Newsweek S*X

[fisherman_craig]

I cannot belive how stupid and irresponsible these people are. Our troops are fighting and dying to free these people and to hunt down terrorists while this magazine prints a story that is false and angers the people even more. Our soldiers overseas do not need some stupid @ss journalists who just want to throw mud on this war getting our boys in more deadly heat then they already have to deal with!Screw Newsweek! Â*> > > > > > > >

[BassNva]

i heard of freedom of the press,but that's just insane.
you know they are a left wing rag.why would anyone even think of printing something like that?..it's criminal.
i can go on but i can't find the soap box..i think devilboy stole it. ;D

[zman]

Its a pattern. Many major news organizations want to make the war in Iraq as difficult as possible, or in the absence of doing that make it appear to be much worse than in is, because bad news is still news.

Next time I hear Iraq is a quagmire or another vietnam I'm going to puke. In vietnam 58,000 Americans died. We havent reached 2,000 yet as far as I know in Iraq, and a fair amount of that is not even combat related. No war is good, and this is no exception, but compared to the wars the US has been involved before, this is about as costly a war as 1812, or maybe the spanish-american war. It is nowhere close to what the people during the 1960s, early 1940s or certainly 1860s dealt with.

[Infisherman1]

[quote author=WTL link=board=Tourneys;num=1116362526;start=0#2 date=05/17/05 at 21:20:14]

Next time I hear Iraq is a quagmire or another vietnam I'm going to puke. Â*In vietnam 58,000 Americans died. Â*
[/quote]

I agree with that statement completely. Â*Look at half the people who say that, they are the liberal as crap aging hippies who protested the Vietnam war. They're trying to relate it to Â*Vietnam just so they can protest and make it sound much worse than it is.
Â* Â*BTW, does anybody elser find it kind of ironic that the hippies during the conflict in Vietnam who labeled all soldiers as "baby killers" Â*were the people who grew up to become the liberals who are pro-abortion?

[fisherman_craig]

Great post guys, espically WTL. I just get very upset when I think that the media could be hurting our soldiers, killing them. We should keep them all in our prayers. God Bless them. They are so brave.
Thanks for the posts guys!

[redneck13]

The left-leaning press will do anything to make george W. Bush look bad.

[jdkc]

The press doesn't have to do much of anything to make Bush look bad, he is pretty good at that. Granted you do need to think before printing some **** like that.

What is also criminal is sending National Guard units to combat ill-prepared. Or not sending enough troops when even the military said before the war that we needed at least 250,000.


I like these little statistics as well...

# $3 billion needed to place devices that screen luggage for explosives in all U.S. airports: ($3 billion funds 10 days of Iraq war)

# $400 million allocated by Bush budget for explosives-screening machines: ($400 million funds 32 hours of Iraq war)

# $290 million needed to place dirty bomb radiation detectors at U.S. seaports: ($290 million funds 23 hours of Iraq war)

# $43 million allocated by Bush budget for dirty-bomb detectors: ($43 million funds 3 hours of Iraq war)

# $36.8 billion needed to help U.S. firefighters prepare for terrorist attacks: ($36.8 billion funds 122 days of Iraq war)

# $500 million allocated by Bush budget for grants to local fire departments: ($500 million funds 40 hours of Iraq war)

Then we say well we are fighting terror. NO we are not Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist. In fact he fought against the radical islamics. Saddam was a facist. See most of the terrorists in the world come from one group of islam known as Shia. This is what Osama Bin Laden is along with his fighters. As note I find nothing wrong with attacking Osama after he hit us, so might beef is not against that. But Saddam is not a Shia he is a Sunni. What I also find funny is that we are fighting to free Iraq. Yet we are allied with Saudia Arabia, a MONARCHY. Wow thats pretty far out there. Also 9 of the terrorist who flew into the WTC were from Saudia Arabia, none were from Iraq. Well then we want to talk about how Saddam used chemical weapons to kill people. Yes but who do you think gave him the means to do that? If you guessed THE UNITED STATES you are right. During the Iraq Iran war we gave Saddam weapons to fight the theocracy in Iran. Oh yeah and we didn't find WMD in Iraq like we were told we would. And how do you make Iraq look worse they have estimated that 20,000 to 24,000 Iraqis have died, not counting police forces. Oh yeah and by the way we have lost 1,617 men and women in Iraq. But if you ask me one was to many. You act like "well its only 2,000 thats not bad."

