U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed 9-11 count

2456

Comments

  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    flywallyfly wrote:
    This story implies that the two events are related but in reality are distinct from each other, unless you are Bush and the neocons. 9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq War except it was used to fool Americans into backing it. Although they have no connection to each other, both sets of 3000 deaths are extremely sad.

    The only way the two events are involved is the fact that Bush used the fallout from 9/11 and won over (half of) the American Public by inducing fear that terrorists were in Iraq and we had to go after them. So yeah, Bush is the only reason they're related. We all should be angry that we lost 3,000 more by Bush's intentional and incompetent war. Instead of making a difference to our loss of 3,000 people as a result of 9/11, he sent in our willful men and women who we lost in addition to the loss of 9/11. And what has he accomplished from it? Nothing.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    gue_barium wrote:
    The freedom of the press was as alive and well, maybe moreso, during ww2, as it is today.
    MUCH moreso. You don't even see journalists drilling the authority figures on tough issues.
    It's become a "controlled-speech" zone.
    gue_barium wrote:
    Although a cherished right of the people, freedom of the press is different from other liberties of the people in that it is both individual and institutional. It applies not just to a single person's right to publish ideas, but also to the right of print and broadcast media to express political views and to cover and publish news. A free press is, therefore, one of the foundations of a democratic society, and as Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." Indeed, as society has grown increasingly complex, people rely more and more on newspapers, radio, and television to keep abreast with world news, opinion, and political ideas. One sign of the importance of a free press is that when antidemocratic forces take over a country, their first act is often to muzzle the press.

    This is what the Bush administration has done. From threatening to throw journalists in jail or to have them fired, the media in America is well controlled. The great journalists in the past who have "gone after" the story to find the truth are no more. They've been either silenced, fired, have become frustrated or just gone. The mainstream we hear and read are exactly what the gov't wants us to read. There are no scandals or secrets to uncover, because people want to keep their jobs. A muzzle has been put on free speech, and in that regards, a muzzle has been put on free press.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    miller8966 wrote:
    Yes but it was not as anti-american as it is today.
    That's because other countries have more freedom of free press than the U.S. does. You really think that you're getting all the facts from what you see on tv, don't you...
  • miller8966
    miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Jeanwah wrote:
    That's because other countries have more freedom of free press than the U.S. does. You really think that you're getting all the facts from what you see on tv, don't you...

    Well Jean you live in america right? ANd you seem to be getting facts, am i right?

    But oh no! its the big bad bush administration trying to stop you from getting those facts.

    And what other countries are you talking about Jean? I have io in demand..i can see the BBC news; shit i can even open up the ny times and be fed all the liberal garbage i need.
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    miller8966 wrote:
    Well Jean you live in america right? ANd you seem to be getting facts, am i right?
    Yes, and No! None of us are getting the facts.
    But oh no! its the big bad bush administration trying to stop you from getting those facts.

    And what other countries are you talking about Jean? I have io in demand..i can see the BBC news; shit i can even open up the ny times and be fed all the liberal garbage i need.
    Countries I'm talking about are those who go to the public to get news, political news from the People. The protestors in the streets, the opinions of those who have them. Protestors of Bush or the War are hidden here and get little, if any, publicity. They're kept under wraps. "Liberal" biased news still isn't facts. I'm talking about journalists who can get through the BS and dig deep to expose the well-kept secrets. It's what journalists did in the old days, which is their job, but now get threats of jail-time.
  • miller8966
    miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Yes, and No! None of us are getting the facts.


    Countries I'm talking about are those who go to the public to get news, political news from the People. The protestors in the streets, the opinions of those who have them. Protestors of Bush or the War are hidden here and get little, if any, publicity. They're kept under wraps. "Liberal" biased news still isn't facts. I'm talking about journalists who can get through the BS and dig deep to expose the well-kept secrets. It's what journalists did in the old days, which is their job, but now get threats of jail-time.

    You couldnt hurt national security in the old days either for a news story......
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    the armed services are doing a hell of a job of returning most every one home in one piece.

    'in one piece' you say? So the 50,000 wounded U.S service personnel don't count then?

    http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    miller8966 wrote:
    sometimes war is needed.

