Glenn Beck

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Nicole

George "Dubya" is Republican, therefore is "right wing".

I stand corrected.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Nicole

George "Dubya" is Republican, therefore is "right wing".

WHOOSH!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Most infastructure damage now is a result of the insurgancy/civil war and not from the United States nor can it be blamed on the United States wholey.

The hate between Sunni and Shiias has been around for centuries, this is definitely not something the US has caused..just before there was US involvement, it was mainly Sunni slaughter against Shias and Kurds.

Sure there was not day-to-day bombings but there was still large scale killings nevertheless.

Yeah, how come the media never reports about all the cars that drove by without ramming into a building full of civillians and exploding?

My point was, i've already said... I was not in support of the Iraq war, never was never will be. But the fact of the matter is, whats done is done and if the US leaves prematurely all hell will break lose in that entire region.

God forbid a civil war were to break out or something...

Basically all i'm saying is the media is swaying the public into believing one thing, when the opposite needs to happen.

So the media needs to lie in order to boost public moral? Isn't there a word for that? Oh yeah, propaganda.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by rubecube

God forbid a civil war were to break out or something...

and your telling me if the US was to pullout tomorrow, thats the worse it could get?

Give me a break.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So the media needs to lie in order to boost public moral? Isn't there a word for that? Oh yeah, propaganda.

I never said lie.

I simply pointed out the media shows the negative aspects of anything and not so much the positives.

It's quite easy to report on all the negatives in Iraq, but at the same time there are plently of positives and a lot of potential for a brighter future. It's the medias job to dig deeper and cover these stories - i know they won't be as action packed as suicide bombings - which is what everyone likes to hear, but it will do ample amount of good.

If i where to say so myself, the media is in a way responsible for some of the violence that is happening in Iraq right now. They portray things so negativly, it's basically encouraging more people to fight with the hope the US will pullout, when left-wing or right-wing, most logical people can draw the conclusions this is certinly not the right way to go.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by rubecube

WHOOSH!

Pfft ... Whatever - I was being a smart a$$ and kidding around .. which is the reason I used the term "Dubya" <--- I should have used this face to get my point across in the way it was intended.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

and your telling me if the US was to pullout tomorrow, thats the worse it could get?

Give me a break.

So it's not going to get any worse as long as the US is there?

I never said lie.

I simply pointed out the media shows the negative aspects of anything and not so much the positives.

The negatives pretty well outweigh the positives. It would be like if somebody said "Sure Hitler was a ******* who was responsible for the deaths of millions, but he did build the autobahn and start VW."

It's quite easy to report on all the negatives in Iraq,

And if the war was going well it wouldn't be.

but at the same time there are plently of positives and a lot of potential for a brighter future. It's the medias job to dig deeper and cover these stories - i know they won't be as action packed as suicide bombings - which is what everyone likes to hear, but it will do ample amount of good.

Well the media enjoys sensationalizing everything. We've got millions of parents absolutely terrified that their child is going to be molested and kidnapped because the rate for this is at an all time high, when the reality is that this sort of thing is on the decline. I would venture to say that 24 hour news service has killed objective journalism because they need to fill air time.

If i where to say so myself, the media is in a way responsible for some of the violence that is happening in Iraq right now. They portray things so negativly, it's basically encouraging more people to fight with the hope the US will pullout, when left-wing or right-wing, most logical people can draw the conclusions this is certinly not the right way to go.

Really? I'm pretty sure Osama doesn't have CNN in his cave. So is your answer to not report the bombings?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Nicole

Pfft ... Whatever - I was being a smart a$$ and kidding around .. which is the reason I used the term "Dubya" <--- I should have used this face to get my point across in the way it was intended.

Well then WHOOSH on me too.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So it's not going to get any worse as long as the US is there?

Why not reply with your thoughts and not another question.

The US is definitely the backbone to keeping things under control. Now i know it's looking pretty bad over there, but with the US aside, the entire country would be ruled by different factions, different groups, sunnis, shiias. The US is holding it together with the resources they have, whether or not the "holding together" is looking shakey.

Take the US out of the equation and you will have the entire region in conflict. Since it's already tense given Irans nuclear ambitions and Shia support and Syrians Sunni support.

Originally Posted by rubecube

The negatives pretty well outweigh the positives. It would be like if somebody said "Sure Hitler was a ******* who was responsible for the deaths of millions, but he did build the autobahn and start VW."

Thats coming from someone who watched the media, hence is swayed into believing it's a total disaster.

