Thread
Propaganda war - best liar wins?
This war is getting really weird.
1 ) There was brief mention of a General being relieved of his command in IRAQ, but no one will say anything else. No comment.
2 ) The star MSNBC Reporter, 'embedded' with the 3rd Infantry Division, all of a sudden turns up dead from a blood clot?! This is the same division that is supposedly moving 'at will' into and around Baghdad nowadays.
3 ) Both sides claim control of Saddam International airport, but no one has any pictures to prove it.
4 ) Saddam is dead, now he's not, now he's a double, now he is dead, now he is not.
5 ) US Forces have taken control of buildings in Baghdad, but only for a few minutes to 'prove they could.' ??!!??
6 ) US Troops have seized the information ministry, er, maybe not. (Dang that Iraqi information Minister that keeps showing up on TV to call US Troops cowards)
7 ) US Troops have launched 'the big one' - er maybe not just yet, but soon!
8 ) Hundreds, no, thousands of Iraqi soldiers are dead, but there are just a few US Soldiers that were only wounded.
9 ) The Iraqi people will greet our troops with open arms, er, well they are afraid to right now, but soon they will! Right now they are busy slipping in and out of uniforms so they can shoot at US troops from rooftops, but soon they will run out of ammo and THEN they will bring flowers to greet their liberators. Maybe. Eventually.
10) This whole thing is to disarm Saddam of his Weapons of Mass destruction, but now the US command has deemed it safe for the troops to take off the chem warfare suits. (Where are those dadgum WMD anyway?)
11) Never mind, US Troops are there to LIBERATE the IRAQI people, problem is they won't stay in uniform long enough to tell them apart.
12) There are thousands of people streaming into IRAQ from Jordan, Syria, Sudan and all the other neighboring countries to...help the IRAQI military! But wait, weren't they supposed to hate Saddam Hussein?
Oh, and what happened to that other reporter guy, Peter Arnett? NBC & National Geographic fired him for telling the truth.
More than once I have heard US commanders clearly state that they did not want a "fair fight", and then they are indignant when the Iraqis fight back with whatever means they have at their disposal. US Politicians are absolutely offended at a few pictures of POW's but then plaster hundreds of pictures all over the airwaves themselves. They demand adherence to the Geneva Convention, but what about those several hundred being held without charges in custody at Guantanamo in Cuba?
US Troops are there to LIBERATE the Iraqi people and WILL NOT take over the country, well, at least not FOREVER. Of course there will be a military 'police' presence to maintain 'PEACE' by any measure of force required.
This thing is NOT about oil, but that is all they have there, it was the very first objective to take control of, the administration in control of the US are all deeply connected to big oil, and now we have news that in fact deals are already being made and big oil is poised to move in as soon as it is safe. They have already sent in teams of specialists (at $50k per day) to put out the few fires that were started.
Well, who really cares anyway? As long as the price of gasoline comes back down below $2 a gallon, what difference does it make if a few thousand third world peasants are killed? I mean after all, they live in huts and they are starving anyway, and, they are godless heathens that don't even believe in Jesus Christ!
Just how did our oil get under their sand anyway?
"The Iraqi people gotta know, see, they gotta know..they..will..be..liberated. And Saddam Hussein..will..be..removed..no..matter..how..long. .it..takes."
GW Bush, 2003
http://www.hempusflag.com
1 ) There was brief mention of a General being relieved of his command in IRAQ, but no one will say anything else. No comment.
2 ) The star MSNBC Reporter, 'embedded' with the 3rd Infantry Division, all of a sudden turns up dead from a blood clot?! This is the same division that is supposedly moving 'at will' into and around Baghdad nowadays.
3 ) Both sides claim control of Saddam International airport, but no one has any pictures to prove it.
4 ) Saddam is dead, now he's not, now he's a double, now he is dead, now he is not.
5 ) US Forces have taken control of buildings in Baghdad, but only for a few minutes to 'prove they could.' ??!!??
