Previous  1  2  3

Thanks Randy, I posted that link on my website.

The more that know about this the better.

It has to be stopped someday, but I don't know the answers. Someone out there does.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

   

For the sake of your comprehension I'll slow my train of thought... criticism accepted.

"...simply show how out of touch with reality you really are. I am already enrolled in Marine OCS (that means 'Officer Candidate School', and Marines stands for a branch of the US military, in case you didn't know), and am currently finishing my degree at university before I can join the service. So, fuck you for the insult. You have no idea what you are talking about."

I admit I took a gamble for making such a pointed attack. However, you still did not disprove my point that you are full of bullshit... you are speaking as if you are on duty in Iraq. Don't deny the reality of the situation just because you feel insulted.

"American freedoms were not "chopped-down", as you assert, by the Patriot Act. I have read the Patriot Act, which you probably haven't, and I can assure you, that it does not, indeed, chop down any of my or any other American's freedoms."

For instance, how do you explain the so-called "free-speech zones"? If legitimate protestors decide "break" the law by demonstrating at a location where they can actually be noticed by the intended government official, under the PATRIOT Act, they would be considered terrorists. So, how effective is the Freedom of Speech when they are barred from moving to within ear-shot of the president?

There is no way you can claim you or anyone else's freedoms have not been impeded unless you have have actually attempted to use them. I say this because your thoughts on these various issues are of the typical jingoist.

"As to your assertion that terrorism wasn't threatening US citizens' freedoms, you are wrong. Most terrorist activity in the US threatens the "right to life" as cited in the Declaration of Independence, by killing US citizens (that's what happened in the 9/11 terrorist attacks; terrorists usurped over 3,000 US citizens' right to life. Thanks for noticing). It is, therefore, necessary for the US govt to protect its citizens against the forces of terrorism."

You've completely ignored the point that "terrorists" are not acting because they somehow despise American's freedoms. Citing your Declaration of Independence does not prove that "terrorists" hate Americans for "their" freedom. Nonetheless, you appear undeterred in your belief that freedom was somehow under attack. So, I'll ask again: how have the terrorists threatened freedom in America?

Second, as you state that the US government is acting to protect its citizens from terrorism, why do you imply that military action is the first and presumably the most effective response?

Third, if the "war on terrorism" is being won, which of the countless "victories" have resulted in halting "terrorist" activities.

"As to "conventional military doctrine", by which I believe you mean conventional warfare, it is not "useless"; in fighting terrorism; rather it is ineffective. But, US military forces do not solely rely on conventional military techniques to fight terrorism. They have anti-terrorist special forces and techniques (how bout that?) which have been specifically trained and developed to counter the guerilla warfare of which you speak."

In continuation from the above, since the organisation of guerilla armies (or in this case, terrorist groups) is decentralised. Is it logical that they can be defeated by simply killing-off a select group of individuals?

For your information, anti-terrorist forces are not intended to wage a protracted conflict (the "war on terrorism") against a large body of fighters. They usually specialise in hostage-taking and hostage-rescue. Even in this capacity, success is spotty. Case in point: Somalia.

"And finally, it is not "illogical" to fight a US war on terror, and yes, terrorist have threatened many Americans' aforementioned right to life, which you must have forgotten when you wrote that terrorists aren't threatening American freedoms."

Once again, I'll repeat myself: how is invading Iraq a logical way to fight terrorism?

Also, "rights" and "freedoms" are two different things (the difference being, freedoms can be taken away. ONLY the actions/reactions of a government can do this). You can NOT say that some freedoms (which ones?) are under attack when YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT THE TARGET IS A "RIGHT". I continue to argue that your reasoning doesn't make any sense!

"I will acknowledge that more 'poor kids' join the military than 'rich kids', that's no secret, but there are plenty of 'rich kids'; fighting in raq, so don't try to say that there aren't. I know several myself. Still, 'poor kids' do not have to join the armed services, and they, too, can avoid the draft altogether."