Before you bash I would like to remind you that I do support our troops, they were ordered to go and they did. And they are probably the finest fighting force this world has ever seen.


So again Bush doesn't have to do much to look bad. I know I guess i am the one that took bassintom's soap box but I have nothing else to do with my time except rant on about this.

Just my 2 cents, take them for what you want....

[Bassin_Dude]

nicely done post. what i hate is that, we are focused on restoring iraq, and not on getting osama. we havnt even captured him. yet, and we are worrying about rebuilding a country? that we shouldnt have really been in the first place? how bout we take our troops out of iraq, and go find osama. nothing is happening in iraq, it isnt getting much better, all that is happening are our troops getting killed by suicide bombers and gorrilla forces. and iraq acts like they dont want us, so lets not be there. and, i also think that we should take troops out of korea, and let them handle their own sh!t. im sick of other countries sayin they dont need amaerica, and we are lazy slobs. i like how they say that, yet we have one if not the most organized and successful militaries and we are the richest country in the world. so i saw, lets take our troops out of every country talking sh!t to use, and lets see how they do. but not till we take care of osama. im not saying anymore, cause im not to knowledgeable on this subject. im probally wrong about half the stuff i said :P i'll return the soapbox now. BTW, im a patriotic american, that loves and supports the troops. and that did want to vote for bush, thats only because i think kerry is full of sh!t.

[zman]

02, you are young so I guess I can understand your impatience with Iraq...but if we leave now we do nothing but encourage future terrorism...and I'll tell you why.


All of this began in vietnam. Not wahabi style islam mind you, nor osama bin laden - I am talking about asymetrical warfare. Well thats half true, its been around for forever, but it first worked against us in vietnam. Ho Chi Min was able to beat both France and the US in 25 years with one of the most backward countries in the world because they fought smart, they hid in tunnels or among the general population and they took pot shots at GIs..ambushes - sound familiar? And after we suffered enough casualties they saw the press heat up against the US military and realized they were fighting a political war of attrition - punch us in the mouth enough and make our nose bleed and we would leave.

They were right. We left. South Vietnam fell in 1975. So did the respect of the United States.

In 1979 the Iranian revolution took place. Prior to this time the US interests in the persian gulf had been protected by the Shah of Iran. Partly because the Shah was viewed by his own people as being in the pocket of the US, the Ayatollah came to power and took the exact opposite stance. So we needed to counterbalance Iran suddenly. Hello Saddam!

Now the problem for us was that we were in the cold war still, so we had 1 eye on the soviets and 1 on the factors of production that went into the US economy...especially oil. We couldn't turn our back on persian gulf oil cause if we did it would destroy our economy, curtail military spending and we were afraid we would fall behind the soviets - SO WE MADE DO. Thats all international politics is, making do with what ya got. Not what you wish you had, not with foolish idealism like "1 American soldier dying for their country is too much". This is machiavellian stuff, but if we don't do it others will. Sorry, thats life.

So we help Saddam, only enough to counterbalance the Iranians. They end up having a huge war and it ends in 88. About the same time as much of this, the Russians invaded Afganistan. We can't have them fooling around so close to the middle east, oil, ect so we counter them by helping the mujahadeen. One of them was a saudi engineer named bin laden. Bin Laden beat the soviets out of afghanistan by using what common war tactic? Class?

Aysemetrical warfare.

The Soviets pulled out. Then they collapsed. We were left with a void in the power structure.

So we became the world hedgemon. The power behind the UN. We became internationalist/multilateralist as everybody claims they wish we still were. And you know what happened? The world left us holding thier ****. We intervened in kuwait and made Saddam into a blood enemy. Then we tried to give aid to the country of Somalia, resulting in a masacre in Mogudishu that is publisized all around the world. After driving Saddam's republican gaurd out of kuwait we do not pursue them into Iraq - we let them go. That is a huge moment in our troubles. So here we are now with a radically destablized Persian Gulf, Saddam in Iraq, the Iranians are still anti-US, and we quit. Same in Somalia, we leave. What is the message here class?

Asymetrical warfare works against the US. The idea began in vietnam, but it was fortified in mogudishu. In iraq a simialr theme was sent home, we operate in half measures. We are afraid of casualties, costs, even the sight of blood. When others see that, they come after us and try to exploit our weakness.

