Iraq death tolls exceeds that of the war

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biased how?

see-no-evil.png


db
 
Here's something to think about...

"Their deaths brought to 116 the number of U.S. troops killed in hostilities since President Bush (news - web sites) declared major combat over on May 1, surpassing the 115 killed in the war launched on March 20 to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)."

So far the death toll in California caused by the raging fires is at thirty and they expect this number to climb dramamtically before it's all over. The fires in California are in direct link to Environmentalists waging war on the logging industry and not allowing them to thin out the forest areas so this kind of thing wouldn't happen and could be contained. Be a good neighbor and thank a Liberal for abundant forest fires, lack of electrical power and dependence on foreign oil. In fact give em a big old hug ;)

DRC
 
The fires in California are in direct link to Environmentalists waging war on the logging industry and not allowing them to thin out the forest areas so this kind of thing wouldn't happen and could be contained.

Right. The logging industry can't wait to cut down and mill all that scrub into 12X12s. Environmentalists are guilty of MURDER!!!!!! :what:

db
 
Libertarian tree hugger in me feels compelled to mention that past government fire suppression policies have more to do with our current forest fire problems than folks concerned with keeping open space open.

Also, if I lived in a dry western area and bought a house in the middle of a buncha trees, I'd have cut the brush and timber back well away from my house before I even got my stuff unpacked. Not that I don't feel bad for people's losses - I do - but some of the developments I've seen on TV in the last couple of days look like they were built without much forethought.

Back OT, it's really sad to see our kids dying. I'm afraid there'll be more to come...
 
The fires in California are in direct link to Environmentalists waging war on the logging industry and not allowing them to thin out the forest areas so this kind of thing wouldn't happen and could be contained.
Click to expand...

So basically, the forest fires are a result of the fact that the forests are there? OK, maybe. And if I chose to cut off my head I would never get brain cancer....
 
First, my comments are not construed to diminish the value of any American life lost in Iraq. The sacrifice made by our volunteer citizen soldier, who engaged himself willingly into this task, is heroism at its finest.

But what bothers me more than the sorrow I feel for the lost warriors and their loved ones is the willing obstruction of reporting all of the truth that is occuring in Iraq/A-stan, and the willingness of the Sheeple to believe the one sided incomplete crap being dished out by the media. The frustration is magnified but the inability to hope for any kind of balance to be presented by the Mass Media. Where is their conscience? (sp?)

I thought the free press, with its mantra of, "The people's right to know" had an ethical obligation to present the facts, all of them. Isn't it as much "news" to report the reopening of a power plant that was attended by hundreds of cheering Iraqi's? Guess not. It was not reported anywhere.

What about the fact that the conditions in post invasion Iraq are better than during Saddam's reign of terror. The bulk of the population is receiving water, electricity, schools are opening, athletic events are occuring, businesses are beginning to thrive. A police force is being built, laws are being contemplated, disparate groups of citizens are uniting to form a government based upon a free society (as understood by the culture in the area) as much as possible. In three or four years a paradigm will have occurred that will be good for the entire world. Why is it not allowed to be reported. Equally sad is the Democrat Party constantly bashes the administration without having any solutions or alternatives yet hoping to regain power through distortion and propaganda. Even sadder, if they get the presidency back and the legislature, they will need to either continue to stay the course or humiliate us. If they stay the course, that course will have been set by President Bush and they (Dems) stand to reap the credit because it will take some time to play out. Just like Clinton took credit for the foundation laid by President Reagan, and now Bush gets the discredit for the foundation laid by Clinton, Clinton's recession.

As for the United Nations being in control, what about the former Yugoslavia? The UN has been "in control" there for how long now? Have things changed any? Any progress made? Does anyone really believe if the UN left tomorrow, the day after the genocide would not start up again? The bulk of the Iraqi population supports the dismantling of the "Butcher of Baghdad's" regime. They hate the UN because the UN propped up Sadaam. Where is the reporting of that? Of course they are upset and discouraged at the same time. They are watching foreign terrorsits, supposedly in their name, kill and destroy and try to stop the orderly progression into the modern age of freedom. The man on the street prefers an American GI to Saddams's thugs and the worthless Blue Helmets. Look at the UN's successes in Africa..........having trouble thinking of one? I have friends who have friends on active duty in Iraq and A-stan and I get the benefit of e mails from "The Front". What a different story from those who are engaged there, as opposed to what you read or hear from the Leftist Press in America.

