Lynch condemns 'US propaganda'

[Lusipher]

From this crowd here at ALFA it will be from the most liberal places on tv and the net

[paazin]

From this crowd here at ALFA it will be from the most liberal places on tv and the net

Eh, you might be surprised.

[Lusipher]

I might be you never know.

[Mulu]

I asked my policy class the other day what benefit had come from the Iraq war. Two trillion dollars and 4000 US deaths later, what do we have to show for it? Their answer: Saddam's neck on a rope, that's it.

I won't even bother to list the detriments; by now they are well known.

Afterwards I realized that my benefits analysis was from the wrong perspective. I was only thinking of the United States. Taken from the perspective of Halliburton or Big Oil, i.e. those who determine our foreign policy, the benefits were enormous. Future benefits will be too. The PSA's from Iraq will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. ExxonMobil thinks Iraq actually has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, they just haven't been properly explored.

This is why we aren't leaving Iraq....

While oil production in the United States, Mexico, and the North Sea is declining, U.S. consumption is predicted to increase by one-third over the next 20 years. By 2020, two-thirds of all U.S. oil will be imported, and since 65% of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the Middle East, one doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude a strategy of divide and conquer is aimed at keeping strategic control of those resources.

Keeping up tensions in the Middle East is also enormously lucrative for U.S. arms companies. Since 2006, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman have spent—or will spend over the next year— more than $60 billion on arms purchases.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4160

[mxlm]

You forgot to list the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the Washington Times

Right, because there're no conservative sources on my list. Certainly not the Economist or Financial Times--those're full of bleeding heart, America-hating liberals.

Oh, wait.

Now, I will concede there are no pro-administration sources there. But then, that might have something to do with it being essentially impossible to reasonably argue that the admin's done an effective job so far.

The difference between the UK based conservative news sources and the US based conservative news sources is that the former aren't invested in the Republican Party.

[HATEFACE]

You know, so far I've only seen wackiness out of the majority of ALFA and it worries me. Hell, I jump in a time or two and help perpetuate the wackiness, call it trolling, or whatever, but it's revealing. Most of you actually believe me to be serious. The point I'm trying to make isn't so much about me trolling these political topics. It's a reflection on yourselves isn't it?

Debate all you like and remember that with every argumentative claim there should be some cited sources. Try to listen and understand each-other rather then make some asinine comment with in your replies while bolstering your own claim.

I'm going to pick on someone here, so I'll just choose fluff simply because asinine and fluff go together so well. Nah, just kidding. This is an example.

"Worse like how? Will there be suicide bombings every day? Will there be ethnic cleansing? Will people start being afraid to leave their homes? Will there be a cycle of retaliation? Not sure what the "worse" is you are so worried about...seems like the "worse" is already there. Seems to me our troops aren't really stopping much of anything, not surprising since we've never had enough there to make a real difference and still don't."

Those are a lot of questions in your comments there fluff. Forgive me if I assume that they're all rhetorical.

1. You believe there are bombings everyday in iraq.
2. You believe there are ethnic cleansings.
3. You believe that iraqis are afraid of leaving their homes.
4. You believe that there is a cycle of retaliation.
5. Our troops levels are not enough to make a difference and the troops that we have there are not doing anything to make a difference.

These are all uncited claims and I'm wondering why they're uncited. Maybe it is because you believe they these claims are public knowledge and they don't need citing. i.e. "The moon orbits the earth." type shit. Well, I think that they do need citing.

But this is exactly the problem here in this community. No one can remain objective. Everyone has their own opinions interjected into these replies. Let's all try to remain fair here if that's possible. We could attempt to compair and contrast this war with others, with fact, with what we know to be true. So, let's all try to remain fair and objective.

Failing this, we can all resort to calling each other morons (Which is precisely what I've been called on several ocassions but to be fair I was clearly acting like one.) and begin beating each other with sticks. Personally, I wouldn't mind giving and recieving a beating.

Feel free to call me an idiot.

[Mulu]

I would say that Fluff's claims are common knowledge. I also find it ironic when self-acknowledged trolls try to lay down the ground rules for debate.

[HATEFACE]

I would say that Fluff's claims are common knowledge. I also find it ironic when self-acknowledged trolls try to lay down the ground rules for debate.

You're right, it is ironic. I know this is a poor defense of my actions, but when goaded ever so slightly you become a lovely troll too. Also, take a look at my joining date and my post number. Take a good long look so it can register upon your undeveloped prefrontal cortex. . . I must be one of those special forum trolls. . .

But my point remains. . .
No credibility is given by or to either side.

They are common knowledge? Well I must be very very stupid and ignorant. Woe is me the stupid ignorant fool. So, I guess some cited sources and references are required. Preferably several of them, not just one link. Would you rather remain unfair and baised? Would Fluff? That's fine by me, that is the social norm on this forum. I would akin this forum like that of Fox news, Fair and balanced!

Mulu, neither you, nor Fluff, or Danubus have bothered to prove anything. I wouldn't mind at all if there were some "ground rules" as a matter of courtesy. After all, you go through the trouble of typing out a point you should have some references.