Part of the problem with our democracy is that it tends to produce half measures. Like at the end of the Persian gulf. Troops remain in Saudi Arabia (angering the wahaibi muslums), we rely on UN weapons inspectors to look for WMD in Iraq (the UN has been proven in the past few months to be very succeptable to bribes, scandals and corruption), we enforce no-fly zones over the northern and southern ends of Iraq with the British, but we let Saddam live, let him strenghthen his grip on the country. As long as he is alive, all the sanctions, spies, launching crusie missiles into bagdad the day the lewinsky story broke, are useless. Half assed is no way to compete in international politics.

And which student was taking note the most? Class?

Mr. Bin Laden, who as a wahabi hated our interference in what he thought was a muslum-only affair. Mr. Bin Laden, who had already defeated one of the superpowers in Afghanistan. Mr. Bin Laden, who observed that the same tactics that he used in afghanistan were what historically worked against the US.

And since we were holding the ball, we had the military sitting in Saudi Arabia, playing tic-tac toe, we supported Israel to differeing degrees depending on the politician in charge and really since Bin Laden was rebuffed in favor of the US when he offered to help the kuwaitis against the Iraqis, Bin Laden decided to continue his war against the US. In a war for him it is the same war, he was able to convienetly forget the help he got from the americans in Afghanistan, when he fought the soviets he fought the west - in his mind he was protecting Islam from western influence - here you get the idea of Jihad, you get the taliban, you get wahaibi islam and all that stuff.

[zman]

Now this long, spelling error ridden, rambling post has a few points that I want to pull out.

Cliff notes:

As long as we give in easy in any foreign disputes, we will only suffer more. We have the strongest economy in the world, people are gonna peck at us like they pecked at Rome. We must hit them back hard.

This means if we lay a hand on the republican gaurd - we must destroy it completly. We must remove the goverment that commands it. It doesn't matter what ties Saddam does or doesn't have to Bin Laden.

Leaving Iraq now is a half-measure of a half-measure. Lets finish it, and shutup the detractors.
This is a correction of a long standing pattern, we are in Iraq to prove that we mean business.

I'll now take this time to address a couple of Ithaca's points.

About the money appropriated for US airport or seaport security, ect, vs the Iraq war....would you rather throw 800 billion at x-ray machines even if they arent that expensive? You expect that it takes as much as a war to fund security at airports? Is this about a show? Should we throw money at Newark international as a sign we are doing something, or should we actually do the most we can and forsake good shows, politics and the like?


I will agree with Ithica ont he question of democracy. When Condi Rice talks about Iraqi democracy, it is in part a farce. There is something IR students call democratic peace theory, the jist of which is that democracies don't go to war againsto ther democracies - that much is true and a reason to prefer democracy - but it isn't always in our interests and our interests in Iraq are less about the welfare of the Iraqi people than our welfare. Actually they will be better off, but thats just a nice little side effect that gets pranced on by the current adminsitration because it plays good to some - same as WMD - not the reason we invaded Iraq, never was a real concern - but it was included in our public reasoning because Bush couldn't say the real reason why we were going into Iraq - to prove we aren't sissies who scare away after about 20 marines are killed. To prove that his adminsitration means business and to earn the respect from similar countries. This is saber ratling in a physical manifestation - we are trying to make an example out of Iraq. Either we stay and it is a positive one, or we leave an its a negative one. If we hadn't gone in in 2003, by default it would have been a negative one.

[zman]

One other thing. The reason why 250K troops in Iraq is a bad idea is simple. It would give insurgents more targets and make it easier for them to kill more Americans. That many troops would be just for show. Now that major combat operations are over, the focus should be on getting a government in place, strenghtneing it with Iraqis who are sympathetic to democracy, "freedom", US interests. After a while the idea is that the Sunni's will settle down, especially after Mr. Hussien is hanged for war crimes. The foreign fighters, well - theres your terrorsits ithica! They are attacking our troops in a foreign country instead of attacking our civilians at home - sounds like a preferable end of the stick to me. Eventually their recruiting bases will dry up if they don't suceed in getting the US to capitulate. That is the key - staying the course. Even if you don't give a damn about Iraq, it will be more expensive in the long run to leave now than it would be to stay in there.