6 ) US Troops have seized the information ministry, er, maybe not. (Dang that Iraqi information Minister that keeps showing up on TV to call US Troops cowards)
7 ) US Troops have launched 'the big one' - er maybe not just yet, but soon!
8 ) Hundreds, no, thousands of Iraqi soldiers are dead, but there are just a few US Soldiers that were only wounded.
9 ) The Iraqi people will greet our troops with open arms, er, well they are afraid to right now, but soon they will! Right now they are busy slipping in and out of uniforms so they can shoot at US troops from rooftops, but soon they will run out of ammo and THEN they will bring flowers to greet their liberators. Maybe. Eventually.
10) This whole thing is to disarm Saddam of his Weapons of Mass destruction, but now the US command has deemed it safe for the troops to take off the chem warfare suits. (Where are those dadgum WMD anyway?)
11) Never mind, US Troops are there to LIBERATE the IRAQI people, problem is they won't stay in uniform long enough to tell them apart.
12) There are thousands of people streaming into IRAQ from Jordan, Syria, Sudan and all the other neighboring countries to...help the IRAQI military! But wait, weren't they supposed to hate Saddam Hussein?
Oh, and what happened to that other reporter guy, Peter Arnett? NBC & National Geographic fired him for telling the truth.
More than once I have heard US commanders clearly state that they did not want a "fair fight", and then they are indignant when the Iraqis fight back with whatever means they have at their disposal. US Politicians are absolutely offended at a few pictures of POW's but then plaster hundreds of pictures all over the airwaves themselves. They demand adherence to the Geneva Convention, but what about those several hundred being held without charges in custody at Guantanamo in Cuba?
US Troops are there to LIBERATE the Iraqi people and WILL NOT take over the country, well, at least not FOREVER. Of course there will be a military 'police' presence to maintain 'PEACE' by any measure of force required.
This thing is NOT about oil, but that is all they have there, it was the very first objective to take control of, the administration in control of the US are all deeply connected to big oil, and now we have news that in fact deals are already being made and big oil is poised to move in as soon as it is safe. They have already sent in teams of specialists (at $50k per day) to put out the few fires that were started.
Well, who really cares anyway? As long as the price of gasoline comes back down below $2 a gallon, what difference does it make if a few thousand third world peasants are killed? I mean after all, they live in huts and they are starving anyway, and, they are godless heathens that don't even believe in Jesus Christ!
Just how did our oil get under their sand anyway?
"The Iraqi people gotta know, see, they gotta know..they..will..be..liberated. And Saddam Hussein..will..be..removed..no..matter..how..long. .it..takes."
GW Bush, 2003
http://www.hempusflag.com
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: US Troops are there to LIBERATE the Iraqi people and WILL NOT take over the country, well, at least not FOREVER. Of course there will be a military 'police' presence to maintain 'PEACE' by any measure of force required. |
It will most likelly turn out like here on Iceland. We were occupied by the Brits in WWII. They were later replaced by US troops. But because that gave us the leverage to declare us independant from Denmark, the government at the time(conservative) made a deal with the US government to defend us after the war. Later that turned into the NATO treaty.
Now 50+ years later it doesn't look like the US troops are leaving. Same will happen in Iraq.
That will mean that the presence of US troops in the middle-east will fuel more anti-americanism and anti-western stance there and will only result in more terrorism, more civilian deaths, more military involvement and the worst case scenario suddenly turns out to be reality........
Yea. There is a propaganda war. I think the trick is to not trust any story at face value. What really is the point of those daily cooalition breifings anyway? Its not like they are going to say anything about what they REALLY think or know because they are broadcasting into Iraq....so it is but another propaganda tool. No different than that hilarious Iraqi Information Minister 
Another tool of control they are using is restricting the movement of unimbedded reporters from entering Iraq. Ok so there is some logic to this as their safety would be in question... none the less, it is another example of controling what gets reported.
