mudcat.org: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Why no new Iraq thread?

beardedbruce 17 Mar 06 - 09:39 AM
Azizi 17 Mar 06 - 05:23 AM
Teribus 17 Mar 06 - 02:39 AM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Mar 06 - 01:11 AM
Ron Davies 16 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 09:09 PM
GUEST,dianavan 16 Mar 06 - 09:07 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 08:44 PM
Alba 16 Mar 06 - 08:40 PM
CarolC 16 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM
Alba 16 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM
John MacKenzie 16 Mar 06 - 07:14 PM
Azizi 16 Mar 06 - 07:12 PM
Ebbie 16 Mar 06 - 07:10 PM
The Fooles Troupe 16 Mar 06 - 07:10 PM
number 6 16 Mar 06 - 06:49 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Mar 06 - 06:32 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 06:29 PM
CarolC 16 Mar 06 - 06:20 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 06:19 PM
The Fooles Troupe 16 Mar 06 - 06:16 PM
Azizi 16 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM
Andy Jackson 16 Mar 06 - 06:12 PM
katlaughing 16 Mar 06 - 06:03 PM
number 6 16 Mar 06 - 06:00 PM
Sorcha 16 Mar 06 - 05:55 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM
Peace 16 Mar 06 - 05:29 PM
Richard Bridge 16 Mar 06 - 05:25 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 09:39 AM

Teribus,

There are those here who do not feel that the people who blew up the Dome are proper targets for arrest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Azizi
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:23 AM

It takes a lot of chuzpah to use the four words "all well and good" to describe anything going on with the Iraq "war"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:39 AM

It's a funny thing but I have just been watching this being reported by CNN's Nic Robertson(Senior International Correspondent) live from the area.

His report stated that unlike previous cordon and search operations this one was targeting specific sites, six isolated farms to date. The operation was instigated and planned by Iraqi forces with US forces providing support. 48 people had been arrrested, of which 17 have been released, the remaining 31 have been detained. At these farms caches of weapons, detonators, timing devices, explosives and high powered cordless telephones have been seized. He also very clearly stated that these swoop and search operations had met NO resistance and that as of a few minutes ago there had been NO casualties.

Right now that as a report of what is happening is all well and good. I have no reason to believe that Nic Robertson is lying, he is after all CNN's senior man on the spot and his job is to report what he sees. Now what about the presentation of the report.

Nic Robertson's audio report was presented as a sort of voice-over to video coverage of what appeared to be the initial stages of the assault on Falluja. For almost the entire length of the report any viewer was confronted with nightime footage of what was a fairly intensive fire fight in a location that was clearly a built up urban area. Now why was this done? remember the voice you are listening to is telling you NO resistance, NO casualties, that specific isolated farms were being targeted. I'd certainly like to ask CNN what they were playing at, and can clearly see why those posting to this thread above believe that people are getting the crap bombed out of them - According to Nic Robertson, that is simply not happening.

Almost immediately after this report as a follow on Nic was back on air, with coverage showing troops being flown into the area, the bulk of the aircraft were shown as being transport helicopters, Chinooks and Black Hawks. He reported seeing Chinook helicopters on the ground right next to the targeted farms, now that you most certainly do not do if you are under fire, and it tends to support the content of his earlier broadcast.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 01:11 AM

"What is the point of such an air strike?"

Uses up the munitions, which have to be replaced. The weapons manufacturers are laughing all the way to the Rivera.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM

What's interesting is that it may distract all right--but distracting from Bush's 34% approval rating is not its only appeal to him. It will also distract from something much more important--polls are after all just snapshots--the next will be different-- and can be heavily influenced by wording.

Far more important than the current "Aw gee" campaign (tip of the hat to Robin) -- or whatever W calls it-- is the fact that hardly any progress is being made towards a "unity government" in Iraq--and that's what Bush has hung his presidency on. No matter how many "insurgents" are killed, it won't help Bush unless a stable Iraq government results--and soon--before the sorely tried patience of the US public is gone.