[Bassin_Dude]

wow......................................

[Bassin_Dude]

that was very interesting. what classes do you take to learn this? or do you just pick this stuff up? i want to take a class like that when i go to college, i find this stuff interesting.

[BassNva]

WTL
i wanna go drinking with you in some candy a**ed liberal bar......the damage we could do ;D
you have a way with words.

[zman]

Tom, I can get pretty bad when I have a couple of drinks in me. I remember last year I got started on social security at some random party, whew! It was like everybody in the room stopped talking about girls, football and well whatever and were listening to me rant about how us young adults were gonna be left out to dry...good times, great memories. But its the speeches I can't remember I guess that the libs really got to worry about. ;D

[Rob Mak]

wtl
holy **** !!! when is the movie coming out???

but you have several viable points.

dam dude we are going to have to get you your own soap box or at least a liberal radio show.



zooker

[gallenl]

There is and never will be a place in my heart for the pinky flairing,limp wristed,hand wringing,pinko liberal f@gs.Anyone that is a american that does not support use in our oversea actions can pack up and move to the liberal state of FRANCE! My family fought in the Civil war for the south,my one grandfather was in WW1,the other in WW2 and Korea,my father and 2 uncles in veitnam.I was born a republican and WILL die one.Free and American . If the sissy rag/newsweek wants to print "sh#t", let them. But when a attack on our home soil kills one of them we will have to listen to them cry somemore.


flippin4it

[jdkc]

Very nice post, I didn't read it all though because I felt like I was back in class again getting lectured lol. Except, I still feel no need to go to Iraq for any reason. It's the Iraqis business, if it was bad enough well then overthrow him. You outnumber him quite a bit. Last time I checked we didn't get much help from anyone during the revolution, well unless you count France, who did give some money and advisors. I dont' agree with how Americans aren't willing to sacrifice. We have proved over and over again that we are. However, I think the American people need to know that if they are sacrificing that it is worth sacrificing for. I also don't feel that those in Iraq are terrorists. I mean in the end what defines a terrorist? Someone who uses terror to get there point across and get what they want. Thats what war is. So then we are all terrorists. That is why even the military now calls them insurgents, or could also be termed as Rebels. Since they are rebelling against the ruling power (America) in Iraq. Leaving Iraq wouldn't promote terror, it would just make us look like jackasses who would tear a country apart and then leave. The big point I am making is that attacking Iraq will not affect terrorism elsewhere.

Also, all this mess in the middle east began a lot longer ago that Vietnam. This can be takin all the way back to WWI infact. After this war the Ottoman Empire was done. Other countries were then "made" including Iraq in 1921. The problem being they took all these different kinds of people, and put them into one country. It was doomed from the beginning.

On the part about 250k troops means more targets I am calling BS on that one. Since it also means more firepower. You were the one just talking about if you are going to do something well then get it done. We would have 250k there if we had the troops to do it, but we don't.


However, I do agree that since we are there we cannot just leave now. We have created this mess so we gotta fix it.

And Mr. Flip I have also had family members serve. One who died in the Civil War. One who lost a lung in WWI. One who fought in Guam and Okinawa, another who fought at Anzio. Also a uncle who fought in Korea, 2 silver stars, 2 bronze stars, and 3 purple hearts.

However I feel not questioning all the time what our government does is a greator treason. Because the ability to do that was given to us by those men who have fought and died in the past. They gave us the freedom of speech so use it. So I question all the time. And no I dont' feel the need to be in all these other countries all the time. So you know what you can take yourself to France if you would like, cause I ain't goin nowhere.

Oh yeah and since I am sure you are one of those people who love talking about our "Founding Fathers" how bout something George Washington said, paraphrased a bit.

"Do not get involved in entagaling alliances in other countries, nor be involved in politcal parties."

Anyway I did this really quick so I am sure it is unorganized, but I got to go to work, so ya'll have a good one.

[Infisherman1]

awww.. dag nab it, I haven't checked out this post iin several days and missed out on a good conversation and now I'm too lazy to read it. Oh well.

[zman]

GWB brought out the kitchen sink when he made the call to war in 2003. It included such issues as terrorism, wmd, osama and the welfare of the iraqi people. You are still hung up on whether or not the baathists had welcomed members of al qaeda, which I am saying is really a side issue. Perhaps that is GWB's problem though, he confused everyone with side issues and not the main issue.