First, I didn't say that there weren't any "rich kids" in Iraq. I clearly stated that the upper-class use both political and social connections to win a low-risk tours for people whom can be collecively referred to as REMFs. This is opposed to the options of the lower-class which include less sophisticated methods usually referred to as "desertion". That's the difference.


"As to Jessica Lynch, you are correct in that she is in the Army and was in Iraq. But her example does not disprove what I said. I should have used more explicit language, though, I suppose. Women are not able to serve in combat duty in the US armed services, with the exception of the army, whose rules governing women in combat are too tricky to write out here...As to why Bush's daughters are not serving in non-combat roles in the military, I don't know, but we have a volunteer army, and they didn't choose to join. But that's a stupid question."

No, this question is relevant... especially in the increasing odds for a draft. You initially stated "It was not his fault that none of his children are not serving in the military" because "women can't serve in combat duty in America". That still doesn't explain why they won't join. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the reason neither of them will join, even in a draft, will not be due to the fact they happen to be women.

If I'm correct, the ratio of people required to support the troops on the "front" is 6:1 (this also one of the many reasons why conventional military forces can not win in a guerrilla war... the typical guerrilla fighter is self-sufficient).

"As to your contentions that Bush doesn't care about the troops, we could argue all day as to what the military spending really means and whether or not he cares if they die, but we wouldn't get anywhere. All I will say is that from first-hand testimony from troops that have met the President, the vast majority say that he was very kind, very polite, concerned and caring, and these testimonies stand in stark contrast to similar testimonies about former President Clinton, for instance. The military does like and feel cared for Bush, and that, among other reasons, is why the vast majority of the military will vote for him in the coming elections and not John Kerry. That doesn't prove or disprove either of our original points, but it does suggest that I am correct."

What you reference suggests nothing other than the soldiers that favour bush were permitted to meet him. Furthermore, we are all too familiar with bush's public "face". I wonder if you can describe a flaw about bush on your own... it is known that he is incapable of admitting his own failures.

Even though veterans benfits and pay for were cut under bush, what gives you the impression he does give a crap? I've cited specific examples to reinforce my argument, now the burden lies with you to prove yours.

Do you know that bush has never attended the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq? Even photographing the return of coffins has been banned: out of sight, out of mind. So much for honouring the dead.

"...Bush probably has said that his political career is important to him, but I don't want to take the time to look it up. You have no proof or idea as to whether or not his political career is or isn't important to him."

Yes, there is proof. For instance, If he takes his job so seriously than why does he take month-long vacations? Is it because he works hard? Nope. He made his first million with the bail-out of his dry-well oil company by his father's business connections who sought to gain the favour of the president by working closely with his son. The fact of the matter is, bush has never made an honest living for himself in his entire life. What makes you think bush would act differently? So, once again... the burden of proof lies with you to counteract my argument. http://www.failureisimpossible.com/images/bushdesk.jpg

   

continued...

"Next, who does stand to make billions of dollars under Bush? I don't know what you're referencing and neither do you. You're probably referencing some baseless conspiracy theories about Cheney and Haliburton or Bush and Saudi oil families, but nobody has any proof that any of these people are standing to profit directly from Bush's decisions, and Bush and Cheney have both been exonerated by Senate probes into their connections with Haliburton and other oil companies. You obviously don't have your facts straight."

Sorry, this topic stretches far beyond halliburton and its no-bid contracts. Bechtel is another example. Even though it IS known that Halliburton has been paid for services that have never been delivered. Even when they are fulfilling some reconstruction duties, it has been PROVEN they have cut as many corners as possible to increase their profit. This trend extends to trucking companies who earn money by moving empty convoys through Iraq, "Security contractors" (mercenaries) who get paid $1000/day, and OVER $1 billion MISSING from the Iraq Reconstruction Fund. There is no way you can deny people are getting rich from this blood money.

Others: http://realchange.org/bushjr.htm#corrupt


"Lastly,... First, President Bush has not killed anyone. Some people may have died as an indirect result of actions he put in motion, but he has not killed anyone. While he was governor of Texas, he allowed many executions in accordance with the state laws that apply to the death penalty. He supports the death penalty, but he did not kill anyone."