On the the selfish side, would one rather engage in the war on terror on Afghan or A-stan soil and kill the monsters in their lairs, or would you have them come here and fight? About oil? Cripes how stupid are those of you that knee jerk that one around. Sure it's about oil.....do you not want to drive your car, heat your home or have all the products that exist because of oil? Do you want OBL in charge of Opec? Sadaam? The Mullahs of the apostate Wahabist Islam? Well, we need alternative energy sources, they say.....no Duh! But what do we do in the meanwhile? Walk to the store and buy..........what. No food, the tractors don't run on water!

The more I write this, the more angry I get at those simplistic, stupid, moronish peacnicks who are mirrors of that jack ??? drunken, drugged up nit wit in California who said......"Can't we all just get along....? Well, I submit, no we can't. Especially when the ones who don't want to get along also want to kill you where you stand, and your children and your dogs and cats as well. THis is a cruel world, not nirvanna. Peace is through power not inaction. RANT MODE IS CRANKING UP.......whew, calm down...END OF RANT!

:banghead: :fire: :barf:
 
American soldiers will continue to be assassinated in Iraq until they have all been withdrawn. That is the conqueror’s burden.

~G. Fink
 
strange

we surpassed that milestone over a month ago, the death toll is now approaching 400. I guess they are parsing words and seperating "combat" deaths for other deaths. I remember reading somewhere that soldiers injured in combat who later died do not have to classified as combat deaths but do not have the source.


Either way, the death grip on real information coming out of Iraq is impressive. The last thing we need is the military allowing an pictures of flag draped caskets or dead or injured soldiers to show up anywhere before the election. Bush has been great about not attending to any soldiers or funerals and the media has be well behaved in not mentioning it or his lack of press conferences. There will be time for that when it is more politically expedient. the less average Americans know about Iraq, the better for the re-election effort.

My only fear is that some of the GOP in the House and Senate are starting to see Iraq as a big white albatross. Bush needs to clamp down on them and get them in line until after the election. Lotts' comments of "mowing them all down" are not flattering. Keeping Gen. Boykin in there is also a mistake. It politically mollifies some of the chrisitan base but the cost of that pandering is too high IMHO.

G. Fink has a point, we created the mess, we get to clean it up.
 
Hello Bountyhunter.

"So basically, the forest fires are a result of the fact that the forests are there?"

No. The forest fires running amok are a result of not thinning out and managing the forested areas. The fires were started by arsonists. Thick undergrowth concentrates the heat and intensity of the fires (more concentrated fuel) allowing them to spread with little resistance. When trees grow close together it makes it easier for a fire to spread like the Domino effect. Hence the reason the firefighters are having diffuclty containing the fire and are more or less doing preventative measures and little more. In essence they are waiting for the fire to basically burn down to a point where they can actually do something about it.

"OK, maybe. And if I chose to cut off my head I would never get brain cancer...."

Yes. If you cut off your head you will not, in fact, get brain cancer. Good observation ;)

DRC
 
So basically, the forest fires are a result of the fact that the forests are there? OK, maybe. And if I chose to cut off my head I would never get brain cancer....
Click to expand...
So to you, logging of any sort means 100% clearcut? Either the forest is there or the loggers have chopped the whole thing down?

There is good logging and there is bad logging. Facinating that you can't see a distinction.
Any news story that presents facts which are not flattering to the Bush administration is automatically asumed to be biased.
Click to expand...
By some, yeah.
On the other hand, others automatically assume anything not flattering to Bush and Co to be unbiased and gospel truth.

Both groups are deluding themselves.
past government fire suppression policies have more to do with our current forest fire problems than folks concerned with keeping open space open.
Click to expand...
Yup. Is tradeoff.



Americans soldiers will die as long as they're on assignment. Period.
 
Hi Davey. It seems biased becuase it is uniformly negative, and because of the language it uses. Presenting only the facts that support a particular point of view, and doing so in a negative and defeatist way; yeah, seems biased to me. Oh and nice pic btw. Ad hominem is valid if you use pictures instead of words.
 
By golly, you're right.

Bad News = Bias, specifically the filthy liberal media.

Good News = Fair and Balanced.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I was having trouble following W's reasoning that the escalating frequency of attacks on our people is proof that we are winning. You have shown me the error of my ways.

