Interesting read by a LTC in Iraq...

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22459
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Post by Mr Bean »

Chmee wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:<snip>Much like Vietnam, Which mind you is fucked today because we killed most of a generation of their young strong able'd body folks.
Sooner or later as long as you maintain the 50-1 ratio of Terrirosts dead to Americans, you will win simply due to lack of something to fight

Thats not a hard win its mearly winning a war of attrition
Uh, if the goal is to just kill everybody willing to put up a fight it seems like we could lower our casualty rate even FURTHER by just pulling out the troops and nuking the shit out of the place.
Bzzt wrong cause then you get the REST of the world aginst you, the instant we nuke anyone it unites a whole lot of folks aginst us, sure they might not invade or be able to, but they can still fuck us over in other ways

If we simply sit there in Iraq and keep up with the, Hey looks its Americans come and shoot at us so we can shoot you. Then sooner or later either we will be starting to face the second generation of fighers and/or we run out of fighters to shoot

War of a attrition is just that, killing more of them then they kill of us and if you have a populas, goverment and the people to do it, it will always work

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Chmee
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4449
Joined: 2004-12-23 03:29pm
Location: Seattle - we already buried Hendrix ... Kurt who?

Post by Chmee »

Things are looking better & better all the time, you negative nancys ....
MOSUL, Iraq — On a recent morning, a swarm of helicopters brought U.S. and Albanian soldiers here to lock down the Mosul airfield.

A few hours later, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte and top American military commanders, Gen. George Casey and Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, arrived to meet with Iraqi election officials. Introductions didn't take long. Only two people now oversee elections in Iraq's third-largest city.

Although U.S. officials insist elections will take place, there are big hurdles to overcome before the Jan. 30 vote to select a national assembly.

A key northern city of 1.8 million people, Mosul has become so volatile that U.S. soldiers who work on community projects no longer maintain contact with the local population. On city streets, no posters or fliers advertise the election, but there are leaflets threaten beheadings for those who vote.

After the entire election staff resigned last month, the local government now has two weeks to recruit and train 800 people needed to work at polling sites throughout Nineveh Province.

"We're starting from scratch," said Maj. Tony Cruz of the 426 Civil Affairs Battalion. In the fall, his unit employed about 20 local translators. But because of death threats and intimidation, only five remain.
Link
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer
.

Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon"

Operation Freedom Fry
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Master of Ossus wrote:
Howedar wrote:There is the implication throughout the article that the reason that people are upset with the war is a poor US-to-Iraqi kill ratio. People are upset that they see US soldiers and marines dying for no apparent gain, not because their deaths didn't mean the deaths of a thousand insurgents.
His primary assertions are that there is gain but no one is talking about it, and that the coverage of the war in the media has been distorted against the Americans.
I'd hardly call "Fixing what we broke from the initial invasion" a "gain." Right now, we're struggling to restore Iraq to the stable condition it was in before we got there. Relative to how it was during Saddam's regime, Iraq is an unstable breeding ground for terrorists. Now tell me, does that smack of "gains being made" to you?

We're recovering from lost ground, not gaining ground.

EDIT: Apologies for the wording, MoO. You were clarifying the initial poster's position, not necessarily espousing it.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

Durandal wrote:I'd hardly call "Fixing what we broke from the initial invasion" a "gain." Right now, we're struggling to restore Iraq to the stable condition it was in before we got there. Relative to how it was during Saddam's regime, Iraq is an unstable breeding ground for terrorists. Now tell me, does that smack of "gains being made" to you?

We're recovering from lost ground, not gaining ground.
I'm not saying I agree with what he wrote, but I felt that my summary of his arguments was more fair than what Howedar appeared to be attacking. Howedar later restated his post, which made his message more clear.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Plekhanov
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3991
Joined: 2004-04-01 11:09pm
Location: Mercia

Post by Plekhanov »

Admiral_K wrote:
HyperionX wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: So you're saying a guy who's seen combat in Iraq is in denial of reality? :wtf:
Are you kidding me? Is his long-ass rant nothing but a denial of reality? Is his argument for why the media is (seemingly to him) so negative the exact same one I hear a year ago? Is it me or did this guy say absolutely nothing about why we're winning this war?

Listen to what some military brass are saying: it ain't going so hot.

Howedar: Shut up. No offense but I feel that that is the main point: this guy's denying reality and it's the truth.
I believe his point was that while the military operations by and large are very successful (high kill to loss ratio, etc.), that the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself is being severely hampered by new converage that consistently focuses on American losses without balancing that with American Success.
Just wondering why do you think that the “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself” is being hampered by the what the American news media, in America reports to the American people about the war?

Even if “the world itself”did receive the news media that this guy is bitching about your reasoning is still puzzling, why exactly are the hearts and minds of Iraqis going to be won by news stories about the large numbers of their countrymen the occupying forces are killing?

In my particular bit of “the world” the BBC and the print media give the reported death tolls for both sides (as I expect they also do in the US as I expect this guy would find out if he read beyond the headlines) and nobody ever seems particularly pleased about either figure. Especially when there's such widespread mistrust in US targeting (that is to say when many brits here that the US killed “50 or so terrorists” many here wonder just how many of the dead actually were resistance fighters.

I'm confused so please explain how will news reports emphasising the large numbers of Iraqis killed by “coalition forces” help win “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself?
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Plek has helped me see an angle to this that was nagging me but I had no words for. Boasting about the number of dead Iraqis would just be turned around as "the US is a bunch of trigger-happy butchering maniacs".

A better focus would be on the humanitarian and infrastructure improvements that have been done here. Because to an extent I am very sympathetic to the Ltc. Col's words expressed in his essay, but I think he too wants to focus on the wrong thing.