I guess all we can do is use many sources to get the news from, such as Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, and then put it all together in the hopes of getting an accurate picture of 'the truth'.
Another tool of control they are using is restricting the movement of unimbedded reporters from entering Iraq. Ok so there is some logic to this as their safety would be in question... none the less, it is another example of controling what gets reported.
I guess all we can do is use many sources to get the news from, such as Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, and then put it all together in the hopes of getting an accurate picture of 'the truth'.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Logic: That will mean that the presence of US troops in the middle-east will fuel more anti-americanism and anti-western stance there and will only result in more terrorism, more civilian deaths, more military involvement and the worst case scenario suddenly turns out to be reality........ |
An interesting piece of info: HALF of the entire US military is currently in Iraq.
HALF.
They aren't going to be leaving any time soon.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Logic: Now 50+ years later it doesn't look like the US troops are leaving. Same will happen in Iraq. |
I agree with you on that - the difference is that in Iraq we went in shooting, and although the Iraqi are not inherently anti-west (indeed quite 'westernized' compared to their neighbors) they will see us as neo-colonialist invaders.
Call me a pessimist, but I see a long, bloody occupation ahead.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: An interesting piece of info: HALF of the entire US military is currently in Iraq. HALF. They aren't going to be leaving any time soon. |
Are you sure it is half the US military?
But I think you are correct that they wont be leaving any time soon. Just look at the statements made by the US government when asked how long they are going to stay in Iraq. Most common is probably this: For as long as it is required.
That basicly leaves the door open for the puppetregime installed to make this "defencepact" with the USA, and how are they going to pay for it? Hmmmmmmmmmm
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: I agree with you on that - the difference is that in Iraq we went in shooting, and although the Iraqi are not inherently anti-west (indeed quite 'westernized' compared to their neighbors) they will see us as neo-colonialist invaders. Call me a pessimist, but I see a long, bloody occupation ahead. |
The troops in WWII didn't have to shoot because our grandparents was amazed to see airplanes and huge ships
True, Iraq could probably be a very "westernized" middle-eastern country. But in the long run the Iraqis will be fed up with the puppets in charge and then the hatred will turn on us, the western world. I'm afraid you are right, this will be much more bloody than it already is.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: An interesting piece of info: HALF of the entire US military is currently in Iraq. HALF. They aren't going to be leaving any time soon. |
Where did you get that information? From memory there are approximately 1.4 million people in the US military. There are 180,000 in Iraq.
In the US Army alone there are ten active duty divisions. Only 2 1/2 are currently in Iraq (the 3d infantry, 101st airborne, and parts of the 4th infantry, 82nd Airborne, and 1st Armored.
I swear, the amount of BS on these boards.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: An interesting piece of info: HALF of the entire US military is currently in Iraq. HALF. They aren't going to be leaving any time soon. |
That can't be right.
One statistic I'm fairly certain of, however, is that 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq are reservists. That could lead to it's own kind of crisis. I've heard that some reservists (not necessarily in the Gulf, but in general) have seen deployments of over a year
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: Oh, and what happened to that other reporter guy, Peter Arnett? NBC & National Geographic fired him for telling the truth.] |
Hey now. They fired him for giving interviews when he should be getting interviews. That being his job and everything. You would agree that his job is not to be a tool of the U.S. government; his job is also not to be a tool of Iraqi state TV. C'mon.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by mo: Hey now. They fired him for giving interviews when he should be getting interviews. That being his job and everything. You would agree that his job is not to be a tool of the U.S. government; his job is also not to be a tool of Iraqi state TV. C'mon. |
As I see it, his firing could only be because he was supposed to get permission to be interviewed, not for what he said. There was nothing he said that hasn't been said by countless other sources on TV for weeks, most of them from the Pentagon
It's still a pretty sordid little mess if you ask me.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: http://www.hempusflag.com |
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: 3 ) Both sides claim control of Saddam International airport, but no one has any pictures to prove it. |
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: As I see it, his firing could only be because he was supposed to get permission to be interviewed, not for what he said. There was nothing he said that hasn't been said by countless other sources on TV for weeks, most of them from the Pentagon It's still a pretty sordid little mess if you ask me. |
Well, I don't really disagree with you. But I don't think it's the least bit wrong for NBC to dump him for his bad judgment. I wouldn't hire him to give his opinion on the war, but he's a really good war reporter, and I would hire him to find out what's going on -- not to feed Iraqi State TV. I don't see how what he did advanced the cause of anything, even if you're against the war.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: That can't be right. One statistic I'm fairly certain of, however, is that 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq are reservists. That could lead to it's own kind of crisis. I've heard that some reservists (not necessarily in the Gulf, but in general) have seen deployments of over a year
|
Hmmm I found this on CNN,
"Deployment is now at 250,000, but only the Army's 3rd Infantry Division is a heavy fighting force, and just 150,000 of the total are ground-combat troops.