The minkey picture was directed at those who listen only to sources they already agree with, and pretend that bad things happen only to bad people.

db
 
Way to ignore what I said Davey. Let me repeat it with emphasis
It seems biased becuase it is uniformly negative, and because of the language it uses. Presenting only the facts that support a particular point of view, and doing so in a negative and defeatist way; yeah, seems biased to me.
Click to expand...

I have never been able to make up my mind as to the appropriateness of our actions in Iraq. Regardless, this is the sort of "journalism" that made the Tet Offensive into a political victory even though it was a abject failure militarily. I have no objection to hearing bad news. I never said that the info was untrue. I said I suspect the choice of what is presented, and the way it is presented. I want to know the truth of what's happening, not just a "we're screwed now" alarmist recounting of every bad thing that's happening. I want to see both sides. Let me ask you this. When Fox News reports something good happening in Iraq, do you accept it unquestioningly, or do you suspect their motives? If you do suspect them of bias, does this mean that you are being unreasonable? So why does questioning this report seem so unreasonable? And yer minky's still ad hominem:p
 
During the 50s when I was in school, we would see films of how wonderful the logging industry kept the Forrest. They would cut down the dead trees and and they would thin the Forrest. Much the same way a hunter would now thin the deer population. They would talk about putting fire lanes in the Forrest so that fires would not jump from one location to another. That was what we learned. Also while the loggers cut down the trees, they would plant saplings to replace what they cut.

Now everythiing dead is left for the little animals in the Forest. You know, like Thumper and Bambi. Instead of helping these little creatures, the Forrest fires are now killing all the animals that the tree huggers are trying to save. Don't make sense to me.

Just think about those soldiers. It is very sad to know that many more may die. Think about the other wars. How many died in World War I? --4,345,000. These were US Troops. Every death is very sad. And I believe every man or woman who is in uniform is a hero. I also believe they know more about the connection between Bin Laden and Sadaam then they can tell us. I think they are doing this to make a safer America and this is why the soldiers are there. I also know of a soldier who came back and was killed in an automobile accident. We need to count how many people are killed in the drug wars in our cities. I'll bet it is more in a week than the ones killed in Araq.

Mrs. Toro


_________________________________________
Ecclesiastes 2:26
For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.
 
I didn't ignore what you wrote. I just couldn't envision how to report on dead American soldiers in an upbeat way.

Defeatist? See my comment about "more dead soldiers = progress".

And,

Do you have a lisonce for that minkey?

You do bring up an interesting point, viz, can a picture of a non-hominid mammal ever be ad hominem?

db
 
Dave,
Can you spot the difference in the following three reports?

1. The Big Bad Wolf maliciously destroyed the homes and livelihoods of two downtrodden little pigs in a violent attempt to slaughter and consume each of the peaceful, helpless hogs so he could grow even fatter. A third brave pig built a suitably strong home and was able to gather his friends to ward off the marauding Wolf.

2. A hungry wolf in search of food huffed, puffed and blew down two pigs' houses but was stopped at the third pig's house because it was built of brick and was therefore too strong to blow down.

3. Three dirty swine are holed up in a compound today after evading capture. Twice a heroic Wolf was able to breach the filthy perimeter of a pig's home, and twice the occupants escaped detention - running to join their cult leader in his bunker.

Seeing bias does not make someone quite the willfully ignorant individual you make them out to be.

All that said ... the article struck me as only mildly biased, if at all.
 
cordex: that was priceless. A fine illustration of the use of sarcasm in serious debate.
And if you'll recall I said the report "seems a little biased." I was referring to defeatist reporting in general with my more drastic comments. Should have made that more clear.
 
Let's try this...

DaveB,

"I just couldn't envision how to report on dead American soldiers in an upbeat way."

There is no upbeat way to report on dead soldiers but when one reports on the death toll and then follows up with how bad everything is in Iraq and that we're in a "quagmire" and Bush has no direction and is accomplishing nothing all the while parading pictures of destruction and reporting about killing you get a particular picture in your head. Is it your own picture or one that's been fed to you?

