Guest Posted March 30, 2003 To continue the discussion on media coverage, here's an interesting article Warning: Picture of dead WW2 soldiers, not graphic The PG-Rated War - Time Magazine It discusses how good it is really to shield the viewers from the brutal realities of war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted March 30, 2003 Am I the only one that remembers the US reports that chemical munitions were likely moved south in preparation for the US invasion? Isnt it strange that Rummy is now talking this way? Sometimes I wonder if they are getting their intel from a secret decoder ring, and a copy of a Baghdad newspaper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted March 30, 2003 Rumsfeld is the best reason I've seen in a while to dissolve the Secretary of Defense cabinet position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 31, 2003 I just don't understand this attitude of "well, since the war has started, all of you who were against it should be supporting it". Why should our beliefs and morals change just because action has commenced? And no, noone I know is against the troops, which is another thing being thrown around. No anti-war people I know hold anything against the troops. It's not like Vietnam with misguided hippies, I doubt anyone will be spitting on soldiers or calling them baby killers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just don't understand this attitude of "well, since the war has started, all of you who were against it should be supporting it". Why should our beliefs and morals change just because action has commenced? And no, noone I know is against the troops, which is another thing being thrown around. No anti-war people I know hold anything against the troops. It's not like Vietnam with misguided hippies, I doubt anyone will be spitting on soldiers or calling them baby killers.<span id='postcolor'> It's not about supporting the war, its about supporting the troops. And the troops aren't going to want to see a bunch of people whining about a war and calling their president a terrorist. It's just not good for morale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not about supporting the war, its about supporting the troops. And the troops aren't going to want to see a bunch of people whining about a war and calling their president a terrorist. It's just not good for morale. <span id='postcolor'> Your assuming all of the military personnel like the president. I'm sure there are many out there who would like to string the bastard up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 31 2003,02:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not about supporting the war, its about supporting the troops. Â And the troops aren't going to want to see a bunch of people whining about a war and calling their president a terrorist. Â It's just not good for morale.<span id='postcolor'> Â Do you suggest that those who oppose the war should keep quiet in order to boost the troops morale? Actually, I don't give a fuck about the troops morale. They have chosen to become soldiers. So they have to live with it. It's not my responsability - or any others who oppose the war - to keep the troops happy! Why should I help the troops to be as good soldiers as possible when civilians and soldiers are killed by the very same people. Maybe it makes sense to protest against this war - maybe the troops morale are reduced and more people survive because of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 31 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Do you suggest that those who oppose the war should keep quiet in order to boost the troops morale?<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not about supporting the war, its about supporting the troops. <span id='postcolor'> Protesting the war = fine, but support the troops. Tie a yellow ribbon around your car antenna. Do them the courtesy of not burning the flag or spitting on them when they get back from fighting for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 31 2003,03<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> I would never disrespect a soldier by spitting on him or burning the flagg. But I would definately not support him in any way. He's just doing his job - it's his profession. Would you support your local icecream salesman because he's doing his job? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 30 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just don't understand this attitude of "well, since the war has started, all of you who were against it should be supporting it". Why should our beliefs and morals change just because action has commenced? And no, noone I know is against the troops, which is another thing being thrown around. No anti-war people I know hold anything against the troops. It's not like Vietnam with misguided hippies, I doubt anyone will be spitting on soldiers or calling them baby killers.<span id='postcolor'> It's not about supporting the war, its about supporting the troops. And the troops aren't going to want to see a bunch of people whining about a war and calling their president a terrorist. It's just not good for morale.