Things going well in Iraq?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I'm not debating wether its a breeding ground or not, that answer is obvious. I just don't think its more of a breeding ground than before. (training wise.. see post below.)

Well now they're armed and in some sense, in control. They have power and power attracts new recruits. I find that more dangerous.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Or Genocide. And it's certainly not the "terrorism" aimed at the West that the Bushies drudge up. The terrorism from Iraq is the exported kind.
We all know Saddam was a bad man (who was a friend of the US when he gassed the Kurds, BTW) but that doesn't have anything to do with the terrorism that's being bred in Iraq today.

J

ust Iraq obviously. Now Saddam may have been doing some financing of terrorism but there was no terrorism going on in Iraq. Saddam would have shot them if they were lucky. Now it's wide open with death squads and suicide bombers seemingly everywhere. You don't need a link, just watch the 6 o'clock news. If they bother to report it anymore.

It was just in relation to that one.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Jayems

As i stated above, that the so called "credible" sources don't publish anything of this nature because it doesn't sell. It doesn't strike fear into the hearts of americans.

Wow, are YOU way off. It is the neo-conservatives that have been instilling fear in the hearts of Americans, for the better part of 25 years now. They are the ones who want you to livin in fear, not the media. The media just plays the part of willing dupes, because the corporate ownership understands how well fear impacts the bottom line. Try and look outside the American media for sources. I don't trust the American media for good reason. They have been bought and paid for corporate money and will broadcast what ever pads their bottom line the best. The neo-cons have a very powerful network of very rich people who own media outlets or will pay for those outlets to broadcast propaganda.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Gassing kurds isn't terrorism? Your right, thats ethnic clensing. Much better.

With weapons provided by this guy.

[Azure]

See I told you. All those sites are part of the huge right wing conspiracy.

Amazing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Based on what, a gut feeling you have? Before Saddam, there was no connection between Al-Queda and Iraq - their goals were too far apart - Al-Queda wanted Sharia law imposed on all Islamic countries and Saddam was secular. Hell, Iraq wasn't even a breeding ground for WMD's, the original reason (forgotten nowadays, I may add) in the whole mess. Saddam might have been an evil man, but he didn't create a terrorist breeding ground. Keep in mind, as well, he was an evil man the neo-cons and Bushies supported in a big way back in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq war.

I guess Saddam using WMD against his own people is part of the huge right wing conspiracy as well, huh?

While its debatable whether or not Saddam had WMD post UN-sanctions, I don't think there is a doubt that he did at one time possess WMD.

[Azure]

nm.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess Saddam using WMD against his own people is part of the huge right wing conspiracy as well, huh?

While its debatable whether or not Saddam had WMD post UN-sanctions,I don't think there is a doubt that he did at one time possess WMD.

Actually that was a huge right wing conspiracy, except that they were trying to cover it up as Saddam was using the WMD's while being supported by the US and their conservative government. Funny how the US never brought up the slaughter of his own people until after Saddam disobeyed America.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess Saddam using WMD against his own people is part of the huge right wing conspiracy as well, huh?

While its debatable whether or not Saddam had WMD post UN-sanctions, I don't think there is a doubt that he did at one time possess WMD.

Boyo does the word "conspiracy" pop up a lot in these arguments or what?

I gotta wonder though, if the mainstream media doesn't report all the good things going on in Iraq, wouldn't you say that's a conspiracy? Possibly a dreaded "left wing" conspiracy, no less? Would that make you a conspiracy theorist?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

While its debatable whether or not Saddam had WMD post UN-sanctions,I don't think there is a doubt that he did at one time possess WMD.

No **** Sherlock. And its pretty obvious how the United States knew he had them, they sold them (and the technology to make them) to him.

See I told you. All those sites are part of the huge right wing conspiracy.

Amazing.

I can't beleive there are still people out there who haven't clued in and bothered to follow the money. This isn't rocket science. Well, for Azure it might be, but for an average person its as simple as looking for conflicts of interest. If the organization in question has direct ties to the White House, they are not a viable news source. If the organization in question receives money from the same benifactors that give money to the Bush election campaign, they are not a viable news source. If the organization in question has direct ties to think tanks where members of the Bush administration are also members, they are not viable news sources. When the organizations in question have run stories that hve been exposed as White House produced and financed stories, they cease to be news sources and become propaganda organs.