My brother is on his second tour in that country and i was there in Febuary 05 (Now i know it's got worse since then.) But nevertheless there is a lot more positives to this country than the media is showing.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well the media enjoys sensationalizing everything. We've got millions of parents absolutely terrified that their child is going to be molested and kidnapped because the rate for this is at an all time high, when the reality is that this sort of thing is on the decline. I would venture to say that 24 hour news service has killed objective journalism because they need to fill air time.

I agree, the media feeds on negative things...hence why i hate it, especially when it tells a 1 sided negative story.

The media feeds on disasters, whether it be Iraq, space shuttle disasters or Hurricaine Katrina.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really? I'm pretty sure Osama doesn't have CNN in his cave. So is your answer to not report the bombings?

So your insinuating that all middle easterners don't have access to western media. Those in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran etc? These are the countries fueling this insurgancy and providing the man power. The state that Iraq is in right now has absolutly zero to do with Bin Laden.

The media is responsible for the strength of the insurgancy right now because it's the media that portrays it in such a negative way, fueling the idea that the more deaths the US sustains, the more carnage and bloodshed, the more likely the US is to leave - and this is exacly what the insurgants / terrorits want. Without US presence, it's much easier to take control of cities, towns, districts and continue this Sunni vs Shia nonesense without the threat of US firepower.

I never said not report the negatives, i've asked for balance. Report both sides. None of this happens.

[eazyduzzit]

Oh and to add:

The same is happening with Canadian media, Liberal/NDP/Bloc Politicians and the Afghanistan campaign. The more talk of a pull out and the more backlash this mission is recieving, the more power, will and drive the Taliban has.

I don't know about any of you, but if i was watching a divided nation as a result of constant negative publicity due DIRECTLY from my acts, with constant calls for the troops to come home, it would make me push extra hard, and the drive and determination would be that much more in fighting the Americans, or in this case the Canadians.

Simply calling for Canadian troops to come home is 1 big slap in the face to those who have payed the ultimate trying to bring peace and freedom to that country - something we take for granted here. As well as basically supporting the Taliban / Al Quada fighters because they want nothing more than Canada gone and more importantly NATO gone so they can once again take back that country and drive it back into what it once was.

[rubecube]

Well I had a big long post typed out and ready to post, then the phone rang and I was away and I got logged out, so I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Oh and to add:

Simply calling for Canadian troops to come home is 1 big slap in the face to those who have payed the ultimate trying to bring peace and freedom to that country - something we take for granted here. As well as basically supporting the Taliban / Al Quada fighters because they want nothing more than Canada gone and more importantly NATO gone so they can once again take back that country and drive it back into what it once was.

No, its not. I don't see how in this situation, calling for a retreat is a slap in the face to Canadian troops at all. People are not calling into question the loyalty, effort or conduct of the troops, they just disagree with either the purpose of the mission or the plausibility of victory under acceptable terms.

Supporting the troops is not blind cheerleading for whatever cause a military is pursuing regardless of its merit. At least not in my opinion. My view is that to support the troops you wish or pray for their safety, and if you support their goal, for success. (There are likely many other and probably more useful means of support, but I doubt telling people who are against the mission that they might as well be suicide bombers is one of them...)

Personally I am in favour of the Afghanistan mission, but I do not see you as a kindred spirit. Accusing people of supporting the taliban because they do not think Canada or NATO is justified in their intervention is outrageous. Isn't it enough to disagree with someone intellectually, without having to identify them with your enemy?

[Blaster86]

This guy just loves putting things on a tee...

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Yes, because comparing Jon Steward is any better...

The guy who admitted himself his show is for comedy and puppets making prank phone calls is the show that comes on before him. (Given all the Jon Stewart fanboys thought this was so hilarious on crossfire)

His show. His show. Jon Stewart himself is very politcally savvy, his show is satire. Tucker and who ever he was with aren't very savvy and their show wasn't supposed to be satire. That was the point Stewart made on Crossfire

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

No, its not. I don't see how in this situation, calling for a retreat is a slap in the face to Canadian troops at all. People are not calling into question the loyalty, effort or conduct of the troops, they just disagree with either the purpose of the mission or the plausibility of victory under acceptable terms.

How is it not?

A retreat now would result in a failed mission, a failed mission means those soldiers who died, did so for a failed cause. Those soldiers died in a failed cause because people who aren't associated with the military simply wanted them to come home instead of completing the mission.

Considering the majority, and i say this because #1 i have served (not in Afghanistan) and know handfulls of people based at CFB Edmonton, CFB Trenton and CFB Cold lake who support the mission there and do not want to pull out prematurely as well as having several close friends who have and who are currently serving in Afghanistan. Basically most (not all) say moral is high and support for the cause is also high.