Anywho, just some thoughts and opinions. Feel free to call this forum troll an idiot, Mulu.

[mxlm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6575717.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/i ... navigator/ (note that the confirmed death toll in Baghdad alone represents more than half of the confirmed death toll as reported by the IBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6567329.stm
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/d ... E1_JDVTDQR (will need subscription for the economist stuff, unless you're lucky enough to get one of those 'watch 30-second ad, access premium content for a day' deals)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 9/fulltext (free registration required)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... index.html (free registration again)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... ferl02.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2055122,00.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ca974fbc-ee11-1 ... 10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ed954aaa-ee89-1 ... 10621.html http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... q-complete

I could go on. Though I would point out that notion that things couldn't/wouldn't get worse is, well, fallacious.

[Cassiel]

1. You believe there are bombings everyday in iraq.

True - they haven't been every day since we handed over responsibility for bombing the major Iraqi cities and infrastructure to the Iraqis who hate us for what we've done to their country.

2. You believe there are ethnic cleansings.

That's probably strong as things stand, but there's certainly extreme, murderous antipathy between groups - do we need to cite sources for the US military's construction of a wall to separate two of the warring factions?

3. You believe that iraqis are afraid of leaving their homes.

As a population, their country is far, far less stable than before the invasion, and the monthly civilian death tolls before and after the invasion reflect that. Whether that makes people afraid to leave their homes I can't say definitively - but it seems likely, wouldn't you say? Unless these damn ragheads are too stupid to, etc.

4. You believe that there is a cycle of retaliation.

Well - so does George Bush, who has called the wall a strategy for "breaking the cycle of sectarian violence".

[Mikayla]

Will our departure make things worse? Can things get worse? Well, I think things can definitely get worse, and likely will, if we depart, but that is not the question that I think should decide whether we stay or go...

The question so far as I am concerned is - can our continued presence make things better? If not, then we need to go and end the sacrifices being made by our troops. If we can make things better (and not simply by delaying an inevitable decline) then we need to get on with it and make things better - but I've not seen any evidence that things are getting better, quite the contrary.

If we cannot make things better, than we need to get out - simply prolonging the inevitable is not reason enough for U.S. soldiers to be laying down their lives. On the other hand, if we CAN make a real difference there, if we CAN make things better, then perhaps we should stay - its my feeling we should never have gotten into this war, but once in, I feel we should leave the country better than we found it if that is at all possible. If its not possible, if we cannot make things better, then we need to leave.

As for the Army "spinning" tales - well, no big surprise there. Just disappointment. The first time I was ever quoted in a magazine was in an Army magazine and the quote was taken out of context and given an entirely different meaning. The next time I was in an Army magazine, I was misrepresented again and same with the third time. It was an education about both the Army, and the media - put the two of them together and you often have the worst of both worlds, even though the individuals actually doing the "spin" usually have the best interests of the country at heart. C'est la vie.

[paazin]

You forgot to list the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the Washington Times

Right, because there're no conservative sources on my list. Certainly not the Economist or Financial Times--those're full of bleeding heart, America-hating liberals.

Oh, wait.

Now, I will concede there are no pro-administration sources there. But then, that might have something to do with it being essentially impossible to reasonably argue that the admin's done an effective job so far.

The difference between the UK based conservative news sources and the US based conservative news sources is that the former aren't invested in the Republican Party.

I meant my response only in jest but +1 all the same

[mxlm]

I know you were kidding, but I replied semi-seriously all the same. 'Cause I'm a rogue forum poster like that.

[HATEFACE]

Will our departure make things worse? Can things get worse? Well, I think things can definitely get worse, and likely will, if we depart, but that is not the question that I think should decide whether we stay or go...

The question so far as I am concerned is - can our continued presence make things better? If not, then we need to go and end the sacrifices being made by our troops. If we can make things better (and not simply by delaying an inevitable decline) then we need to get on with it and make things better - but I've not seen any evidence that things are getting better, quite the contrary.

If we cannot make things better, than we need to get out - simply prolonging the inevitable is not reason enough for U.S. soldiers to be laying down their lives. On the other hand, if we CAN make a real difference there, if we CAN make things better, then perhaps we should stay - its my feeling we should never have gotten into this war, but once in, I feel we should leave the country better than we found it if that is at all possible. If its not possible, if we cannot make things better, then we need to leave.

As for the Army "spinning" tales - well, no big surprise there. Just disappointment. The first time I was ever quoted in a magazine was in an Army magazine and the quote was taken out of context and given an entirely different meaning. The next time I was in an Army magazine, I was misrepresented again and same with the third time. It was an education about both the Army, and the media - put the two of them together and you often have the worst of both worlds, even though the individuals actually doing the "spin" usually have the best interests of the country at heart. C'est la vie.

You should take a look at the
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/i ... navigator/
Especially toward the most recent months. There is a sharp decline where I believe the new strategy began. I know there have been mortar attacks in the green-zone, mortar attacks are nothing in the Iraq war. Insurgents use them quite frequently and we've no doubt developed a counter to this.
I think it's fair to wait until mid-summer when the new plan is in full swing. So I reserve my judgment.

