 |
|
|
|
 |
sponger
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: OC, Cali
|
|
|
Of course the article is from some anti-Bush website, big suprise. oh and the poll is not very smart in my opinion either, but then again its from the LA/NY times.
If you are asked "Do you have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush?" people will go, oh my gosh, yes im concerned about loosing my civil liberties because all they have heard about was how the govt is spying on everyone (which is bs).
Then you're asked "Do you approve of spying without obtaining court warrants in order to reduce the threat of terrorism." "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism" is the main part, so of course people will say "why yes i do approve if it reduces the threat of terrorism"!!!!
Im assuming thats how the questions were asked given the way the results were stated. Bad poll if you ask me! And is there an article in the times talking about these results?? Because im not interested in this schmucks interpretation of it.
"And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy"
umm actually palestinians voted for hamas because of the corruption of the fatah party, more of a vote against that party than for hamas, so i don't see how the Bush adm. is responsible for Hamas winning. Nonsense!
Something on Paul ROberts from wikipedia:
"In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush...dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia" and "the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon"  
todays news:
U.N.: Iran Holds Black Market Papers to Build Atomic Bomb
hmmm i wonder what this dipshit has to say now
Last edited by sponger on Feb-01-2006 at 03:37
|
|
 Feb-01-2006 03:24 
|
|
|
|
|
sponger
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: OC, Cali
|
|
|
ummm, well im glad you responded to the first sentence of my post and ignored the rest.
its not just left-wing, its pretty far out there. im guessing they were critical of Clinton for not being liberal enough?
and that Mosqueda article, wow, now thats extreme.
"I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that "war" (slaughter)"
i didnt even have to read further.
"According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war"
where the hell did mosqueda get the figure of 200,000?? That war had the support of most of the world and the US was not alone in acting. So basically i assume the rest of the article is also BS!
If you want intelligent dissenting opinions i think youre better off listening to the DNC then some loony extremist websites. i dont know about you but when i watch tv news programs there are almost always both views expressed. dont tell me youve never heard anyone express their dissenting view of the Bush administration on tv.
Anyway, thats off the original topic, id rather you respond to my first post.
Last edited by sponger on Feb-01-2006 at 06:46
|
|
|
Feb-01-2006 06:37
|
|
|
|
|
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by sponger
ummm, well im glad you responded to the first sentence of my post and ignored the rest. |
Well, what do you want me to respond to - your assumptions regarding the polls or your opinion that the government isn't spying on everyone?
| quote: | | its not just left-wing, its pretty far out there. im guessing they were critical of Clinton for not being liberal enough? |
It's really only left-wing if you're basing it on a narrowly defined political spectrum, which in consideration of our country's Republican/Democrat duopoly is normal - so I won't hold that against you. Anyway, it's not like it's a Marxist or even a neo-con Trotskyist newsletter or anything leaning THAT FAR to the left.
From Wikipedia:
Running six to eight pages in length, the Counterpunch newsletter publishes primarily commentaries of Cockburn and St Clair with regular contributions by others. It is noted for its highly critical coverage of both Democratic and Republican politicians and its extensive reporting of environmental and trade union issues. Counterpunch carries on the tradition of muckraking journalism of earlier investigative journalists such as I.F. Stone and George Seldes.
| quote: | and that Mosqueda article, wow, now thats extreme.
"I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that "war" (slaughter)"
i didnt even have to read further.
"According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war"
where the hell did mosqueda get the figure of 200,000?? That war had the support of most of the world and the US was not alone in acting. So basically i assume the rest of the article is also BS! |
Again from Wikipedia, what you conveniently omitted:
Independent analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded. According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports.
Also, I don't think that he was refuting the fact that there were other countries involved in the coalition so I don't know where that's supposed to fit into the argument.
What they did fail to mention, however, is that the official death toll has been highly contested by more than just a few academics.
The Gulf War: how many Iraqis died? (Persian Gulf War)
Foreign Policy; 3/22/1993; Heidenrich, John G.
On February 27, 1991, as hostilities in Operation Desert Storm were about to cease, General Norman Schwarzkopf was repeatedly asked at a press conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to estimate the number of Iraqis killed. This was his response: "There were a very, very large number of dead in [the forward] units--a very, very large number of dead... When we went into the units ourselves, we found them in the trench lines." When prodded for an exact toll, he responded:
I don't think there has ever been, ever in the history of warfare, been a successful count of the dead.... That's because it is necessary to lay those people to rest [on the battlefield]...so I would probably say that no, there will never be an exact count... The people who will know best, unfortunately, are the families that won't see their loved ones come home.