    So when exactly are you going to put your money where your mouth is and join up Miller?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    gue_barium wrote:
    The freedom of the press was as alive and well, maybe moreso, during ww2, as it is today.

    Or maybe not.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    miller8966 wrote:
    Yes but it was not as anti-american as it is today.

    So you believe that the mainstream media in America is Anti-American?

    That is the most ridiculous statement I've read on the message board. Even Dino's posts don't top that one.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    miller8966 wrote:
    You couldnt hurt national security in the old days either for a news story......
    Oh, I forgot, you can't say BOO! without it being directly meant to be aimed at National Security.
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    See what happens when American voters become complacent. we could have ended this in 2004, but NOOOOOOOOOO. American's had to put Bush back in office.

    If you vote for a guy who thinks he's on a mission from God, you get what you get.
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    enharmonic wrote:
    See what happens when American voters become complacent. we could have ended this in 2004, but NOOOOOOOOOO. American's had to put Bush back in office.

    If you vote for a guy who thinks he's on a mission from God, you get what you get.

    Even though I didnt want to see Bush win in 04, and I think Kerry would have been a little better at least, John Kerry made no promises that he would end the war, and in fact said if he had to do it all over again he would still vote for the war. In 04 we had to pro war candidates running against each other. There is no guarantee Kerry would have ended the war by now.
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    With a Republican congress, you can bet that nothing would have been done.

    That is why I am glad that those jackasses lost the congress. They would have needlessly stonewalled Kerry...just as they kept Clinton fighting for his political life when they ALL should have been keeping an eye on the shop. I blame the Republican congress more than any President for our lack of preparation prior to 9/11. They were so blood thirsty and self serving that tey put their own agenda before the security of this country.

    Bush has enough American soldier and Iraqi civilian blood on his hands to tarnish any accomplishment of his administration. History will not be kind to him, I assure you.
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    So you believe that the mainstream media in America is Anti-American?

    That is the most ridiculous statement I've read on the message board. Even Dino's posts don't top that one.


    you must not watch the mainstream american news. most of it is anti bush which isnt necessarily anti american but it goes hand in hand.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    enharmonic wrote:
    With a Republican congress, you can bet that nothing would have been done.

    That is why I am glad that those jackasses lost the congress. They would have needlessly stonewalled Kerry...just as they kept Clinton fighting for his political life when they ALL should have been keeping an eye on the shop. I blame the Republican congress more than any President for our lack of preparation prior to 9/11. They were so blood thirsty and self serving that tey put their own agenda before the security of this country.

    Bush has enough American soldier and Iraqi civilian blood on his hands to tarnish any accomplishment of his administration. History will not be kind to him, I assure you.


    I dont think anyone thinks history will be kind to him. And I agree about the congress, they didnt do their part in keeping the executive branch in check. Lets just hope the democrats perform more responsibly now.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you must not watch the mainstream american news. most of it is anti bush which isnt necessarily anti american but it goes hand in hand.

    Most mainstream news in America is anti-Bush? Surely this is a recent development?
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Most mainstream news in America is anti-Bush? Surely this is a recent development?
    yes, please show me any anti-Bush news other than his poor approval ratings...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    oh fuck get a clue man! once again you spout this utter bullshit that being anti-bush is somehow being anti-american? what about all those fuckers like limp-baugh who continually trash bill clinton. uh, he was a president of the united states too, right? so, by your logic, mr. oxycontin is anti-american?

    look, bush is a shitty president. that's a fact. when the news reports on facts, i don't see a problem with it.


    calm the fuck down. maybe if you could read past a 4th grade level you would see what I said.

    being anti bush isn't necessarily anti-american.


    the word isn't is abbreviated to mean is not.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    but it goes hand in hand

    you know what you meant. don't try to deny it. you are a one-trick pony. you regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over, but that does not make it so. i bet that, deep down, even YOU don't believe the garbage you type. but it just keeps coming, like a reservoir of shit held back by a tissue paper dam. time to wake up, jspew, and smell the truth.

    Easy tiger! You'll be getting yourself kicked off the board like this. And for the record, I think Jlew has calmed down a lot recently and isn't half as bad as he's sometimes been in the past. (And I'm not intending to sound patronising, but how else can I put it?) I don't think he deserves knocking like this at the moment.

Categories