Going back to Saddam's era and pointing out tha stability then is kinda like saying of the Third Reich, "well, at least the trains ran on time". In both the Saddam-era Iraq and the US-era Iraq, there is organized government-sanctioned violence against people, but what we need to ask is "against which people-- what are the reasons behind their deaths?"

Saddam killed people who he suspected were against his tyrant regime-- the US kills people who want to re-establish a similar regime or establish a government of religious fanatacism.

A movement that truly based its revolutionary zeal and goals on respect, rights, and freedoms would not have vivisected Margaret Hassan. Yet they get very little admonishment by the press whereas a fuckup by the US gets banner headlines for months on end.

I wonder if there's a quasi-racist angle to it sometimes: "we expect those people to act like animals, so it is not news... but when our fine, upstanding young lads and lasses get bestial, it's newsworthy because we're supposed to be so much better".
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Coyote wrote:Going back to Saddam's era and pointing out tha stability then is kinda like saying of the Third Reich, "well, at least the trains ran on time". In both the Saddam-era Iraq and the US-era Iraq, there is organized government-sanctioned violence against people, but what we need to ask is "against which people-- what are the reasons behind their deaths?"
Red herring. The instrument of that stability is irrelevant to my argument. The simple fact is that Iraq is much less stable than it was before, and our efforts there now are in the hopes that we can return it to stability.
Saddam killed people who he suspected were against his tyrant regime-- the US kills people who want to re-establish a similar regime or establish a government of religious fanatacism.
Yes, Saddam killed political opponents. But now the insurgents are simply killing people at random. At least before they knew what would get them killed. Now, deciding to go to a supermarket could be the last wrong decision an Iraqi civilian makes.
I wonder if there's a quasi-racist angle to it sometimes: "we expect those people to act like animals, so it is not news... but when our fine, upstanding young lads and lasses get bestial, it's newsworthy because we're supposed to be so much better".
It has nothing to do with race; it has to do with culture and beliefs. Frankly, the people who embrace the philosophies that radical Muslims do are animals, and we should expect them to act like the barbaric savages they are. Why do you think 25% of council seats in Iraq are reserved for women? Because we expect radical Muslims to try and put women down.

We, on the other hand, are fond of telling everyone how much better than anything America is because of our civil liberties and democracy. Well, if we can't practice what we preach, then we deserve admonition from the news media.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Post by CmdrWilkens »

Durandal wrote:
Coyote wrote:Going back to Saddam's era and pointing out tha stability then is kinda like saying of the Third Reich, "well, at least the trains ran on time". In both the Saddam-era Iraq and the US-era Iraq, there is organized government-sanctioned violence against people, but what we need to ask is "against which people-- what are the reasons behind their deaths?"
Red herring. The instrument of that stability is irrelevant to my argument. The simple fact is that Iraq is much less stable than it was before, and our efforts there now are in the hopes that we can return it to stability.
Now generally I hat to step into these arguments but here you're going in the wrong direciton just a tidbit. Your point, that we aren't gaining ground we're recovering lost ground, is made only in light of the previous stability under the Hussein regime. We cannot have "lost ground" unless we lost it against the situation under Hussein thus your argument relies, tangentially but notably, upon an assumption that we "lost ground" by having a more volatile state after the end of the Hussein regime.
Saddam killed people who he suspected were against his tyrant regime-- the US kills people who want to re-establish a similar regime or establish a government of religious fanatacism.
Yes, Saddam killed political opponents. But now the insurgents are simply killing people at random. At least before they knew what would get them killed. Now, deciding to go to a supermarket could be the last wrong decision an Iraqi civilian makes.
Saddam and his sons killed anyone who looked at them funny and often as not people who looked funny at people who knew people who knew people who knew someone who knew Saddam. For cripes sake girls were killed for little more than wanting to go to school and having the luck of going to the same school as Uday or Qusay (sp?). Are you saying that a perosn is any more likely to suspect death to come from going to school than to expect death to come from going to the market? Seriously get a grip on reality, the deaths today are every bit as violent and unexpected, save only in the numbers together, as they were under the Hussein regime. When you run a totalitarian state with delusions of theocracy "political enemy" includes people who spit on the wrong street if that happens to be the case that day.

Don't, I mean just don't try to claim that death in Iraq has suddenly become shockingly more unexpected or violent. Claim anything else you like but don't pull that bullcrap.
I wonder if there's a quasi-racist angle to it sometimes: "we expect those people to act like animals, so it is not news... but when our fine, upstanding young lads and lasses get bestial, it's newsworthy because we're supposed to be so much better".
It has nothing to do with race; it has to do with culture and beliefs. Frankly, the people who embrace the philosophies that radical Muslims do are animals, and we should expect them to act like the barbaric savages they are. Why do you think 25% of council seats in Iraq are reserved for women? Because we expect radical Muslims to try and put women down.

We, on the other hand, are fond of telling everyone how much better than anything America is because of our civil liberties and democracy. Well, if we can't practice what we preach, then we deserve admonition from the news media.
Nice way to sidestep the issue while also surrendering it. You basically just made his whole point that we do look down on the Middle East then tried to claim that it was religion not race (WOW there's a big difference in justification for bigotry). The fact that you are trying to insert "radical" into your statments is just a dodge. Throwing the radical or moderate (notice we never use the world liberal) just means degree of assumed bias.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

CmdrWilkens wrote:Now generally I hat to step into these arguments but here you're going in the wrong direciton just a tidbit. Your point, that we aren't gaining ground we're recovering lost ground, is made only in light of the previous stability under the Hussein regime. We cannot have "lost ground" unless we lost it against the situation under Hussein thus your argument relies, tangentially but notably, upon an assumption that we "lost ground" by having a more volatile state after the end of the Hussein regime.
Horseshit. The country's infrastructure is the country's infrastructure. The Iraqis' newfound freedom doesn't do them a damn bit of good if they can't reasonably expect to go to a mosque without being shredded by shrapnel from a suicide bomber.