Now you are arguing semantics? You admit people have died (both directly AND indirectly, how do you argue that ordering an invasion will not directly result in the deaths of civilians?)due to the decisions bush has made.

Concerning the "actions he put into motion", are you referring to the war? Is it not true that ONLY the congress can DECLARE a war. They didn't. Instead, they voted to endow bush with the power to declare "pre-emptive" war whenever and where ever. Is it not true that this contradicts your Constitution where the power to declare war rests solely in congress? Therefore, any of the "actions he put into motion" would be considered illegal not only internationally, but domestically as well. So tell me: does giving the US president the power to declare a war contradict the US constitution?


"And finally, people do count the Iraqi dead. There are various numbers in the newspapers whenever Iraqis are killed. If you're referring to something else, I'm afraid you'll have to be more clear. Who doesn't count the number of Iraqi dead? And what does that have to do with Bush."

Yes, people do count the Iraqi dead. That is not what I have been arguing. I specifically referred to bush and the administration. I don't know why you could have thought I was focusing on something else. The military nor the government have not bothered to count the number of civilians who have died since the invasion. They HAVE specifically STATED so. This leaves independent (usually anti-war) organisations attempting to fill the gap with crude estimates. Go see: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

What this has to do with bush is the very point that I have been making: he doesn't care how many people die. I challenge you to cite evidence to the contrary.

"Moving on, no American soldiers have fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters exercising free speech. I don't know where you invented that from, but that's simply not true, and it's slanderous."

Here are two specific instances as a result of a quick search on google:

-American soldiers fire on political rally, killing at least 10 civilians: http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/6143.php

-US marines fire on crowd: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/04/week_4/29_war.html

You can NOT deny that civilians have been murdered. You can't even assert that Americans treat Iraqi PWs humanely...


"I would like to tell you to go fuck yourself on behalf of the military for saying that, too. I can't directly prove that that's not true, but I would be really surprised if you could prove what you said. In fact, I'm certain you can not. But I'm willing to listen if you have evidence. Some innocent Iraqis may have been casualties of war, but there are very few, I've not heard of any myself, and there have certainly not been any peaceful Iraqis fired on by US troops."

Since when did you become a spokesman for the US military? Again I say you are full of bullshit (insult intended). Please, get it through your head that you can only speak for YOURSELF!

Here's the real story of an actual soldier: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/s ... 1546c.html

American soldiers HAVE committed atrocities in Iraq and I continue to assert that the US has played a leading role in the massacre of Iraqis. The catalogue of evidence supports this. To refuse to investigate these issues is not only ignorant, but it is irresponsible. Especially to a prospective service member... Nuremburg taught us that that following-orders is no excuse for breaking the law.

"As to the military suicide rate and the mental health of the soldiers, those issues are tangential to what I said. They do not disprove that the soldiers want to fight for the Iraqis. Most still do, but it is an unfortunate side-effect of war and moving to such a harsh desert climate that the mental health of the soldiers would drop. But, I bet you that most of the soldiers coming back from Iraq would still say that they are proud of what they did, glad they stayed to protect the Iraqis, and would do it again if called upon."

Proud? Proud of Invading Iraq.. "Defending" America's freedoms... Protecting Iraqis?

How does a superpower extract "pride" from bombing countries much smaller than itself? How does invading Iraq protect freedom from terror (the 9/11 commission has concluded the Iraq was not involved in 9/11)? How have they protected Iraqis when they where busy protecting the Oil Ministry?

That is exactly what I meant when I said "a good 50% still think like that". Being "Proud" is all that matters to people like you.... forget the facts, deny even some of the most basic truths. All in an attempt to protect your pride. Becoming a soldier because you are proud of your country is one of the most despicable of reasons. As long as you are proud, you don't have to THINK about the things that matter: I challenge you to state a specific, non-emotional, reason WHY a person should consider military service, to go overseas, to fight an enemy whom has never done harm to him...