But the Kurds have never wanted to be part of Iraq--ever since the "birth" of Iraq, a jerry-built structure put together in 1921--not, as some think, a civilization thousands of years old. Churchill brought the Kurds (unwillingly) into Iraq, at the request of the imported leader (from Arabia!)--to try to balance the Shiite majority. The Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. have nothing to do with modern Iraq except as tourist draws and possible sources of propaganda (a la Mussolini and the Romans). Both the Kurds and the Shiites would be happy to control their own sections of Iraq--and the oil that goes with them. The Kurds are already doing deals with international oil companies--and not consulting the "Iraq government". Their de facto independence would be helped even more with a census and referendum in Kirkuk--which is in the constitution.

That would leave the Sunnis in central Iraq (but also Baghdad with its boiling cauldron of rivalries) out of luck--very little oil in central Iraq.

I understand the constitution also states that while income from current oil deposits is to be divided on a per capita basis among all Iraqis, new deposits will be the property of the province where found. Again, bad luck for the Sunnis--the Sunni minority, who ruled the majority for several decades.

As a result, even after an acceptable leader is found --(the parliamentary session today lasted 40 minutes, then adjourned until further notice)--either the constitution must be changed drastically or the insurgency will likely have a bottomless pool of recruits.

It will be a long road to stability in Iraq--if they ever get there--a breakup is at least as likely.

This attack is just a smokescreen for the continuing impasse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM

'"More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the US military said in a statement about the attack designed to "clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra," 95 km north of Baghdad.

The military said the operation was expected to continue over several days against insurgent targets in Salahuddin province, where Samarra is a key city.'

from

here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:09 PM

Is there any chance that Congress can pull in the reins?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:07 PM

30,000 civilian deaths since the invasion of Iraq. Why?

How many insurgents have they actually killed?

The latest assault seems to have resulted in the capture of one man suspected of supporting Al qaeda.

The cost of this?

Four to eleven civilians depending on who's telling the story and plenty of U.S. tax dollars. Seems a pretty high price for one captured 'enemy'. Why do they have to bomb indiscriminately? Seems to me that police action would have done the job without so much destruction.

What is the point of such an air strike?

I think May 1st would be a good day to just stop contributing to this war machine. People should walk off the job and protest in the streets. Refuse to go back to work until the war is over. Hit them in the pocket book and help your neighbors in need.

I think a little personal sacrifice from U.S. citizens and their allies might be in order.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:44 PM

War it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:40 PM

"I reiterate .. unfortunately the troops and the citizens of Iraq are the pawns."


As are the citizens of America it would seem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM

I reiterate .. unfortunately the troops and the citizens of Iraq are the pawns.

Yes, this is true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM

"As for Iraq well, I'm all Iraqed out" That's my worry Giok. That people are becoming Iraq'd out.
They are done worrying altogther about Afghanistan and already refocusing on Iran.
I read last week that 85% of the Troops in Iraq still think that Saddam Insane was involved in the 9/11 attacks!

The White House issued their National Security Strategy today. Not what I would call a good read!
Definetly not for the faint hearted. It is a total rejection of the criticism and doubts rasied by many and filled with the arrogance that we have come to expect from this White House.
"Stay the F'n course" is the WARcry and "pre-emptive" is another on top of the Bushspeak list.

Who next is my question...as I said back when Bush got back in, a lot can happen in 4 years. A lot has happened and it's not good, not good at all and there are still 2 years of those 4 left. Worrying, frightening to think just how much more damage can be done under the torn and meaningless banner which reads Defending America

The "strike' today was an propaganda move.
A spit directly into the face of 62% of Americans that think this President's attitude and actions in Iraq (and in many other areas of this Administration's Foreign Policy) are simply wrong!

I believe no matter what Americans or any other World Citizens think is of a little importance to this Administration as they are not in the Business of working for the good of the American People or for the good of any other People around the World. They are simply in Business.