So yes, my argument does rely on the volatility of the country under Saddam's rule and under ours. You're trying to argue that we can't honestly compare the two situations because now the Iraqis are "free." No, they're not. They still face possible consequences if they support Americans; they simply face them from the insurgency rather than the government. To Joe Iraqi, he might still end up dead at the end of the day if he speaks out. Worse for Joe Christian Iraqi.
Saddam and his sons killed anyone who looked at them funny and often as not people who looked funny at people who knew people who knew people who knew someone who knew Saddam.


I assume you have evidence of this?
For cripes sake girls were killed for little more than wanting to go to school and having the luck of going to the same school as Uday or Qusay (sp?).


I assume you have evidence of this? Girls were allowed to go to school in Iraq.
Are you saying that a perosn is any more likely to suspect death to come from going to school than to expect death to come from going to the market? Seriously get a grip on reality, the deaths today are every bit as violent and unexpected, save only in the numbers together, as they were under the Hussein regime. When you run a totalitarian state with delusions of theocracy "political enemy" includes people who spit on the wrong street if that happens to be the case that day.
I assume you have evidence of this, rather than the standard "Saddam was eeeeeeeeeeeevil" Bush mantras? People in Iraq under Hussein could easily go about their daily lives unperturbed; that is not the case now. Don't try and make it out as if the executions under Hussein's regime were anywhere near as random as what is happening now with the insurgency.
Don't, I mean just don't try to claim that death in Iraq has suddenly become shockingly more unexpected or violent. Claim anything else you like but don't pull that bullcrap.
I'd say that being vaporized by a car bomb on your way to work in the morning is more unexpected and violent than being shot in the head after going through a legal system. After the guilty verdict, I assume that the condemned did expect to de.
Nice way to sidestep the issue while also surrendering it. You basically just made his whole point that we do look down on the Middle East then tried to claim that it was religion not race (WOW there's a big difference in justification for bigotry). The fact that you are trying to insert "radical" into your statments is just a dodge. Throwing the radical or moderate (notice we never use the world liberal) just means degree of assumed bias.
And who exactly are the popular politicians over there? The moderates? People who advocate completely secular law? Are you out of your fucking mind? The political landscape in Iraq is going to shift toward fundamentalist Muslim candidates, and you damn well know it. In some ways, it already has. There's a difference in saying that the leaders of a country need to be kept in check because they're bigots and saying that everyone in the country is a bigot.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Admiral_K
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 560
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:51pm

Post by Admiral_K »

Plekhanov wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:
HyperionX wrote: Are you kidding me? Is his long-ass rant nothing but a denial of reality? Is his argument for why the media is (seemingly to him) so negative the exact same one I hear a year ago? Is it me or did this guy say absolutely nothing about why we're winning this war?

Listen to what some military brass are saying: it ain't going so hot.

Howedar: Shut up. No offense but I feel that that is the main point: this guy's denying reality and it's the truth.
I believe his point was that while the military operations by and large are very successful (high kill to loss ratio, etc.), that the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself is being severely hampered by new converage that consistently focuses on American losses without balancing that with American Success.
Just wondering why do you think that the “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself” is being hampered by the what the American news media, in America reports to the American people about the war?
If you don't think the rest of the world watches American T.V. I don't know what to tell you. Further, in the age of the internet, most American Newspapers are available online and read by people all over the world. Not to mention the fact that most major news stories are "picked up" by the news outlets in other nations. We live in the information age man.
Even if “the world itself”did receive the news media that this guy is bitching about your reasoning is still puzzling, why exactly are the hearts and minds of Iraqis going to be won by news stories about the large numbers of their countrymen the occupying forces are killing?
If the only major news stories are ones that are negative, it is bound to have a negative effect.
In my particular bit of “the world” the BBC and the print media give the reported death tolls for both sides (as I expect they also do in the US as I expect this guy would find out if he read beyond the headlines) and nobody ever seems particularly pleased about either figure. Especially when there's such widespread mistrust in US targeting (that is to say when many brits here that the US killed “50 or so terrorists” many here wonder just how many of the dead actually were resistance fighters.
Thats exactly my point. "Widespread mistrust in US targeting". If you think our troops are doing anything other than trying to minimalize civilian casualties over there you are kidding yourself. Rather than portraying the Militants as the freedom hating scum they are, they romanticize them as some sort of "resistance fighters". Well, here is a news flash. If the people you are "resisting" against are trying to bring freedom to your people, while you hope to impose strict laws that would oppress them, that doesn't make you a hero.
I'm confused so please explain how will news reports emphasising the large numbers of Iraqis killed by “coalition forces” help win “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself?
Well, first of all it would let the Iraqi people know that the groups that are fighting hard against coalition troops aren't succeeding in their goals. I'm not saying that this alone will win anyones hearts and minds, but it would be a helluva lot better than portraying the insurgents as "winning" and the occupation as a "total failure" as some media outlets have done.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Linka

Battles re-enacted in video arcades
N.Y. gamemaker lets players portray Iraqi or U.S. troops
- Colin Freeman, Chronicle Foreign Service
Sunday, January 16, 2005

Baghdad -- The lone Iraqi police officer reloads his Kalashnikov and, with
deadly aim, fearlessly dispatches two more of the masked insurgents besieging
his station.