The only thing that is amazing is the fact that you can't ADMIT that the Bush administration was caught, red-handed, producing propaganda and that these same outlets were party to the disemination of that propaganda. It's an afront to the 1st ammendment for christ sake!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess Saddam using WMD against his own people is part of the huge right wing conspiracy as well, huh?

While its debatable whether or not Saddam had WMD post UN-sanctions, I don't think there is a doubt that he did at one time possess WMD.

Isn't the old joke 'The USA knew Sadam had WMD because the USA sold them to him'.

If you haven't come to realise this whole affair is one dirty misleading business from the getgo designed to further Bush and his cronies agendas and is now backfiring on them, I give up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Boyo does the word "conspiracy" pop up a lot in these arguments or what?

I gotta wonder though, if the mainstream media doesn't report all the good things going on in Iraq, wouldn't you say that's a conspiracy? Possibly a dreaded "left wing" conspiracy, no less? Would that make you a conspiracy theorist?

Well looking at Lanny's posts, to him everything is a huge right wing conspiracy, by the facist Bush government in their plan to take over the world.

I really don't care about the mainstream media; like I've said before, bad news sells, so the media reports the bad news out of Iraq.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's not solely a right wing conspiracy. It's a profit driven corporatist conspiracy, if it is a conspiracy at all.

A lot of the problems in the Middle East can be traced back to democrats like Kennedy. Back then, the conservatives were more isolationists and the liberals were the ones wanting to put their influence everywhere.

Would things really be that different with Kerry or Lieberman?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well looking at Lanny's posts, to him everything is a huge right wing conspiracy, by the facist Bush government in their plan to take over the world.

To be honest, its a corporate conspiracy. Unfortunately, most of the players are big time neo-conservatives, which makes it political at the same time. Dubya just ain't one of them neo-cons though. The guy is a patsy who I think was expected to be taken out by now. He's been a complete and total failure his whole life, and continues that legacy as the president.

I really don't care about the mainstream media; like I've said before, bad news sells, so the media reports the bad news out of Iraq.

Gotcha. So the mainstream media, who have people on the ground and covering the goings on daily, are out to produce propaganda, but the guys who are safe and sound in Washington, writing stuff from third hand accounts or just making **** up, are the ones who are credible? Yup, all that video and photgraphic evidence just ain't enough for soem people. But a good blog written by some think tank employee, paid for by corporate money, is completely above board and honest!



Sadly, the media is being systematically choked to death by corporations and government (quickly becoming the same thing). We get only the information they allow to slip through the filter. Only when we look through multiple sources and digest the information completely do we get to see the truth. Unfortunately, most people are too "busy" (nee stupid) to take in the information and apply some critical thought. We have allowed control over an information asset that should never be controlled by governments or corporations.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess Saddam using WMD against his own people is part of the huge right wing conspiracy as well, huh?

While its debatable whether or not Saddam had WMD post UN-sanctions, I don't think there is a doubt that he did at one time possess WMD.

Are you arguing in timeslip now? There were no WMDs, as the gas the US supplied to them surely would have counted as that and been trumpeted with great largesse by the current administration if it had discovered (mind you they would have had to spend some time peeling off the Made in USA stickers if they did find it). The nasty actions against the Kurds was a feature of Saddam's rule, but the gassing itself without any contextual application to the current conflict.

[Azure]

To be honest, its a corporate conspiracy. Unfortunately, most of the players are big time neo-conservatives, which makes it political at the same time. Dubya just ain't one of them neo-cons though. The guy is a patsy who I think was expected to be taken out by now. He's been a complete and total failure his whole life, and continues that legacy as the president.

Fair enough. While I think your conspiracy theories are stupid, I can at least see where you're coming from.

Gotcha. So the mainstream media, who have people on the ground and covering the goings on daily, are out to produce propaganda, but the guys who are safe and sound in Washington, writing stuff from third hand accounts or just making **** up, are the ones who are credible? Yup, all that video and photgraphic evidence just ain't enough for soem people. But a good blog written by some think tank employee, paid for by corporate money, is completely above board and honest!