True - they haven't been every day since we handed over responsibility for bombing the major Iraqi cities and infrastructure to the Iraqis who hate us for what we've done to their country.

Your statement isn't exactly fair.

We handed responsibility for bombings over to whom, the Iraqis?
Was it our responsibility before and it's not now? I'm not really clear on what you're trying to get across there.

I guess you mean we handed the responsibility for the insurgency bombings over to the normal Iraqis? Yes, I guess that could piss them off.


All I know is that the insurgency, both foreign and domestic, have targeted infrastructures such as oil fields, police recruitment centers, transportation, electricity, and water. So I guess it's their responsibility not the iraqis themselves. This was dominant in 06 and has continued in 07
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9539709
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html
I could go on. . .

We are still fighting them (insurgents). So I don't know if that counts for shifting responsibility or blame. I'll give some links later on that.

Now as far as iraqis handling the situation for themselves. I found this intersting link. http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI0 ... 032807.pdf

"No one knows how many Iraqi security personnel there are today. The Pentagon can tell us that as of March 21, 2007, 329,800 Iraqi security personnel had been “trained and equipped,” however, this number counts only how many Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Ministry of Interior (MoI) personnel have completed Coalition training programs. While it can tell us whether or not the Coalition is meeting its training targets, it doesn’t tell us how many Iraqis are in uniform. It does not take into account deaths, desertions, or Iraqi police who are on the job but have not received Coalition-sponsored training. It fails to convey the fact that some quarter of military personnel and unknown number of police aren’t at their jobs at any given time (they’re on leave, taking their paychecks home, or just not there). Nor does it include thousands of other agents of the government in uniform and with guns."

The net is riddled with such government documents if you bored enough to look.

As for the Iraqis that "hate us." Whom are you referring to?
I can assume Al-Sadr and his movement followers are one.
I hope you can agree Al-Sadr and his movement should never have been part of the political process in Iraq. That is one major mistake that happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moqtada_al-Sadr



I'm going to say an intuitive argument here. You could argue that the former secular leader Saddam was elected and we eliminated him. Now they elected Al-Sadr and we now support a government whose constitution deems Islam the official religion on the new nation. Well, an argument that many often present to me, my response is usually the same. Saddam wasn't a secular leader. He wouldn't of invaded another Islamic state if he was. He used Islam to perform great atrocities. Al-Sadr should of never have been part of the political process as I stated above. We support a government whose constitution deems Islam an official religion? No, rather we (or we, as Republicans or anyone else who will agree with me.) support(s) a government where a pro forma mention to Islam in the Constitution, like to God in ours. We do not have a Christian government, (Perhaps dominant. I dunno. Atheism third largest majority as far as -isms go, w00t!) rather we have a government were all religions and creeds are welcomed (though not necessarily tolerated ;p ALFA this means you.) That does not make Iraq an Islamic state, amiright?

That's probably strong as things stand, but there's certainly extreme, murderous antipathy between groups - do we need to cite sources for the US military's construction of a wall to separate two of the warring factions?

No that isn't necessary, I'll do that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01419.html

The article is relatively new. Again, I'll have to wait and see what becomes of this tactic. I will not allude to Vietnam like this article does. That wouldn't be fair either, instead I choose to reserve judgment.

I don't know if this article is about separating warring factions. It's more like maintaining violence in segregated areas in order to quell it. Not to sound harsh, but it sounds like what the Nazis did to the Jews. Put them in little ghettos in order to make violence manageable. - THIS DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT mean that I view our troops as Nazis and that Iraqis are Jews. It just means that sectarian violence could potentially be easier to deal with when citizens of Iraq are more safe. I would prefer other articles on this subject of "Walled communities" with in Iraq.

Edit: I just saw the Daily Show with John Stewart. Forgive me for saything this, but that show makes it hard to view liberal democrats with any ounce of credibility when you consider how big his audience is and how serious some take him. I've seen anti-war rallies through-out the span of the iraq occupation. Satire aside, the towns are not meant to be overly fortified like Nazi ghettos.

Please exclude Sadr City, I don't know if that actually counts.

We should weight the pros and cons of staying in and pulling out, in order to get a better grasp of the situation. We can try to remain reasonable in our assumptions and speculations we can achieve something fairly accurate. Of course that would require forethought.

Edit:

These "stupid damn ragheads" (paraphrase't!) as you call them. Are the ones who are willing to stay and help fight the insurgency or aid the insurgency. One such Iraqi interrupter said this when speaking of his brother, “Yeah, I had a brother, he was in Fallujah. He passed away in combat. And many many of my relatives asked me to quit because I'm the only male still to my parents, but I'm not going to quit. Because I want to help my country, if the Iraqis are not going to help their country who will did? Who will did?”

[mxlm]

Especially toward the most recent months. There is a sharp decline where I believe the new strategy began. I know there have been mortar attacks in the green-zone, mortar attacks are nothing in the Iraq war. Insurgents use them quite frequently and we've no doubt developed a counter to this.
I think it's fair to wait until mid-summer when the new plan is in full swing. So I reserve my judgment

Ah, several of the articles I linked to pointed out that after an initial decline in violence following the surge, there's been an upswing.