His exemplary marksmanship, however, comes not from successful U.S. training,
but from the practiced hand of a teenage Iraqi boy sitting in one of the
capital's many cafes with computer games.

Seconds later, a cheer goes up among the assembled audience as the pixilated
police officer on the screen before him is hit by a rocket: It is "mission
failed" and "game over" in another round of Kuma War, a new American- made series
of interactive shoot-'em-ups that has become a huge hit among Iraq's youth.

The digitalized drama, in which players can choose their characters -- Iraqi
cops or national guard -- is a direct re-creation of a savage insurgent attack
on a police station in Fallujah in April.

The only real difference is that the real-life Iraqi police were not
square-jawed, all-action cyberheroes, but ill-trained and outgunned rookies: 17 Iraqi
officers died in the real-life assault that night.

"Guys here play these games because they are realistic and about our
country," said cafe owner Bassam Hassan, 25. "The only people who don't approve are
the resistance fighters themselves. One came in and told me that we shouldn't
play games where we pretended to be U.S. or Iraqi forces fighting them."


The programming is the work of New York-based Kuma Reality Games, which
specializes in re-creating battles based on actual news events. Its motto is
candid: "In a world being torn apart by international conflict, one thing is on
everyone's mind as they finish watching the nightly news: 'Man, this would make a
great game.' "

At the click of a mouse, Hassan's customers can plug themselves into just
about any of the major scraps in Iraq in the turbulent past 18 months: Saddam
Hussein's sons Odai and Qusai's infamous "last stand" in Mosul, the U.S. Army's
battles with the Mahdi Army in Najaf last summer and, in their latest
offerings, the bloody conflicts of the past two months in Fallujah and Mosul, even if
they remain unfinished business.

Players choose between being U.S. or Iraqi forces, while the attention to
detail, as Kuma's Web site boasts, is near-perfect: "The exact gun model, the
color of the head scarves, details in the carpeting, or the amount of garbage in
the alleyways: It's our painstaking attention to detail that makes Kuma War
missions authentic."

Yet the games, downloadable off the Internet, do not just offend the dignity
of the resistance. Western human rights groups say the firm is guilty of "poor
taste" in staging reconstructions of events so shortly after they happened,
especially given the controversy over the U.S. operations in Fallujah, where
more than 1,000 people died in November and 600 died in April.

Of equal concern is the fact that their ultra-realistic graphics come partly
from authentic on-the-ground information supplied to them from the U.S.
military, in the form of satellite maps and testimony from serving soldiers and
officers in Iraq, Department of Defense analysts and CIA officers.

"There are a myriad of military-type games available these days, but most of
them depict conflicts that are fictional or historical in nature," said Mark
Garlasco, senior military analyst of Human Rights Watch, which has conducted
many research trips to Iraq to monitor the conduct of U.S. forces. "It does seem
in somewhat poor taste to be portraying events in which people have actually
been killed on both sides almost immediately after combat has ended."

Such criticism is dismissed by Keith Halper, Kuma's chief executive, who has
been involved in making reality games for the U.S. and worldwide markets for
almost 15 years. Making games based on news events, he argued, does not isolate
players from the reality of war but brings it closer to home.

"We don't really see ourselves strictly as making games," he said. "We use
game technology, but in a news-like way, and telling the stories of U.S.
soldiers and others through that. ... For many of our customers, gaming is the main
way they pick up on the news anyway."

The cooperation with the U.S. military was mutually beneficial, he added --
truly realistic games can help provide simulation training for soldiers as well
as entertainment in the home.

For the re-creation of November's Operation Al Fajr, in which the United
States attacked Fallujah, "we got some assistance from certain military people.
They felt that the games were a very effective way for U.S. Marines to share
their stories and experiences with each other," Halper said. "Battlefield
learning about booby traps, ambushes and so on can easily be passed on in a video
game."

The difficulty levels programmed into each different game reflected the odds
in each real-life combat scenario, he said.

In the Fallujah police station siege, for example, players maneuvering the
underequipped Iraqi police officers find the better-trained insurgents hard to
hit. Those playing U.S. soldiers fighting the less-disciplined Mahdi Army in
Najaf have an easier time.

"Hopefully, people playing these games, particularly Americans, will realize
the risks that people take," Halper said. "Normal 'run and gun' tactics will
not work here."

Cultural sensitivities also are observed, he said. "In the fight in Najaf,
U.S. soldiers can walk around the central mosque, but not enter, as that didn't
happen in real life."

Although in the United States, an estimated 150 million people play video
games, Halper said, he was surprised to learn they were being played in Iraq,
too. "The thing I find interesting is that Iraqis ... are playing the parts of
Iraqi police and national guard. The fact that we are able to give them heroes
to play with in video games I find very affirming."

Halper is reluctant to discuss exactly whom he deals with in the U.S.
military, beyond saying that it involves the Combined Armed and Support Command and
defense experts involved in developing training missions.

There will be no doubt, though, about the source of Kuma's next offering. It
is based directly on one individual soldier's experience of a fierce firefight
in Iraq. It came after the company ran its "Story From the Front" contest
last year, in which it invited serving U.S. troops to submit accounts of
gunfights, ambushes and rescues to the Kuma Web site. Kuma players then voted online
for a winner, whose tale will be made into a game.

Last month, U.S. Army Sgt. Major James Ross of the 1st Cavalry Division was
announced the victor for his account of how his patrol fought off three
ambushes to rescue a supply convoy that had come under attack near Fallujah.