Those few remarks represent the U.S. Central Command's (CENTCOM) most definitive position on the issue of Iraqi casualties. Even today, some two years later, the U.S. government still refuses to provide an official estimate of the number of Iraqi casualties. Whenever an unofficial estimate has slipped out, the Pentagon has quickly disavowed it with a restatement of its blanket policy.
What lies behind such extraordinary reluctance? Quite simply, fear. Senior officials fear that any estimate they release will provide ammunition to Pentagon critics. A high estimate could bring charges of barbarism. A low estimate might bring accusations of a coverup. And any estimate could evoke unwanted (and unfair) parallels between Desert Storm and the body count mentality of Vietnam. Senior officials, then, would rather not say anything at all.
Yet the damage has already been done, fueled by persistent rumors of massive Iraqi losses. Those rumors, ironically, were encouraged by Schwarzkopf's briefing. Delivered before the hostilities had completely ceased, much of it was based on initial field reports--the least reliable of all wartime information. When the general spoke of a "very, very large number" of Iraqi dead, he merely related what everyone already believed. It is now clear, however, that those initial reports were highly misleading.
The confusion has worsened over time. CENTCOM's refusal to make an estimate did not preclude others from trying. The most famous came from the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in May of 1991. The DIA had hoped to avoid the subject, but, compelled by an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act, it eventually provided this reluctant answer 1)
Upon review, it has been determined that little information is available which would enable this Agency to make an accurate assessment of Iraqi military casualties. An analysis of very limited information leads DIA to tentatively state the following ([with an] error factor of 50 per cent or higher):
Killed in action: Approx. 100,000 Wounded in action: Approx. 300,000 Deserters: Approx. 150,000
The error factor of 50 per cent is quite revealing. The DIA obviously wanted to play down the reliability of its figures. The Defense Department later disavowed them altogether.
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...id=1G1:13533436
Considering that the air campaign just in itself flew over 40,000 sorties in the first 3 weeks, I would imagine that the "official" numbers were more than just conservative. There are also many more highly inflated estimates which can be found all over the internet, but that's not really what I'm after.
| quote: | If you want intelligent dissenting opinions i think youre better off listening to the DNC then some loony extremist websites. i dont know about you but when i watch tv news programs there are almost always both views expressed. dont tell me youve never heard anyone express their dissenting view of the Bush administration on tv.
Anyway, thats off the original topic, id rather you respond to my first post. |
Well, unlike the majority of our country's uninformed, polarized population, I don't stereotype websites as "loony" when they venture beyond the bounds of the mainstream media's White House propagandized talking points. I look at all of the information, take note of it and then let my own due diligence run it's course. The mainstream media leaves little to no room for dissenting opinions - which is good for controlling the dialogue but bad for the health of our democracy.
And I'm not sure if you noticed, but the majority of the writers on that site are professionals.
|
|
|
Feb-01-2006 08:35
|
|
|
|
|
sponger
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: OC, Cali
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, what do you want me to respond to - your assumptions regarding the polls or your opinion that the government isn't spying on everyone? |
Both, since that article on that poll is what your post was about.
| quote: | | Again from Wikipedia, what you conveniently omitted: Independent analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded. According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports. |
Yes i omitted it for good reason : "analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates". And that estimate was "as high as 100,000" so i still don't see where he got 200,000.
here is another source: While estimates during the war had ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed, Western military experts now agree that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000 casualties.
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002.
But yet Mosqueda accuses the US of "slaughtering" 200,000 iraqis. Or maybe he got confused and meant to say that Saddam slaughtered 200,000 iraqis after the war, but that number would be way too low.
| quote: | | What they did fail to mention, however, is that the official death toll has been highly contested by more than just a few academics. |
of course the official death toll is contested, but not whether 20,000 iraqis were killed or 200,000!
"The Defense Department later disavowed them altogether"
You just made my point with that article, that 200,000 is just plain wrong.
Oh and thanx for that link to that anti-war website, im sorry but those kind of websites have just about as much credibility as a late night infomercial. (heard that line on some show)
"While 250,000 Iraqis were killed outright by the U.S."
Did you bother looking at the source of that statement??
New York Newsday_, August 10, 1991. Thats the intitial post war estimate, which was obviously way too high.
| quote: | | Well, unlike the majority of our country's uninformed, polarized population, I don't stereotype websites as "loony" when they venture beyond the bounds of the mainstream media's White House propagandized talking points. I look at all of the information, take note of it and then let my own due diligence run it's course. |
they are loony not because they criticise this admin. but because of the crap they say. You complain about WH propaganda, but do you really think youre going to get unbiased info. about the iraq war from an anti war website?? Not likely!
|
|
|
Feb-02-2006 03:08
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:31.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush
Anti-Purple Alliance.