Chairman Myers insisted last week that the U.S. had deployed "just the right forces." Certainly those forces had a lot to do, from taking Baghdad to searching for Saddam's bio-chem weapons to delivering water and food to civilians. An additional 2,000 soldiers reach the war theater each day, and the total will rise to 340,000 in the weeks ahead. "
Its going to be interesting to see how many troops it is going to take to maintain the peace when the war ends.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: As I see it, his firing could only be because he was supposed to get permission to be interviewed, not for what he said. There was nothing he said that hasn't been said by countless other sources on TV for weeks, most of them from the Pentagon It's still a pretty sordid little mess if you ask me. |
Hey, no worries
Check this out,
"LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Daily Mirror hired veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett Tuesday, less than 24 hours after he was fired by NBC and National Geographic for saying on Iraqi TV the U.S. war plan has "failed."
The tabloid's banner headline Tuesday said: "Fired by America for telling the truth ... hired by Daily Mirror to carry on telling it."
Quote:
|
Originally posted by mo: Hey now. They fired him for giving interviews when he should be getting interviews. That being his job and everything. You would agree that his job is not to be a tool of the U.S. government; his job is also not to be a tool of Iraqi state TV. C'mon. |
I don't think his contracts mentioned anything abount him giving interviews in his free time or publicly stating his opinion.
The very first reaction of NBC was supportive of Arnett, calling the interview a "professional courtesy" and his remarks "analytical in nature and were not to be anything more".
After coming under heavy pressure NBS issued a second statement, saying that "it was wrong for him to grant an interview to state-run Iraqi TV, especially in a time of war".
Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: I swear, the amount of BS on these boards.
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: An interesting piece of info: HALF of the entire US military is currently in Iraq. HALF. They aren't going to be leaving any time soon. |
which makes the whole posture of "we'll take on syria, Iran, North Korea NEXT!'" quite ludicrous.
edited to add: well, that will teach me to read the WHOLE thread before responding to a post....
Never mind (/emily latella)
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: I don't think his contracts mentioned anything abount him giving interviews in his free time or publicly stating his opinion. The very first reaction of NBC was supportive of Arnett, calling the interview a "professional courtesy" and his remarks "analytical in nature and were not to be anything more". After coming under heavy pressure NBS issued a second statement, saying that "it was wrong for him to grant an interview to state-run Iraqi TV, especially in a time of war". |
This is why I didn't diagree with the remark about it being a "sordid little affair." I thought NBC botched it by issuing the reflexive response in his defense, then backtracking.