So to all those people who stepped up to the Diebold machine and choose George this one is for you. How do you feel about George now? If possible and without the usual blahblah, can any of you give some meaningful HOPE and assurance that all will be well here and that every Human Being that has willingly given or lost their Life due to the actions and policies of this Administration did not die for a lie! I, for one, would sure appreciate reading a post like that right now. I really would.

I don't usually get into these political threads but I have to say that, F*** me, I am so angry tonight and I am tired of being treated like a moron by morons who think that somehow I and many others cannot see through this crap.
How dumb do these arrogant bastards in this administration think people are!!
Yeah George "Mission Accomplished", Mission Impossible more like!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:14 PM

You need a fairer more open and honest way of running the elections too.
You also want to put a cap on political expenditure on election campaigns, so that it's not the best funded who get elected, but the best qualified.
As for Iraq well, I'm all Iraqed out.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:12 PM

See this quote from the dailykos dairy-"Bombs Away -- edited}
by Maryscott OConnor {Thu Mar 16, 2006} :

"See no evil, feel no evil.
One of the biggest reasons people in this country don't identify with the suffering of people in other countries - esp. countries and peoples we happen to be bombing - is that they (U.S. citizens) are kept hermetically sealed from our military's actions. Our corporate media self-censors, so no one ever sees the bloody, disatrous, and unspeakable results of our bombs. The inevitable result is that body counts and "casualties" are nothing more than a number in most peoples' minds.

by Oaktown Girl on Thu Mar 16, 2006 "

-snip-

That dairy contains graphic photographs of injuried Iraqis as well as more than 400 comments.

To read it, click HERE


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:10 PM

He's probably looking forward to saying 'Mission Accomplished'. Again.

You know, I'm not all that keen any more on the kind of representative government that we have in the USA. We need a non-violent way of changing our government faster than every four years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:10 PM

Funny. I seem to remember the last 'bomb the crap out of them' publicity stunt is still continuing to have negative feedback. as evidenced in the stepped up insurgency still going on.

"When will they ever learn?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: number 6
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:49 PM

I reiterate .. unfortunately the troops and the citizens of Iraq are the pawns.

sIx


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:32 PM

What happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?


It vanished as soon as George troubleyou had destroyed their capability to do unto him Azizi.

When God gave him teeth, he ruined a perfectly good arsehole.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:29 PM

It will be interesting to see poll results in a few days. And what Congress has to say. Wonder if it was a 'worthwhile' military mission or a trial balloon to see what Americans think?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:20 PM

I guess I'm not surprised. Bush's approval numbers needed a bit of a boost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:19 PM

Better link here, I hope.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:16 PM

What comes after shock, awe...

'Aw Gee!'??

Anyway all the trouble-making hypothetical pontificators are over in the Iran threads now - Even Bush wants us to be 'moving on' you know...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM

I agree. Bombing a country to smithereens is an insane way to bring peace & democracy to that country.

What happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Andy Jackson
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:12 PM

I'm with sorcha on this one!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:03 PM

I have a terrible and sick feeling about this. I shall do all the work I know for Peace and an end to his insanity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: number 6
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:00 PM

Operation Swarmer .... devised to distract attention from Bush, big military public relations maneaver ... unfortuantely the troops are the pawns.

Anyway ... what a way to bring democracy to Iraq, keep bombing the hell out of them.

sIx


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:55 PM

Because I don't do political threads????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM

"Biggest US air strike since invasion

Associated Press
BAGHDAD, March 16. — US forces today launched what was termed the largest air assault since the US-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the US military said. US ground troops and the Iraqi army participated.
"More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said of the attack designed to "clear a suspected insurgent operating area north-east of Samarra," 95 km north of Baghdad."

from

here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:29 PM

No news on it here yet, RB. Not on the 'net, anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:25 PM

Biggest strike in Iraq since the start of "shock and awe". Why no new thread about what the idiot is up to now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 18 February 10:34 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.