Given all this, i don't think people have the right to say bring these soldiers home now, when for the majority of them - they want to accomplish this mission, because of the commitment to NATO and for their fallen comrades, as well as preventing Afghanistan from falling into the wrong hands. What is so wrong with trying to give the Afghans the freedom and peace they so deserve, the freedom and peace we take for granted.

IMO, people calling for the soldiers to come home are nothing more than selfish because the Afghan people need these soldiers and we have a commitment to NATO, without them there is very little hope and a bleak future.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Supporting the troops is not blind cheerleading for whatever cause a military is pursuing regardless of its merit. At least not in my opinion. My view is that to support the troops you wish or pray for their safety, and if you support their goal, for success. (There are likely many other and probably more useful means of support, but I doubt telling people who are against the mission that they might as well be suicide bombers is one of them...)

Personally I am in favour of the Afghanistan mission, but I do not see you as a kindred spirit. Accusing people of supporting the taliban because they do not think Canada or NATO is justified in their intervention is outrageous. Isn't it enough to disagree with someone intellectually, without having to identify them with your enemy?

You took what i said completely out of context.

Pulling out would be a win for the Taliban/Al Quada and a loss for Canadian soldiers, as well as a loss for the Afghan people. Not to mention a huge blow for the the war against Al Quada which would now be able to operate much more freely. I can tell you right now the Taliban want nothing more than for Canadian soldiers and most importantly NATO soldiers to be gone. This gives these militias a free ticket to roam around bringing that country back to square 1 which to me, is favoring the enemy.

Calling out troops home when they don't want to be brought home [read above]. The troops are simply being used as political objects and i would not be too suprised if Harper loses the next election over Afghanistan which is a complete farce.

As hard as it is to see Canadian soldiers die, the toughest decisions to make are usually the best ones. The world has a lot to gain with Afghanistan and a lot to lose if NATO fails.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

How is it not?

A retreat now would result in a failed mission, a failed mission means those soldiers who died, did so for a failed cause. Those soldiers died in a failed cause because people who aren't associated with the military simply wanted them to come home instead of completing the mission.

What if they fail anyway and many more soldiers die in doing so?
Then you just get more soldiers dying in a failed cause

Then by your own logic, you would be the one slapping them in the face for supporting a war that was gonna see them lose thier lives for nothing, right?

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

What if they fail anyway and many more soldiers die in doing so?
Then you just get more soldiers dying in a failed cause

Then by your own logic, you would be the one slapping them in the face for supporting a war that was gonna see them lose thier lives for nothing, right?

I support what our soldiers want, if they want to be there, i support that. Thats hardily a slap in the face whether the mission fails or not.

The fact is, these soldiers have a commitment, something they hold very highly. To you, pulling out against our NATO commitment might not seem like much, but to a soldier who is tought loyalty and honour day in and day out, it's much more.

Afghanistan will never be deemed a "success" in 2009 but the fact of the matter is, this is going to be a long and hard process and for Canadian soldiers to be a part of that process is for the better. From now until then, a lot can be accomplished, when it comes to gaining public support, rebuilding and truly trying to get Afghanistan on her feet so it can combat the Taliban/Al Quada more effectivly it's self.

Canada is just one piece of a big puzzle, but with cooperation and patients Afghanistan can be a success.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I support what our soldiers want, if they want to be there, i support that. Thats hardily a slap in the face whether the mission fails or not.

The fact is, these soldiers have a commitment, something they hold very highly. To you, pulling out against our NATO commitment might not seem like much, but to a soldier who is tought loyalty and honour day in and day out, it's much more.

We don't even know what the soldiers want. Some likely support the cause, some likely are just be doing their duty and don't necessarily agree with the mission.
Their honour and loyalty is towards this nation and their fellow soldiers. Whether our government keeps them their or pulls them out, they will still have their honour and loyalty because they are doing what is requested of them by the nation.

As for what our NATO commitment meens to me, that's irrelevent. I havn't stated whether I support the war or not. Either way, it's not a slap in the face of our soldiers. They'll always get my support.

[CalgaryCanucksFan]

Beck is a total fear-mongerer, and a complete airhead.

Did anyone of you see him interview the first Muslim congressman, and ask "how can you convince me...that you aren't the enemy?"

Every one of his TV shows are about "IRAN: How will they kill us?" or "Russia: A renewed enemy?"