I never said out to produce propaganda, rather that they like to report the bad news, because bad news sells. Read your local paper, 90% will be usually on negative outcomes in every single different situation.

Doom and Gloom, it really sells.

A good blog? If anyone has a credible blog, Micheal Yon does. I suggest you check it out.

The guy us a straight shooter, and that comes from every single person I have talked to that has been around him.

That is the news I usually stick too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Are you arguing in timeslip now? There were no WMDs, as the gas the US supplied to them surely would have counted as that and been trumpeted with great largesse by the current administration if it had discovered (mind you they would have had to spend some time peeling off the Made in USA stickers if they did find it). The nasty actions against the Kurds was a feature of Saddam's rule, but the gassing itself without any contextual application to the current conflict.

No WMD? So he DIDN'T use them against his own people?

Wierd, I was positive he gassed a bunch of Kurds right after the Iraq-Iran war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Doom and Gloom, it really sells.

That is 100% inaccurate. If Doom and Gloom sold we would have more coverage of the issues that really mattered. We would have more information on Iraq, on the Bush Admin, on Israel, on the economy, on terrorism, etc. We would have more and more information to give us the background issues that would expose these matters for what they really are. But we don't get doom and gloom, we get opinion and infotainment. We get scandal and celebrity intrigue. We get fluff that is a complete distraction from the issues that really matter in our lives. That is why journalism, the news and the media are in such a mess. They don't do their job anymore, they are too busy focusing on issues that don't matter but will appeal to voyeur in all of us.

[Daradon]

Thoughts:

The Monica Lewinsky scandal was bigger than the mountains of real problems Bush has caused because the common person (espcially the common uneducated person who THINKS they're informed) likes scandal and SEX more than real issues. I agree that a bigger deal was made out of something smaller in that case, but I think the public at large ate it up. I do not think the media is necessarily has right or left wing basises in the large sense. (Obviously some channels and papers go one way, some go the other) If you want to blame that one, blame the public, and the conservative government that couldn't leave the scandal alone. Heck blame the liberals who could turn it back in the conservatives face to show how they didn't really care about the country, just the fact that they weren't in charge of it.

Why Iraq is a bigger breeding ground for terrorism now: Sure it may have existed before, but people forget, that radical movements would probably also look to oust Saddam. He did not want any opposition to his power, and history had shown, he had not gotten along with the radical Islamic movement. He ruled with an iron fist, which yes ws bad for freedoms, but also bad for any groups look for power or sway or to share ideology. Now the power vacuum has brought the insurgents in, and the U.S. occupation has made the West even more of an enemy.

While there may have been small pockets of radical Islamic fundamentalism during Saddams regime, there is no evidence to show it was linked to him. In fact, logically, it makes more sense that they were not. The two had trouble co-existing. More proof of that is the vast INCREASE in fundamentalist activity after he was ousted.

WMD's: Evidnece is there to show Saddam had them pre '91 and Kuwait. Not much hard evidence to show he had them any time in the last 5-10 years. Like the terrorism link, it has proven to be another red herring. (Yes I too also wonder where all those arguing the benefits or importance of this war have gone. It wasn't all left wing ideals, propaganda or tree hugging, there was obviously loads common sense there too)

Doom and Gloom: Yes it sells, but both 'sides' create their own version and try to tell us what IS doom and gloom. To a liberal doom and gloom may be a protracted war, to a conservative, the outside chance of a terror attack is. A liberal doom and gloom would be an increase in hummer sales while a conservative doom and gloom would be increased hummer activity in the oval office...

Had to end with a joke...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I really don't care about the mainstream media; like I've said before, bad news sells, so the media reports the bad news out of Iraq.

That is interesting. If you don't care about the mainstream media, where do you get your information from? Do you know of a secret, non-mainstream source that we should know about?

Bad news does sell. There is a reason for that.

For example, I'll probably swim in a lake this weekend. If I happen to drown there might be a headline that reads something like this:

"Calgary man drowns in shallow water: autopsy pending".

That would be considered news.

If I don't drown when I go swimming the same paper could publish the following headline if the priority is "good news":

"Calgary man swims in shallow water: returns to land with wet hair, trunks".