"Motivations for war we can fight about all day, but Bush clearly stated several reasons for going to war in his state of the union speech and other speeches. To not acknowledge the other reasons for invading Iraq is to edit history for your own purposes."

No, exaggerating threats based on past impressions to achieve a goal that is not related to your orginal justification to go to war is editing history for some hidden purpose. Yes, bush did cite several reasons which he used to jump from one to another in a situation where the other was proven to be baseless or irrelevant to the case for invasion.

If Saddam was threatening only to the people within his borders (the gassing of Kalabja has been a topic of debate for years, it is not certain whether the kurds were the target as this was during the time of the Iran-Iraq war and the Iranians may have occupied the town, but I digress), why would bush say he was an imminent threat to the US? If he tried to kill bush's dad, why is Iraq being invaded years after the fact? Do you see? NONE OF THE STATED REASONS BUSH GAVE FOR WAR IS STRONG ENOUGH TO STAND ON ITS OWN.


"Still, Bush may have been wrong on the WMD's, but so was the rest of the world. A lot of what Bush said was right (e.g., the claim that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Nigeria)"

Wrong. The documents of the uranium from Nigeria have been proven to be crude forgeries according to the 9/11 commission.

"...and nobody can yet disprove that Saddam did not have WMD's at the time that the US was deciding to go to war. Saddam had lots of time to move them before we invaded them. I'm not saying he did, I'm just saying you don't know and neither do I."

Wrong. Hans Blix and every other UN weapons inspector agrees that Iraq was not actively pursuing the development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Even the US military's own search for weapons has turned up NOTHING. It has been proven that Iraq hasn't had the capability to produce unconventional weapons since the Gulf War. Given this, any biological or chemical weapons (the types that Hussein was suspected of already having acquired) manufactured before then would have expired long ago. These types of weapons have SPECIFIC AND LIMITED LIFESPANS. Overtime, the chemicals decompose and lose their volatility and bacterial cultures eventually die.

THE ARGUMENT OF WMDs HAS BEEN THOUROGHLY DEBUNKED ALREADY.

"One, the thousands of Iraqis who ran out to greet the coalition forces definitely indicated that the Iraqis wanted someone to free them."

What instance do you cite? You don't cite a specific situation since one doesn't exist.

The toppling of the statue was a coreographed stunt: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le2842.htm

Remember when the administration constantly stressed that this was not an occupation? Now, the "coalition" is being referred to as an occupation force without a second thought.

Your perception that Iraqis are happy to have their country occupied by the US is not based on fact, but on what bush has been saying repeatedly.

"Two, the fact that the power in Iraq was consolidated in the hands of his loyalist regime and Gestapo-like military and police force provided for a military dictatorship that brutally silenced attempts at revolt. This is not an anomally in history. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were also in a vast minority in Russia when they took over in the early 20th century, but a strong military and police network quickly and effectively silenced dissent and eventually consolidated power over all of Russia. As to Iraqis now trying to free themselves, I don't know where you get this from."

More BS. So why is the US in Iraq? Your sloppy allusion does not prove anything. I have repeatedly challenged you to state a specific reason why the US needed to "liberate" Iraq. I am forced to remind you that the US was a key supporter of Hussein and his dictatorial regime so why would Iraqis turn to the US for help? The Iraqis are smart enough to know who their enemies are.

"There are terrorists trying to get the coalition forces out of Iraq, this is true, but they are a tiny minority operating almost exclusively in three cities in Iraq: Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi. Their actions do not indicate the sentiments of the vast majority."

This is a similar topic which I've discussed earlier in "A Show Trial".

What evidence do you cite for your claim that the resistance is limitied? The latest intelligence reports that were released stating the resistance to be limited to a few thousand radicals has also proven to be incorrect. Before the invasion, the Iraqi military stockpiled supplies all over the country in anticipation for the occupation. The disbanded soldiers would then form the resistance... but the media refers to them all as insurgents. Contrary to your belief saying Iraqi soldiers are Islamic extremists is like saying the average German soldiers were members of the Nazi party.