Ross, who received an official commendation for his actions and is still
serving in Iraq, said on the company's Web site after he won: "I'm happy to be
able to share my experience with the general public, so that they may have a
better understanding of the rigors of combat."

He will be featured as a 3-D character in the game, titled Baghdad Convoy.
His civilian friend Brian McCleary, who submitted the story on Ross' behalf,
will play an embedded reporter.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Wow, that's relevant. :roll:
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

What the fuck is that supposed to tell us? :lol:
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What the fuck is that supposed to tell us? :lol:
That the point Shep was originally trying to make with this idiotic thread has been totally demolished, so now he's trying to take the thread off-course in hopes that no one will notice.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Plekhanov
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3991
Joined: 2004-04-01 11:09pm
Location: Mercia

Post by Plekhanov »

Admiral_K wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:Just wondering why do you think that the “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself” is being hampered by the what the American news media, in America reports to the American people about the war?
If you don't think the rest of the world watches American T.V. I don't know what to tell you. Further,
The rest of the world certainly watch the Simpsons, Friends, CSI.... when they're shown on local tv, that doesn't mean it gets the same news media as you which we don't, and none of the programs I listed or their ilk are known for their news coverage.

I have cable we get two 24 hour news channels BBC News 24 and sky news, when I worked in France we got CNN international (or something like that) which I can assure you is not the same as the flag waving crap CNN shows in the US. Just incase you haven't got it yet dumbass, just because I watch repeats of Seinfeld doesn't mean I also watch Fox News.
in the age of the internet, most American Newspapers are available online and read by people all over the world.
I'm sure they are but by how many non US nationals habitually read them? Newspapers tend to be very parochialas do their readers, most people I know read British papers (and the BBC) on-line because they cover the stuff we care about which consists mainly of well British stuff.
Not to mention the fact that most major news stories are "picked up" by the news outlets in other nations. We live in the information age man.
Yes picked up reinterpreted and rewritten, we might well live in an information age, that doesn't mean that the information we receive is the same regardless of our location, take for example how your slavering over W's crotch affects the info you receive.
Even if “the world itself”did receive the news media that this guy is bitching about your reasoning is still puzzling, why exactly are the hearts and minds of Iraqis going to be won by news stories about the large numbers of their countrymen the occupying forces are killing?
If the only major news stories are ones that are negative, it is bound to have a negative effect.
Why are stories that fail to boast about the number of Iraqis killed by coalition forces “negative”?
In my particular bit of “the world” the BBC and the print media give the reported death tolls for both sides (as I expect they also do in the US as I expect this guy would find out if he read beyond the headlines) and nobody ever seems particularly pleased about either figure. Especially when there's such widespread mistrust in US targeting (that is to say when many brits here that the US killed “50 or so terrorists” many here wonder just how many of the dead actually were resistance fighters.
Thats exactly my point. "Widespread mistrust in US targeting". If you think our troops are doing anything other than trying to minimalize civilian casualties over there you are kidding yourself.
Was that your point? Well it was staggeringly badly made then, still moving on...

I can't speak for the rest of the world but in the UK this reputation is largely down to the habit the US seems to have of regularly bombing our troops and the occasional chinese embassy (it doesn't matter how excusable or understandable these actions are dipshit, remember we're talking about perceptions here and even the most slavishly prowar papers have a problem with our troops being killed by allies) alongside pride (no matter how misplaced) in the fact that our troops, blow fewer unofending and allied people to tiny pieces than yours do.

And get this us Brits are on the whole rather fond of Americans, much more so for example than the Iraqis (who I think it's important you remember have spent the last decade being starved and blown up by the “big & little satan” running the coalition) so why the fuck do you think that Iraqis are going to give the coalition forces the benefit of the doubt?
Rather than portraying the Militants as the freedom hating scum they are,
Are they now, it's just incredible how you regurgitate Bush's bullshit without even realising it? Has it really never passed you mind that atleast some of “them” could be occupation “hating scum” and that stories about many Iraqis the occupying forces are killing might just be inciting that hatred?
they romanticize them as some sort of "resistance fighters"

Could you please provide an example of an American news outlet which is romanticising “them as some sort of "resistance fighters"”
Well, here is a news flash. If the people you are "resisting" against are trying to bring freedom to your people, while you hope to impose strict laws that would oppress them, that doesn't make you a hero.
And in your opinion the “resistance fighters” you hate are going to come to trust the goodwill of the Bush administration by stories about the death dealing nature of the occupying forces :roll:
I'm confused so please explain how will news reports emphasising the large numbers of Iraqis killed by “coalition forces” help win “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself?
Well, first of all it would let the Iraqi people know that the groups that are fighting hard against coalition troops aren't succeeding in their goals.
In what way aren't they succeeding? You seem to believe them to all be “freedom hating” muslim fundamentalists in which case they would want to kill infidels, die as martyrs and generally fuck up the “great satans” plan, which of these goals aren't they meeting?
I'm not saying that this alone will win anyones hearts and minds,
Maybe you aren't, it's why you think that it would help AT ALL that has me puzzled.
but it would be a helluva lot better than portraying the insurgents as "winning" and the occupation as a "total failure" as some media outlets have done.
Really which media outlets would these be? And please do provide some evidence to back up your assertions that anybody (and do bear in mind the bullshit article you're defending is talking about domestic US news media) has been “portraying the insurgents as "winning" and the occupation as a "total failure"”.
User avatar
Tom_Aurum
Padawan Learner
Posts: 348
Joined: 2003-02-11 06:08am
Location: The City Formerly Known As Slaughter

Post by Tom_Aurum »

There's a problem here. Bush (or any of his cabinet, for that matter) never stated exactly WHY we're in Iraq. Just made up some lies about the place harboring WMD. Why are we really there? To build an island of stability in the middle east. Will we ever do it? Honestly I think the E.U. letting turkey in would do more to stabilize that area than any war would.
Please kids, don't drink and park: Accidents cause people!
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Tom_Aurum wrote:There's a problem here. Bush (or any of his cabinet, for that matter) never stated exactly WHY we're in Iraq. Just made up some lies about the place harboring WMD. Why are we really there? To build an island of stability in the middle east. Will we ever do it? Honestly I think the E.U. letting turkey in would do more to stabilize that area than any war would.