What you don't hear about are the things that are going on in terms of progress. Why? Because good news doesn't sell, but it's still important and paints a completely different picture. 76% of Iraqi's polled want the US there. The governing body being set up in Iraq is a conglomeration of many different groups all working together to get things running and manageable. Afghanistan has almost completed its constitution and has set up a working government that is working with the US on policy to the region. People are going back to work, business is growing and people are close to having a representative government something they've never had.

Are there still attacks going on? Yes. Is it because we made these people mad or that Bush failed? No. These people are terminally mad and could care less about Bush and have their eye on the destruction of anything that goes against their beliefs. They are nondiscrimenant when it comes to destruction and they were there doing what they're doing now long before we ever got there. The major conflict is over but the war goes on and no one except the press has ever said otherwise.

Take care,

DRC
 
DRC, I understand that anything that is seen is open to interpretation, and anything written is a product of biases and beliefs and filters, whether intentionally or not.

My issue with you is that you seem to see bad news reported badly as the result of bias, and I see virtually all reporting as a result of spin and manipulation. The US military controls almost all reporting in Iraq. Isn't it logical that what we see is some of the most positive (for US consumption) stuff there is, and that the really awful stuff is hidden? This is classic propaganda technique: skew everything to one side, so that the other side seems extreme.

You mention a poll. Zogby himself says that his results were 'spun' by the admin so as to paint as positive a picture as possible. He doesn't quite use the "LYING" word, but he comes real close.

I'm going home now; we can continue this tomorrow.

However, one more dig is in order.

Bush says that the attacks are the work of terrorists, Hussein loyalists, Al Queida, etc (outside agitators).

Is it possible that the attacks are being carried out by the military-age population of an Islamic country that was invaded and occupied by a 'Christian' power? Is it possible that the Iraqi people's dislike of SH is less than their dislike of being occupied?

The surest way to bring together the people of a country is to give them a common enemy. Screw Saddam. We're the enemy now.

db
 
We've got problems in Afghanistan too. :(

Senators Worried Afghanistan Falling Apart

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two influential U.S. senators questioned the stability of the Afghan government on Wednesday and warned the U.S. envoy and ambassador-designate to Kabul that the country may fall apart on his watch.

"We are in jeopardy of losing Afghanistan to become a failed state again," Sen. Joseph Biden told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing on the nomination of Zalmay Khalilzad as ambassador to Kabul.

"Are you confident that somehow you are not going to go out for an ambassadorship in which things, I wouldn't say fall apart at the seams, but nevertheless seem to be continually unraveling?" asked Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the committee.
…
The Bush administration has given Afghanistan a lower priority than Iraq, as reflected in its request that the U.S. Congress approve $20 billion for rebuilding Iraq and about $1 billion for Afghanistan.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/afghan_usa_dc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=190116

Some stats for Iraq only:

TOTAL US wounded in Iraq since March 20th: 2076 (Avg of 9.39 per day)
TOTAL US fatalities: 358
TOTAL UK fatalities: 51
TOTAL fatalities from other members of the "coalition": 5
Average of 1.86 "coalition" fatalities per day for 223 days.
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

About 13,000 Iraqis, including as many as 4,300 civilians, were killed during the major combat phase of the Iraq war, according to a US research group.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223523.stm
 
Last edited:
Just a thought about how gleefully our liberal media reports the death toll in Iraq:

The war lasted what, a month? Two?

It ended when; in April? May?

What month is it now? :scrutiny:


Thank you
 
There is no upbeat way to report on dead soldiers but when one reports on the death toll and then follows up with how bad everything is in Iraq and that we're in a "quagmire" and Bush has no direction and is accomplishing nothing all the while parading pictures of destruction and reporting about killing you get a particular picture in your head. Is it your own picture or one that's been fed to you?
Click to expand...

Or how last night dan rather reported the death of three more Americans in Iraq and then smugly says, "but President Bush still claims he's making progress in Iraq."


Yessir, no bias there.

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Breaking news -- California recall vote STOPPED
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Silver Bullet
S
M
  • Locked
Russian Citizens Fighting Chechens?
Replies
13
Views
899
AZRickD
A
M
  • Locked
Obviously this is America's fault...
Replies
9
Views
752
Sergeant Bob
S
J
  • Locked
Sister Sledge to spout anti-gun flabber-jabber in the U.K.
Replies
8
Views
515
Stickjockey
S
R
  • Locked
Mohammed the lawyer is in the U.S.
Replies
12
Views
603
JohnBT
J
Back
Top