"You can look in the New York Times and National Geographic and find various articles with vast evidence and testimony testifying to what I described. In fact, Saddam is on trial for multiple counts of crimes against humanity for ordering mass murders of Kurds and dissenters. You can go search and find this for yourself."

The point I was making was that the US has played a leading role in the massacre of Iraqis. Do you deny that American actions have killed scores of people in Iraq?

Which "mass murders" do you cite? You should have evidence ready if you intend to use such a claim to justify a war. Once again, you made the claim so the burden of proof lies with you... but what does this have to do with the invasion when it has been stated many times that the pre-emptive invasion was to "defend America" in some non-sensical way.

"Iraq was not the first country with a brutal government to be liberated, as you claim. Afghanistan was."

Don't you find it interesting that, like Saddam, the Taliban and Al Qeada were also American Allies?

If the invasion of Afghanistan was supposedly the first step in the "war on terror", do you reason that the invasion of Iraq was the next stage in the war on terrorism even though there was no evidence linking them to 9/11? The lack of supporting evidence to the claim was known well BEFORE the invasion.

So I will ask again: in the name of the "war on terror", why was Iraq chosen to be the first country to be invaded without evidence linking it to 9/11?

"Iraq was second because it was believed that it constituted the biggest threat to the US at the time, and Saddam's ridiculously suspicious behaviour and repeated violation of UN sanctions furthered that suspicion. Multiple countries believed this. Others did not."

Yes, that is was the administration has been saying all this time, but it doesn't prove anything. Have you ever listened to their justifications? THEY HAD NO SOLID EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE... EVER to confirm this "threat" and they invaded anyways! The reports of the UN inspectors contradict your argument. According to former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'neill, bush had PLANNED on invading Iraq since his first week in office. Iraq never did pose any threat to the US and this was KNOWN BEFORE the invasion!

"Iraqis are not the best equipped to fight for their freedom. See my point above. They do, however, have tens of thousands of citizens volunteering for the army, and they will soon be protecting themselves. I don't think the Iraqis are inferior as people, but they are definitely inferior to the US as soldiers. But the US and NATO are training them. They will protect themselves within a few years."

Nothing but hearsay. What source gives you the "tens of thousands" estimate and what does being "the best equipped" have to do with fighting for their freedom? The guerilla war the Iraqi resistance is fighting for the freedom of Iraq will always have support among the population.

Do you wonder why the police stations in Iraq are frequently targets of bombings? It's because Iraq is in a state of war and the resistance considers those who collaborate with the occupation to be traitors. Iraqis have little reason to aid an illegal occupation of their country.

"Finally, I know much more about American sentiment than you do, and I think that your last point is wrong."

That may be true, however, I know enough to say that you do not represent the opinion of all Americans so I will not let your poor example tarnish the image others have presented to me.

If you believe that my statement saying that soldiers who intended to defend American soil as their sole duty are wrong and those who have sought refuge in Canada because they do not want to involve themselves in an illegal occupation are deserters, perhaps you should explain why.

   

"I know enough to say that you do not represent the opinion of all Americans so I will not let your poor example tarnish the image others have presented to me."

Amen, Canuck. This is one American that agrees with you entirely. Nothing the anonymous pro-war writer said changes the simple fact that America launched an unprovoked invasion and conquest of a foreign nation. Just like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. It was a shameful day in American history. God help us to right our wrongs and never repeat them.

-Randy from RI

   

Randyvo-
I didn't give you any "penny-ante Marxist bull-crap"; you gave it to me. Anyway, when you say "the rich", you imply all the rich by making no exceptions. You're stereotyping, and you haven't even defined a rough estimate of how much money a person has to have to be rich; people are either rich or not rich, according to you. That's sensational stereotyping and broad generalization. It's like saying Blacks are fast, Bankers are Jewish, Mexicans are lazy, etc., etc. As I'm sure you know, there are plenty of rich people who do great acts of charity and who do visit inner cities and set up schools and donate money to local relief causes and education programs. There's no proven way to make "poor" people "rich", but having an education sure helps, and lots of rich people help provide that to poor kids. I know a few. So don't lump in all rich people among the ranks of the elitist warriors. That's silly.