Some cynical realpolitik reasons that are purely my opinion:

Iraq distracts Jihadis from going to Afghanistan. In Iraq, we can play to US strengths: Armor, vehicles, and usable infrastructure. In Afghanistan, there is little of this. It would be ideal ground for insurgents, and poor ground for US troops. If all these Jihadis were going to Afghanistan, we'd be in deep shit.

Iraq was already a bleeding wound and had been for 12 years when we invaded. We'd have to finish that before going on to anything else in the region-- we couldn't tell the Saudis, or Syrians, top clean up their act with the spectre of starving Iraqis haunting our backs. Saddam had won the propaganda war, portraying himself as a victim of US "imperialism". Time to end it.

Terrain familiarity. If we did have to invade any other MidEast country, we'd already have a secure base of operations in Iraq. And for sure Iran realizes that it is flanked on both sides by US bases. Feeling the squeeze, a bit, Ayatollah? And what better than Iraq, which we'd already visited and been flying over for years, and was thoroughly mapped.

Oil. Yes, oil factors into this. Of course it does. It is a valid strategic political goal.

Also, perhaps, now various dictators will feel that we're serious, and crazy enough to do anything. This also brings a lot of negative backlash, obviously.

Training. Let's face it, there was no question who would win from the start. But now we have an army that is tested in battle, our equipment has been tested, we've had a chance to see what works and doesn't, where the shortfalls are, and that way our ducks will be in a tighter row when it comes time to plunk this army down on the borders of someone else, with all the kinks worked out.

"Sepoys". There are probably hopes that the Iraqi Army will become a US Auxiliary, which would be handy if we had to march on places like Mecca, which would look bad if us "Western Infidels" do it but not so much if Baghdad Homeboys do it in our stead.


There are probably other reasons I can't think of right now. Naturally, if any one of these reasons are for real in the eyes of the Administration, it would be foolish to utter them aloud due to the cynical nature of these rationales.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
jegs2
Imperial Spook
Posts: 4782
Joined: 2002-08-22 06:23pm
Location: Alabama

Post by jegs2 »

Can't help but wonder that if the Yankee civilians had had a similar outlook on the War Between the States that many Americans have on OIF, how differently we might look as a nation toay. Of course, instant availabilty of information worldwide also has much sway in this.
John 3:16-18
Warwolves G2
The University of North Alabama Lions!
Admiral_K
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 560
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:51pm

Post by Admiral_K »

Plekhanov wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:Just wondering why do you think that the “the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself” is being hampered by the what the American news media, in America reports to the American people about the war?
If you don't think the rest of the world watches American T.V. I don't know what to tell you. Further,
The rest of the world certainly watch the Simpsons, Friends, CSI.... when they're shown on local tv, that doesn't mean it gets the same news media as you which we don't, and none of the programs I listed or their ilk are known for their news coverage.

I have cable we get two 24 hour news channels BBC News 24 and sky news, when I worked in France we got CNN international (or something like that) which I can assure you is not the same as the flag waving crap CNN shows in the US. Just incase you haven't got it yet dumbass, just because I watch repeats of Seinfeld doesn't mean I also watch Fox News.
Look bitch, You asked how I think that negative news coverage affects our battle to win the hearts and minds and I told you. Just because YOU don't watch any American News doesn't mean that many others don't. In order to have an influence doesn't mean everyone in the world has to read your paper.
in the age of the internet, most American Newspapers are available online and read by people all over the world.
I'm sure they are but by how many non US nationals habitually read them? Newspapers tend to be very parochialas do their readers, most people I know read British papers (and the BBC) on-line because they cover the stuff we care about which consists mainly of well British stuff.
And I'm sure most informed Brits with internet access, and an interest in world events read British AND American and other papers from around the world. I know I read the Guardian, and occiasionally check out Arabnews.com, as I'm sure many others do.

I'm not saying that people in Germany are reading the Pawtucket Gazette, but they surely will occaisonally surf to the major news sites, Cnn.com, newyorktimes.com etc.
Not to mention the fact that most major news stories are "picked up" by the news outlets in other nations. We live in the information age man.
Yes picked up reinterpreted and rewritten, we might well live in an information age, that doesn't mean that the information we receive is the same regardless of our location, take for example how your slavering over W's crotch affects the info you receive.
The point is the coverage influences media coverage of outlets in other nations. Concession accepted.
Even if “the world itself”did receive the news media that this guy is bitching about your reasoning is still puzzling, why exactly are the hearts and minds of Iraqis going to be won by news stories about the large numbers of their countrymen the occupying forces are killing?
If the only major news stories are ones that are negative, it is bound to have a negative effect.
Why are stories that fail to boast about the number of Iraqis killed by coalition forces “negative”?
[/quote]