I don't know whether his contract forbade interviews. But you have to admit, he did his own backtracking immediately afterward, then backtracked from his backtracking once he found another job. Not good.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: This war is getting really weird. 1 ) There was brief mention of a General being relieved of his command in IRAQ, but no one will say anything else. No comment. 2 ) The star MSNBC Reporter, 'embedded' with the 3rd Infantry Division, all of a sudden turns up dead from a blood clot?! This is the same division that is supposedly moving 'at will' into and around Baghdad nowadays. 3 ) Both sides claim control of Saddam International airport, but no one has any pictures to prove it. 4 ) Saddam is dead, now he's not, now he's a double, now he is dead, now he is not. 5 ) US Forces have taken control of buildings in Baghdad, but only for a few minutes to 'prove they could.' ??!!?? 6 ) US Troops have seized the information ministry, er, maybe not. (Dang that Iraqi information Minister that keeps showing up on TV to call US Troops cowards) 7 ) US Troops have launched 'the big one' - er maybe not just yet, but soon! 8 ) Hundreds, no, thousands of Iraqi soldiers are dead, but there are just a few US Soldiers that were only wounded. 9 ) The Iraqi people will greet our troops with open arms, er, well they are afraid to right now, but soon they will! Right now they are busy slipping in and out of uniforms so they can shoot at US troops from rooftops, but soon they will run out of ammo and THEN they will bring flowers to greet their liberators. Maybe. Eventually. 10) This whole thing is to disarm Saddam of his Weapons of Mass destruction, but now the US command has deemed it safe for the troops to take off the chem warfare suits. (Where are those dadgum WMD anyway?) 11) Never mind, US Troops are there to LIBERATE the IRAQI people, problem is they won't stay in uniform long enough to tell them apart. 12) There are thousands of people streaming into IRAQ from Jordan, Syria, Sudan and all the other neighboring countries to...help the IRAQI military! But wait, weren't they supposed to hate Saddam Hussein? Oh, and what happened to that other reporter guy, Peter Arnett? NBC & National Geographic fired him for telling the truth. More than once I have heard US commanders clearly state that they did not want a "fair fight", and then they are indignant when the Iraqis fight back with whatever means they have at their disposal. US Politicians are absolutely offended at a few pictures of POW's but then plaster hundreds of pictures all over the airwaves themselves. They demand adherence to the Geneva Convention, but what about those several hundred being held without charges in custody at Guantanamo in Cuba? US Troops are there to LIBERATE the Iraqi people and WILL NOT take over the country, well, at least not FOREVER. Of course there will be a military 'police' presence to maintain 'PEACE' by any measure of force required. This thing is NOT about oil, but that is all they have there, it was the very first objective to take control of, the administration in control of the US are all deeply connected to big oil, and now we have news that in fact deals are already being made and big oil is poised to move in as soon as it is safe. They have already sent in teams of specialists (at $50k per day) to put out the few fires that were started. Well, who really cares anyway? As long as the price of gasoline comes back down below $2 a gallon, what difference does it make if a few thousand third world peasants are killed? I mean after all, they live in huts and they are starving anyway, and, they are godless heathens that don't even believe in Jesus Christ! Just how did our oil get under their sand anyway? "The Iraqi people gotta know, see, they gotta know..they..will..be..liberated. And Saddam Hussein..will..be..removed..no..matter..how..long. .it..takes." GW Bush, 2003 http://www.hempusflag.com |
I smell a conspiracy. I hear walmart has tin foil on sale, better start making your hat.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: An interesting piece of info: HALF of the entire US military is currently in Iraq. HALF. They aren't going to be leaving any time soon. |
if half are in iraq, then that means the US military is 250,000 strong?
I think those numbers reflect half of the Active duty Army, but that is nowhere near the active duty forces total. When I was in 6 years ago, the Army had something like 400 to 500 thousand Active duty with another 300-500,000 reserve. Thats just the army mind you.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kvm_mkdb: 3 ) Both sides claim control of Saddam International airport, but no one has any pictures to prove it. |
Here, we started proving where we were.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dillerX: Here, we started proving where we were.
|
nice
i bet you no one lifted the seat in the bathroom before peeing either
Quote:
|
Originally posted by BRussell: I think this link puts the rest of the post in its appropriate context. |
Woah dude. Right on. It sure does!