Now, I know that there are plenty of rich people who like being rich and who are unwilling to share their money and would like to see certain people remain poor. There are lots of people who don't want to see poor and minority people become rich like them. Oppression exists and it happens. It's part of human nature. But I really don't think that there exists a massive, concerted effort among all "rich" people to keep poor people in their places.

Lastly, I have opened my eyes and my mind. I volunteer at a Community Center in West Dallas, a foundation aimed at educating children and in turn, their parents in one of the top ten poorest neighbourhooods in America. It also provides other services to the community. I know what poverty looks like, and I know the challenges that these kids face. But I also know that, in my work, I see that there are some very good rich people helping the Community clean up, get educated and move on.

Perhaps you should check your own ideology at the door and quit the stereotyping. That's not fair.

   

Anon;

Fair enough - you're right - I am generalizing when I say "the rich". I should say "the greedy rich", though that is usually redundant, there are, as you say, "good" generous rich people. But they are exceptional and not the rule and certainly not the problem. They are not the ones that spend millions of dollars lobbying tax cuts for themselves and service cuts for the poor. So I'll take your suggestion and say "the greedy rich" if it helps to differentiate. I hope it also serves to dispel the generalizations made about "the poor" as well. They are not - for the most part - "lazy" or "out for hand-outs".

I too work in poor communities as a social worker. My clients are people who are doing the best they can to improve their lives against the overwhelming challanges of poverty, addictions, abuse, and a social system that prefers to give too little and too late. It is this system - that bends over backwards to reward the "greedy rich" - that I am complaining about.

But I'm glad to hear you are not one of those indifferent, uninvolved Americans! Good for you for volunteering! To paraphrase Dorothy Day, let's "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"!

-Randy from RI

   

Dear Canuck,
Well, I am glad you responded. I appreciate your vigor, and the fact that you are trying to be responsible, in many instances, by doing some research on your claims. I read your response (it was very long), and I still have a few critiques. You still didn't argue logically in many cases, and you often read into my assertions more than was there. I do appreciate the research, though, from your side, and I read the articles you posted. I was disappointed, however, to find that you have taken from much of it only what you wanted to take. For instance, you took me to task on my assertion that American troops had not fired on "peaceful Iraqis excercising free speech", and you cited two articles that you claim proved me wrong. Upon reading the articles, however, I found found that they included the following:
"The events leading up to the deaths are still unclear." Then, they went on to explain that the armed forces report that the "peaceful protesters" turned on the Americans and shot at them, got violent, or that there were gunmen among the protesters using them as a shield to shoot the Americans. The report from the Iraqis, of course, would be different.

You cannot take away from that that American troops shot peaceful Iraqis for no reason. You can't even blame one side or the other. There's no proof of what happened. I'll add that if the Iraqis attacked the troops, that's their problem because once they do, they are not mere civilians anymore, and the troops have the right to defend themselves.

Anyway, that's all I really want to respond to. It's quite obvious that I will not convince you of the things that I think, and I can't find legitimate or coherent arguments from you that will convince me of your side. But if you give me more information, I'll continue to investigate. Anyway, I applaud your zeal, I do. I appreciate your efforts to do what you think is responsible by informing me of your views. I don't appreciate the insults, and they don't help arguments. But overall, thanks for the debate. I do still think that you are wrong on most of your points, and it did seem to me that you interpreted information subjectively instead of objectively, but we all do that on some level. In the future, I hope that you can put aside your biases when compiling information and form opinions from the facts and not through a non-objective lens. Anyway, have a nice week, and keep posting articles and links for me if you continue to find them. You may win me over yet. Maybe, but probably not.

   

"Well, I am glad you responded. I appreciate your vigor, and the fact that you are trying to be responsible, in many instances, by doing some research on your claims. I read your response (it was very long), and I still have a few critiques."

First, I didn't post any of those links for my own benefit and none of what I posted is new to me. As for the length of my post, I can assure you that it is necessitated only by the number of flagrant lies (either wittingly or unwittingly) appearing in your messages.