Because it makes the conflict appear to be one sided. If the only casualty reports are of your own people, then that might make you think that your side is losing. Funny how that works out.
In my particular bit of “the world” the BBC and the print media give the reported death tolls for both sides (as I expect they also do in the US as I expect this guy would find out if he read beyond the headlines) and nobody ever seems particularly pleased about either figure. Especially when there's such widespread mistrust in US targeting (that is to say when many brits here that the US killed “50 or so terrorists” many here wonder just how many of the dead actually were resistance fighters.
Thats exactly my point. "Widespread mistrust in US targeting". If you think our troops are doing anything other than trying to minimalize civilian casualties over there you are kidding yourself.
Was that your point? Well it was staggeringly badly made then, still moving on...
[/quote]

The point is that many foreign major media outlets wish to paint Americans as "the bad guy" when were taking every effort to limit our targets to militant terrorist groups. The propoganda has succeeded to some extent, as is evident by a sheep such as yourself proclaiming "widespread mistrust in US targeting" as if were indiscriminantly killing Iraqis at our whim.
I can't speak for the rest of the world but in the UK this reputation is largely down to the habit the US seems to have of regularly bombing our troops and the occasional chinese embassy (it doesn't matter how excusable or understandable these actions are dipshit, remember we're talking about perceptions here and even the most slavishly prowar papers have a problem with our troops being killed by allies) alongside pride (no matter how misplaced) in the fact that our troops, blow fewer unofending and allied people to tiny pieces than yours do.
When you've committed less than 1/15th the number of troops we have, then I would EXPECT that you would blow "fewer unofending and allied people to tiny pieces". Friendly fire incidents are part of war. They've been committed by every country on the planet. Its tragic, and anyone found negligent should be punished. But it will happen just as people are killed in traffic accidents everyday.
And get this us Brits are on the whole rather fond of Americans, much more so for example than the Iraqis (who I think it's important you remember have spent the last decade being starved and blown up by the “big & little satan” running the coalition) so why the fuck do you think that Iraqis are going to give the coalition forces the benefit of the doubt?
I never said they can solely be won over with media coverage. Quite frankly this is a red herring to the discussion.
Rather than portraying the Militants as the freedom hating scum they are,
Are they now, it's just incredible how you regurgitate Bush's bullshit without even realising it? Has it really never passed you mind that atleast some of “them” could be occupation “hating scum” and that stories about many Iraqis the occupying forces are killing might just be inciting that hatred?
I guess you missed my whole topic about Militants hating freedom. They as much as admitted it themselves. Look it up.

Again, my point is made. We've got all these stories about Iraqis "killed by occupying forces" and yet when the Militants do it, very little is made of the affair. Oh you'll hear a blurb about how a sucide bomber takes at 20 iraqis here, 35 there, but very little sense of "outrage. But dear lord lets string up those Americans for Abu Graihb! Yeah, thats "fair" coverage.
they romanticize them as some sort of "resistance fighters"

Could you please provide an example of an American news outlet which is romanticising “them as some sort of "resistance fighters"”
Well, Michael Moore for example called them Iraq's "Minute Men". Granted, hes not technically a "new outlet". Its really not that blatant with American Media as it is foreign outlets.
Well, here is a news flash. If the people you are "resisting" against are trying to bring freedom to your people, while you hope to impose strict laws that would oppress them, that doesn't make you a hero.
And in your opinion the “resistance fighters” you hate are going to come to trust the goodwill of the Bush administration by stories about the death dealing nature of the occupying forces :roll:
No, the resistance fights I expect to be killed. ITs their support that I would hope to erode by stories about the death dealing nature of the occupying forces.
blah blah blah blah blah
I really don't feel like arguing this. It is a stupid topic to begin with. If you don't think that Major media coverage in the U.S. is negative towards the Iraqi occupation, then thats your oppinion. If you don't think that negative coverage erodes our support both at home and abroad, then I suggest you go study up on your propoganda. I'm not wasting anymore words on this topic. Quite frankly, there are other debates more worth of my time.
User avatar
BoredShirtless
BANNED
Posts: 3107
Joined: 2003-02-26 10:57am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Post by BoredShirtless »

Admiral_K wrote:I really don't feel like arguing this. It is a stupid topic to begin with. If you don't think that Major media coverage in the U.S. is negative towards the Iraqi occupation, then thats your oppinion. If you don't think that negative coverage erodes our support both at home and abroad, then I suggest you go study up on your propoganda. I'm not wasting anymore words on this topic. Quite frankly, there are other debates more worth of my time.
You're not very efficient are you, "concession given, Sir" is a lot quicker.
User avatar
Stravo
Official SD.Net Teller of Tales
Posts: 12806
Joined: 2002-07-08 12:06pm
Location: NYC

Post by Stravo »

Elfdart-Beowulf flaming has been split off.
Wherever you go, there you are.

Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's Guild Cybertron's Finest Justice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
Image
User avatar
Dahak
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7292
Joined: 2002-10-29 12:08pm
Location: Admiralty House, Landing, Manticore
Contact:

Post by Dahak »

Admiral_K wrote:I'm not saying that people in Germany are reading the Pawtucket Gazette, but they surely will occaisonally surf to the major news sites, Cnn.com, newyorktimes.com etc.
I'm a quite regular German, and I rarely visit US news sites. Nor do I know people who do so.
Mostly for the fact that the news there are mostly about topics not remotely relevant to me.
And the other point is that German news tend to have a different feel to it. Frankly, regarding Iraq, I never felt objectively informed when I looked at US news.
Image
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC
GALE Force Euro Wimp
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
Image
User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11978
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm

Post by Imperial Overlord »