We went to war with Iraq because it was the only logical conclusion to the first Persian Gulf war. Really if you wish, think of the current war as just an extention of operation desert storm, there was that - then a cold war between the US and Iraq - and then it heated back up in 2003.

You said...

We have created this mess so we gotta fix it.

Well that is why we went back in. Fixing a mess. If we had stayed out, it would have festered more, Saddam would have thumbed his nose more and we would end up getting blamed for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis from the half-measure sanctions placed on the country. It would have also reinforced the idea in the 3rd world that we are not afraid of launching cruise missiles or leveling economic sanctions, but we are afraid of ground offensives. The arab world does not respect us if all we do is talk or lob bombs, they only respect putting soldiers on the ground. It doesn't have to be a huge army, but your presence has got to be there. Otherwise, we are seen as a paper tiger and we would have been pecked to death. Now that we have shown our commitment to our policy in the middle-east Syria has backed up its position on lebanon and Libya gave up any hopes of a nuclear program. We are left now with Iran who is trying to feel us out - they havent given in yet, I think they are trying to see how far we will go. We need to be tough - not war in this case cause they are too big a fish to fry, but there has been talk of the possibilty of a targeted airstrike by the israelis against their nuclear infrastructure - the question is does israel have the range?

On 250k troops, you say you want more firepower? Why? So we can blow up random neighborhoods? We are trying to get it done, but there is no need in flooding the country now with sitting ducks when what you really need is to buy time, so that the new Iraqi government can consolidate its power and thus use its own forces to secure the country. If we send more shiploads over there what you will have is a loss in confidence in the new regime, and that is the last thing we want.

On the genesis of this problem begining in WWI - well yes that is certainly true with the middle east. I am talking about our problems. We first lost a measure of respect in vietnam - or maybe korea with the situation involving the yalu river. But we stayed in korea. Of course we let the north koreans have their slice cause China was sitting right there and we didn't want a piece of them. Maybe that is an inconsistancy in my theory, that I think north korea should be isolated, but then again opening up that bag of worms is too much trouble and in no way compares to going back into Iraq.


The questioning of our government is our right and in cases where a critique is warrented our duty. I have no problem with that and I more often than not am not on the federal governments side. You might be interested to note, given that you quote Washington's farewell address, that I'd much rather be more isolationalist if it were possible. But past conflicts have put us in a position where I logically see that we have to sew up a few loose threads before we can take a step back from being world police. I am not a neo-con. I think Bush wants this thing to eventually settle down as well, do remember that in a debate in 2000 he was the one in favor of an almost isolationalist platform.

Our hand is forced. We have to deal boldly and aggresivly in pots we have already stirred. If we can renew international respect not for our kindness and gentleness, but our will and courage to use our strength, then Bin Laden will find less people willing to die for him in vain. That is the major link betwen Iraq, and the rest of our foreign policy, and the fighting of terrorism.

[BassNva]

Amen!

[Rich]

if it was bad enough well then overthrow him

They tried. Remember the 300,000 in a mass grave? They thought we would back them in the effort after the first Gulf War. We didn't. We followed what the UN said. I'd love to see the UN booted out of the US and sent to France-that would be a perfect fit.

First Forged Documents Dan, now Newsweek. And they wonder why they are losing credibility?

[jdkc]

[quote author=Rebbasser link=board=Tourneys;num=1116362526;start=0#21 date=05/22/05 at 20:50:30]

They tried. Remember the 300,000 in a mass grave? They thought we would back them in the effort after the first Gulf War. We didn't. We followed what the UN said. I'd love to see the UN booted out of the US and sent to France-that would be a perfect fit.

First Forged Documents Dan, now Newsweek. And they wonder why they are losing credibility?[/quote]


Killed by chemical weapons given to him by us.

[zman]

Killed by chemical weapons given to him by us.

Yes, and that also is why it was our responsibilty to take care of that regime. Prooving my point.

[Rich]

No, that was on the Kurds in the North. I'm referring to the group in the south near the Kuwait border-it was either the Sunni or Shiites-I don't recall exactly. Either way, though, during the Iran/Iraq war we supported Iraq, and now we are fighting them. Interesting how history has a way of repeating itself. During WWII the Russians were our allies. Soon as it was won they became our enemies.