<span id='postcolor'> This time there is only one thing left to say to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 31, 2003 I would never condone anyone spitting on soldiers, or calling them names. They are just men doing a job. But, by the same token, I don't feel any special need to keep quiet about my opposition to the war to keep them feeling good about themselves. And I don't feel any need to barrack (root) for them. If they are soldiers dedicated to a cause and serving their government, then they should be able to deal with the public not supporting the war. If not, maybe they aren't army material. They aren't there to win a popularity contest, they are there to follow orders. Of course I hope they all come home safe, but I also hope the same for the Iraqi troops. But after all, they would all be a lot safer if there was no war at all, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Die Alive 0 Posted March 31, 2003 LOLOLOLOLOLOL Best ANTI-WAR protest sign EVER! I'd like to see someone try to defend this poster.... LOL -=Die Alive=- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tora 0 Posted March 31, 2003 Yup - They'd be safer. Just hang out at the WTC....Uhh... hmmm.... That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yup - They'd be safer. Â Just hang out at the WTC....Uhh... hmmm.... Â Â That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Ah, those would be the ties that there is no proof of? Can you get it through your heads, S11 was not the fault of Iraq and everyone else in the middle east, but a small group of radicals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Othin 0 Posted March 31, 2003 I think there is a difference between the public not supporting the war and not supporting the troops. It dosen't bother me that people are protesting against the war at all, it's a good thing as long as it's peaceful. I think the majority of Americans that are protesting against the war aren't protesting against the troops themselves, just what they've been tasked with doing. I don't think it's really even an issue, most people can differentiate between the two sides. Many of the people protesting even have family or friends in the military. There are a few extremists out there of course, I was trying to find a pic of a protesters poster that said "I support our troops shooting their officers". I'd like to have a few words with the person holding that sign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,041)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yup - They'd be safer. Just hang out at the WTC....Uhh... hmmm.... That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Ah, those would be the ties that there is no proof of? Can you get it through your heads, S11 was not the fault of Iraq and everyone else in the middle east, but a small group of radicals.<span id='postcolor'> u forget they are muslim that automatically makes them all terrorests in the eyes of the US. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 31, 2003 It's amazing, but there is a definite mindset in many Americans that Iraq IS somehow responsible for S11, with no evidence being offered. I can't belive how much S11 is being used as a justification for this war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 31 2003,05:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,165)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yup - They'd be safer. Â Just hang out at the WTC....Uhh... hmmm.... Â Â That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Ah, those would be the ties that there is no proof of? Can you get it through your heads, S11 was not the fault of Iraq and everyone else in the middle east, but a small group of radicals.<span id='postcolor'> u forget they are muslim that automatically makes them all terrorests in the eyes of the US.<span id='postcolor'> On that topic, check out this link I heard an interview with the author on radio here last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On that topic, check out this link I heard an interview with the author on radio here last year.<span id='postcolor'> Jack G. Shaheen? - are you sure he is american. I mean the name sounds irish doesn't it? Of course, now I see! The irish have a history way back with Libya and Gadaffi right? Gadaffi is evil, harbours terrorists and are known to mingle with Al Queda right? And we KNOW Gadaffi is trying to make weapons of massdestruction right? So, shouldn't we imprison Shahen and liberate Libya after Iraq? Jack G. Shaheen? When I come to think of it - it doesn't really sound irish! Could the name be arab perhaps? Yeah - he's not american! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Not all of us. Â Just the intelligent people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Not all of us. Â Just the intelligent people. <span id='postcolor'> Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Not all of us. Â Just the intelligent people. <span id='postcolor'> Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, that training camp must be right next doors to the chemical weapons plant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 31 2003,09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, that training camp must be right next doors to the chemical weapons plant.<span id='postcolor'> Well, besides being sarcastic, you haven't said anything new. Indeed, the US concluded (at least I think they did) that it is not a WMD site and so they have said. What's your point? That everything the US says, it retracts a week later? OK, if you think so. All I did was point out a current reference to an assumption on the part of coalition forces. When proof or questioning of the report appears, I'm sure that you or I or anyone else here for that matter will see it and link to it here, just as has been done until now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted March 31, 2003 So, are the Iraq ties to Al Quada like "Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon"? Two words: tenuous, unsubstantiated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, are the Iraq ties to Al Quada like "Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon"?<span id='postcolor'> Don't know about that. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Two words: tenuous, unsubstantiated. <span id='postcolor'> I never said otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
