one soldier?s viewpoint of iraq.
greetings (names withheld).
as i head off to baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in iraq, i wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media.
because of distorted coverage on FOX, then they would see saying anything bad about soldiers there as wrong, as they were there defending the USA and should be supported.This is why the right-wing in the USA have used their propoganda machines so effectively.
ive supported ousting saddam for 10+ years.....i dont get the fox news channel on my cable network (i usually turn on cnn for world coverage). these "fox news is the right-wing brainwashing machine" theories are hilarious, imo.
aa
http://www.reuters.com/newsarticle.jhtml?type=topnews&storyid=5166415
LOL, Simon. It seems as though they are grasping at straws.
how exactly is reporting on a bomb that actually exploded in iraq "grasping at straws"? who is "grasping", the reporters who broke the story?
aa
.
no information on where it's come from yet - sounds "home made".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm.
because we don't believe that *one* shell was justification for war
one shell (by itself) isnt justification for war.....one shell simply further proves what we already knew, that saddam was indeed lying about having ZERO wmd left over...that he was not complying with the resolutions. like i said in the other thread, its too soon to declare the latest two finds as the official smoking gun, but they certainly raise some questions. some clips i posted in the other thread:
But if this shell is what it seems - a filled chemical munition - where did it come from? And how many more shells might there be?
Iraq was supposed to have destroyed all such munitions under United Nations supervision in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War..............
Iraq had large stocks of 155mm shells containing mustard gas.
But it claimed only to have filled a small number of such shells with binary nerve agent as an experimental project, which the Iraqis said, never entered full-scale production.
Nobody knows how many such shells were manufactured or how many may exist today...........
One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.
But if Iraqi insurgents knew where to find this one, there is the disturbing possibility for the US-led coalition that other similar munitions may have fallen into their hands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm
is just making you look incredibly petty and DESPARATE !!
immediately waving off any and every find of this nature as insignificant also smacks of extreme desperation.
aa
http://www.reuters.com/newsarticle.jhtml?type=topnews&storyid=5166415
heres some clips from another interesting bbc article:
But if this shell is what it seems - a filled chemical munition - where did it come from? And how many more shells might there be?
Iraq was supposed to have destroyed all such munitions under United Nations supervision in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War.
Iraq had large stocks of 155mm shells containing mustard gas.
But it claimed only to have filled a small number of such shells with binary nerve agent as an experimental project, which the Iraqis said, never entered full-scale production.
Nobody knows how many such shells were manufactured or how many may exist today.
One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.
But if Iraqi insurgents knew where to find this one, there is the disturbing possibility for the US-led coalition that other similar munitions may have fallen into their hands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm
aa
http://www.reuters.com/newsarticle.jhtml?type=topnews&storyid=5166415
simon-
So, no ... it's not a WoMD find and not the evidence to justify the war.
i see you bolded the fact that the weapon (which would indeed fall under the category of wmd, as even abaddon admitted above) dated back to the iran-iraq war. why do you find this significant? it doesnt matter how far back any weapons date, what matters is that saddam specifically denied having ANY stocks left over. thats ZERO, meaning finding even one proves (even further) his non-compliance with the u.n. resolutions.
bold/italic mine:
Kimmitt said the artillery round was of an old style that Saddam Hussein's regime had declared it no longer possessed after the Persian Gulf War..............
The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.main/index.html
i think we need more details before declaring these two finds the official smoking gun...but they certianly seem signficant. trying to immediately downplay any finds of this nature only reeks of an agenda.
aa
source: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1135256,00.html
liberals, hmmrppphh!
yiz
abaddon-
All this shows is that the average US GI is dumb
that is a gross generalization......how do the actions of a select group of idiots represent "the average u.s. g.i."? its tantamount to me saying: "the nick berg incident shows the average muslim is a violent barbarian". give me a break.
aa
well, despite not having the much touted "freedom of speech" that america enjoys, we will get to see micheal moore's new film "farenheit 911" whereas america, for now, won't.. the film links president bush with powerful saudi families including the bin ladens.. seems disney (based on florida) have blocked the distribution because they are afraid of losing tax breaks by way of retaliation ... handy having cousing jeb as governor isn't it?.
still think you have freedom of speech?.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3689121.stm.
six-
So, is anyone going to fill me in on the supposed lies and distortions in Bowling for Columbine?
heres one lawyers critical breakdown of the way "bowling" misleads. he most certainly is biased, but gives plenty of links and facts to back up his position. let me know if you think he is completely full of it, and if so why. http://hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html http://hardylaw.net/omitted.html aa
i think it has to be rob.
much as i can't stand him, he deserves to win.
he is playing so smart, and wins so many of the challenges that it would be robbing him to not have him win.
well....it was like we said, rob made one too many enemies on the jury. amber was pretty deserving too, but she rode his coattails a bit too much for me. either way, now that they are getting married, i suppose it doesnt make much difference!
aa
i think it has to be rob.
much as i can't stand him, he deserves to win.
he is playing so smart, and wins so many of the challenges that it would be robbing him to not have him win.
lady-
rupert or jenna winning immunity wont gain them "the power"....rob and amber would just vote for the other one of the two. i think itll be a two-two tie personally, and im not sure how they are doing the tiebraker rule (is it still whoever had the most past votes for them loses?).
aa
i think it has to be rob.
much as i can't stand him, he deserves to win.
he is playing so smart, and wins so many of the challenges that it would be robbing him to not have him win.
princess-
Personally, I don't think he's played the game the best...dirtiest but not necessarily the best.
hes been by far the most dominating in challenges, and many times in survivor "dirtiest" can be the best.....remember, "outwit".
Anyone who is still there is deserving but to screw over close friends for money, that's just wrong.
they all have a chance to be friends after the game is over....but imo, considering someone a "close friend" during the game is pretty dangerous, and all of these players, having played the game once before, knew that going in.
Has anyone ever won the vehicle and then gone on the win the money?
nope.
aa