Dahak said:
Frankly, regarding Iraq, I never felt objectively informed when I looked at US news.
It's that big US flag waving in the background whenever you look at a US new channel. You can tell that appearing patriotic is more important than objectivity and so the news you're getting is tainted.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
Thinkmarble
Jedi Knight
Posts: 685
Joined: 2003-11-01 11:10am

Post by Thinkmarble »

Admiral_K wrote: I really don't feel like arguing this. It is a stupid topic to begin with. If you don't think that Major media coverage in the U.S. is negative towards the Iraqi occupation, then thats your oppinion. If you don't think that negative coverage erodes our support both at home and abroad, then I suggest you go study up on your propoganda. I'm not wasting anymore words on this topic. Quite frankly, there are other debates more worth of my time.
The problem is not the major media, but rather the iraqi blogs.
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Post by CmdrWilkens »

Durandal wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:Now generally I hat to step into these arguments but here you're going in the wrong direciton just a tidbit. Your point, that we aren't gaining ground we're recovering lost ground, is made only in light of the previous stability under the Hussein regime. We cannot have "lost ground" unless we lost it against the situation under Hussein thus your argument relies, tangentially but notably, upon an assumption that we "lost ground" by having a more volatile state after the end of the Hussein regime.
Horseshit. The country's infrastructure is the country's infrastructure. The Iraqis' newfound freedom doesn't do them a damn bit of good if they can't reasonably expect to go to a mosque without being shredded by shrapnel from a suicide bomber.

So yes, my argument does rely on the volatility of the country under Saddam's rule and under ours. You're trying to argue that we can't honestly compare the two situations because now the Iraqis are "free." No, they're not. They still face possible consequences if they support Americans; they simply face them from the insurgency rather than the government. To Joe Iraqi, he might still end up dead at the end of the day if he speaks out. Worse for Joe Christian Iraqi.
Holy CRAP did you miss what I was saying. Let me remind you of something you said:

{quote="Durandal"]Red herring. The instrument of that stability is irrelevant to my argument[[/quote]

My WHOLE point here was that your position (about Coyote's assertion about means of control) was inherently contradictroy and I'd like to thank you for fully justifying me. In one post you state that means of stability is irrelevant to your argument and just now you state that your argument relies on a comparison between Saddam's regime and our governance. THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT.

Now to the tertiary parts of you latest post I'd add that I've spoken to frakin Iraqi christians and things for them are no worse now than they were under Saddam so you're dead wrong there (unless you've met some I haven't). For the average Joe muslim the fact that terrorists are killing him as oppossed to the state probably doesn't mean much but I'm guessing we'll have to deal with that in the rest of this post.
Saddam and his sons killed anyone who looked at them funny and often as not people who looked funny at people who knew people who knew people who knew someone who knew Saddam.


I assume you have evidence of this?
What you didn't watch the History channel's "Sons of Saddam" documentary like everyone else?
For cripes sake girls were killed for little more than wanting to go to school and having the luck of going to the same school as Uday or Qusay (sp?).


I assume you have evidence of this? Girls were allowed to go to school in Iraq.
What you didn't watch the History channel's "Sons of Saddam" documentary like everyone else?
Are you saying that a perosn is any more likely to suspect death to come from going to school than to expect death to come from going to the market? Seriously get a grip on reality, the deaths today are every bit as violent and unexpected, save only in the numbers together, as they were under the Hussein regime. When you run a totalitarian state with delusions of theocracy "political enemy" includes people who spit on the wrong street if that happens to be the case that day.
I assume you have evidence of this, rather than the standard "Saddam was eeeeeeeeeeeevil" Bush mantras? People in Iraq under Hussein could easily go about their daily lives unperturbed; that is not the case now. Don't try and make it out as if the executions under Hussein's regime were anywhere near as random as what is happening now with the insurgency.
What you didn't watch the History channel's "Sons of Saddam" documentary like everyone else?
Don't, I mean just don't try to claim that death in Iraq has suddenly become shockingly more unexpected or violent. Claim anything else you like but don't pull that bullcrap.
I'd say that being vaporized by a car bomb on your way to work in the morning is more unexpected and violent than being shot in the head after going through a legal system. After the guilty verdict, I assume that the condemned did expect to de.
So being picked off the street and knowing that it meant you would die (and the function of the Iraqi secret police and military police is hardly unique in this regards) makes it less unpredictable than being killed in a car bomb? The only difference is that with a car bomb you die right away wheras with eecutions you get to live in terror for a bit while waiting for them to get around to you. That's the difference and explain to me how it is ina any way significant?
Nice way to sidestep the issue while also surrendering it. You basically just made his whole point that we do look down on the Middle East then tried to claim that it was religion not race (WOW there's a big difference in justification for bigotry). The fact that you are trying to insert "radical" into your statments is just a dodge. Throwing the radical or moderate (notice we never use the world liberal) just means degree of assumed bias.
And who exactly are the popular politicians over there? The moderates? People who advocate completely secular law? Are you out of your fucking mind? The political landscape in Iraq is going to shift toward fundamentalist Muslim candidates, and you damn well know it. In some ways, it already has. There's a difference in saying that the leaders of a country need to be kept in check because they're bigots and saying that everyone in the country is a bigot.
RED FUCKING HERRING. I'm talking about US attitudes towards the middle east and how they are presented in American media. I'm not talking about who is or isn't "radical" or "popular" I'm talking about the fact that the American media and social perception has been geared towards only presenting a negative image of the middle east as a place where the people are more barbaic and less cultured than Americans. That is the point I'm making. Please stop going off on these tangent which have nothing to do with the points I'm actually trying to argue. That is the point Coyote was making, that is the point you were suppossedly trying to refute but which you sidestepped then as you did here again.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
Post Reply