
It's the pro-war, pro-Bush sentiments that are in serious decline. More and more Americans are coming to their senses every day, and realizing what a fiasco Bush has gotten us into.
Cindy Sheehan was not the Democrat's favorite protestor.
In fact, it's because she was getting so much heat from Democrats that she is going to retreat from public activities! You could not be more wrong.
ROSENCRANTZ
The media siuation is best studied in print as far as I can tell. David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine, is very detailed. SOLON has mentioned a few titles ,I think Manufacturing Conscent and Nessary Illusions. Author maybe Chomsky. Jeff Cohen, with some coauthors has about 5 books out on the subject. I've got Cable News Confidential from him which I hope to start soon.
As for you MR L, I think its time for the leeches and sock puppets again. Sheesh! You know what this does to our depreciation appreciation allowance.
Support the war?
Wrong emphasis, folks. It's support victory in the war.
The anti-war left is also anti-victory.
Nah man, just pro-reality.
But please, go on ahead and tell us how great things are in Iraq.
And the warmonger right is all about getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can. Their insane bloodlust can never be satisfied.
Hey OldMarine,
I think you may need to re-think your foolish position. As another posted stated earlier, the only war in Iraq is a Civil War of which we are not on either side.
We are not fighting a "war" in Iraq we are the referee for a Civil War.
What side do you tink we are on? Sunni or Shia as they are the two largest factions that are fighting. Everyone else, including the "terrorists" and Al Qaeda are just minor fringe players in this conflict.
How can we support that which we can't define?
The pro-war right is once again, anti-troops.
Actually it's the pro-war right who's anti-victory.
Had the pro-war right not insisted on invading Iraq, we could have made a much more concerted effort in Afghanistan, where we had worldwide support. Afghanistan is struggling today because of the pro-war crowd.
Had the pro-war right not confused invading Iraq with legitimate terrorism efforts, we wouldn't have more terrorists in more countries around the world today than we did before we invaded Iraq. The pro-war right pissed off as many citizens of the world as might be possible with that invasion, and many of those pissed off people will either become terrorists or will condone terrorism by their countrymen. That makes victory against terrorism that much harder to accomplish!
With due respect, this image of some sort of vague, undefined, future "victory" in Iraq is a mirage.
There is, there never will be, and there never can be a "victory".
There is no Santa Claus.
The worst president ever simply wants to perpetuate the war just long enough so he can hike his fiasco off to somebody else.
I just remember March of 2003
I was at a protest against the evil war and the Bush administration and I was mocked and laughed at in Boston. Yet looking back we were right and we were pro troops , we wanted them home even back then. This country now reaps what it sows with letting Bushie get away with his war criminal acts. I am so proud of Cindy Sheehan.
Yes, when I hear Rosie O'Donnell call our troops terrorists, the first thing that pops into my mind is, "Gee, that woman sure supports our troops."
And this Marine does not believe Murtha is pro-military. Murtha is merely pro-Murtha. The difference between Murtha and most Democrats such as Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richarson, Obama and Rahm "Ballerina Girl" Emanuel is that Murtha actually served.
When universities bar ROTC from their campuses, do you think those who did the barring are Democrats or Republicans?
What exactly is wrong with this thread? It says only 4 comments?
What happened to this thread? It was over 100 posts last night. Weird man.