"You still didn't argue logically in many cases, and you often read into my assertions more than was there."

Perhaps you could point out the possible errors in my logic so that I may have an opportunity to clarify. Simply stating that you think I have made some errors does not further your own argument nor does it diminish my own. Even if I did happen to read too far into your assertions, perhaps that could have been because you provided too much room for interpretation.

"I do appreciate the research, though, from your side, and I read the articles you posted. I was disappointed, however, to find that you have taken from much of it only what you wanted to take. For instance, you took me to task on my assertion that American troops had not fired on 'peaceful Iraqis excercising free speech', and you cited two articles that you claim proved me wrong."

What do you mean when you say "from your side" (nothing of what I have posted is untrue nor do I stray beyond the bounds of verifiable evidence) and why do you assume that peaceful PROTEST means being COMPLACENT?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/ap-banner.htm

The above instance clearly demonstrates that while Iraqis do protest peacefully (I think that term is an oxymoron. To describe a protest, maybe the terms "violent" and "non-violent" would be more accurate), American soldiers shoot at them (and to a further extent, exposes the willingness of the media establishment to white-wash the incident).

"Upon reading the articles, however, I found found that they included the following:
'The events leading up to the deaths are still unclear.' Then, they went on to explain that the armed forces report that the 'peaceful protesters' turned on the Americans and shot at them, got violent, or that there were gunmen among the protesters using them as a shield to shoot the Americans. The report from the Iraqis, of course, would be different."

What I'm curious about is why American soldiers were even near the protesting Iraqis in the first place. Were they trying to contain them? That doesn't make sense. After all, they are not police officers and Iraq is in a state of war... why would they bother with a group of protestors unless they intend to hinder the ability of the Iraqis to assemble (which could lead to a full-fledged rebellion). Are you really surprised that Iraqis aren't angry over being occupied - illegally - and do you really think shooting indiscriminately into a crowd will keep them from taking pot-shots at US soldiers?


"You cannot take away from that that American troops shot peaceful Iraqis for no reason. You can't even blame one side or the other. There's no proof of what happened. I'll add that if the Iraqis attacked the troops, that's their problem because once they do, they are not mere civilians anymore, and the troops have the right to defend themselves."

You say this even though you have previously stated, "There are terrorists trying to get the coalition forces out of Iraq, this is true, but they are a tiny minority operating almost exclusively in three cities in Iraq: Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi. Their actions do not indicate the sentiments of the vast majority."

Please clarify: did you mean to say that protesting Iraqis are terrorists or when you say terrorists, do you mean non-Iraqi extremists? If you meant to say that Iraqis were the terrorists whom did the Iraqis terrify? An Iraqi shooting at US soldiers occupying his country does not make that Iraqi a terrorist and it also demonstrates that Iraqis don't need US troops to protect them as it is the US occupation forces and their Iraqi collaborators whom are the targets.

"I don't appreciate the insults, and they don't help arguments."

If you are referring to my use of the term, "bullshit", I used it because it accurately described what you typed. As for your "fuck you on behalf of the US military", I still don't understand what you mean (but it sounds no less funny)... perhaps to practice your grasp of hypocrisy?

"In the future, I hope that you can put aside your biases when compiling information and form opinions from the facts and not through a non-objective lens."

The fact that humans have biases is an undeniable fact of life and it is impossible to ask someone not to be biased. As for the objectivity of the information I've used, just because the facts happen to differ with your perception of reality does not make the information non-objective: the integrity of the presented facts would have to be disproven first. I'd think you'd be able to identify the clear distortion of the facts, but you haven't. The same can not be said of the single US government link you provided. They have an agenda which they have been clearly trying to sell and their tendency to spin the facts to achieve their goals are quite obvious. This stretches from the veracity of Bush's military records, to the "mission accomplished" stunt, to the bush administration's forehand knowledge of 9/11, to the argument of WMDs, the invasion of Iraq and so on....

   

Previous  1  2  3