Give me a break, he is a blowhard just like Limbaugh...and Fox News.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

We don't even know what the soldiers want. Some likely support the cause, some likely are just be doing their duty and don't necessarily agree with the mission.
Their honour and loyalty is towards this nation and their fellow soldiers. Whether our government keeps them their or pulls them out, they will still have their honour and loyalty because they are doing what is requested of them by the nation.

As for what our NATO commitment meens to me, that's irrelevent. I havn't stated whether I support the war or not. Either way, it's not a slap in the face of our soldiers. They'll always get my support.

Refere to my other posts.

For the most part, those soldiers want to be there, as i have stated why. Thats from personal connections, friends, and friends friends. Not media related where soldiers would tend to not want to speak out against it.

You don't send soldiers to do a mission then pull them out half way through it, especially when the mission is heading in a relativly good direction and has the backing of a majority, not to mention what is at stake.

As for Glenn Beck's comments on the Muslim congressman, i never heard or saw it - no comment.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY

Seems it was taken a little out of context, i was expecting much different from what i've read in this thread, after watching...i don't really see the problem, given what he said before and after.

Originally Posted by CalgaryCanucksFan

Every one of his TV shows are about "IRAN: How will they kill us?"

Most people don't seem to take Iran as seriously as it should be taken. It's pretty serious business when they are taking about whiping Israel off the map on ample amount of occasions, as well as backing Hezbollah and their Nuclear ambitions. I think people are being far to neive (sp?) when it comes to Iran so his "fear campaign" seems quite valid to me.

As for Russian, i do think he goes a bit overboard with them, but he still has some valid points.

As for Iraq - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkcjwh1oZdE - it's a start.

[Savvy27]

Eazyduzzit,

I'm not disagreeing with you about the potential good that may be accomplished and I already stated that I am in support of the mission. But you still have not offered a good explanation as to why a person being against the mission is 'slapping the military in the face'.

Did you see Windsor's point about pulling troops out of a failing mission before more people die for an unachievable cause? He doesn't mean to say that he is sure the Canadian troops are going to fail THIS mission, only that if it appeared so he would support pulling the troops out before more Canadian lives were lost. This is no insult.

Again, your claims about bringing freedom and peace to a region clash pretty heavily with your statement that Canadians don't have the "right" to disagree with a mission. This is a democracy, citizens control the government and the military, so the people have the right to decide whatever they want. If soldiers wanted to be fighting in Norway, they wouldn't be sent there simply because it is what they desire.

Separate your emotional support of the troops from your ability to reason. There is a legitimate debate to be had and a refusal to engage in respectful discourse is a slap in the face to the ideals of democracy.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Did you see Windsor's point about pulling troops out of a failing mission before more people die for an unachievable cause? He doesn't mean to say that he is sure the Canadian troops are going to fail THIS mission, only that if it appeared so he would support pulling the troops out before more Canadian lives were lost. This is no insult.

I saw and replied to it:

I support what our soldiers want, if they want to be there, i support that. Thats hardily a slap in the face whether the mission fails or not.

The fact is, these soldiers have a commitment, something they hold very highly. To you, pulling out against our NATO commitment might not seem like much, but to a soldier who is tought loyalty and honour day in and day out, it's much more.

Afghanistan will never be deemed a "success" in 2009 but the fact of the matter is, this is going to be a long and hard process and for Canadian soldiers to be a part of that process is for the better. From now until then, a lot can be accomplished, when it comes to gaining public support, rebuilding and truly trying to get Afghanistan on her feet so it can combat the Taliban/Al Quada more effectivly it's self.

Canada is just one piece of a big puzzle, but with cooperation and patients Afghanistan can be a success.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Separate your emotional support of the troops from your ability to reason. There is a legitimate debate to be had and a refusal to engage in respectful discourse is a slap in the face to the ideals of democracy.

Well then, please elaborate. I'd love to hear your thoughts (or anyone elses thoughts on why Canada should pull out - given you have stated you are in support of the mission)

My point is pretty straight forward, the mission is not a disaster, it's heading in a good direction reguardless of what the media says. We are seeing more combat than reconstuction, thats because these soldiers need to combat the Taliban influence, or face the possibility of every-day civillians switching sides. As well as preventing future attacks, simply sitting around on the defensive all the time gives the enemy the upper hand, time to regroup and strategize - which in turn, puts our soldiers in danger. It's not as easy as most politicians think or as easy as the media seems to portray it.

So given what i've just said here, and basically everything i've said on this page, there is no real legitimate argument of a pullout and most anamosity is coming from the negative media backlash to this campaign which is swaying the Canadian public in a negative and un-true way.