Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Enemy propaganda now the unvarnished truth?

Media 2006 Enemy Propaganda CNN

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 08:28 PM

View PostLin731, on Oct 31 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

Appeasers G? Is that what you call people with the good sense to say we ought to do everything we can to NOT kill our soldiers and Iraqi civilians needlessly? If that's the definition of an "Appeasers" than I'll gladly be one. It was those same "appeasers" that didn't buy into the Bush administrations BS to begin with and the same "appeasers" who sadly predicted the direction this Iraq war would take. I'd say we needed more "appeasers" or as I like to call them "thinkers" and less Rah Rah, flagwavers. Particularly when they're gungho to send someone else to war (all from the safety of their own livingrooms). Sometimes wars are a nessesary evil and sometimes they're un unnessesary one. Iraq is the latter.

The appeasers are those folks who out of spite for losing two elections will make demands unrealistic. Like waiting for the folks profiting from selling stuff to Iraq under the table, to come out and join in making a stand against Saddam.

You guys seem to be so sure that with 50 years you can talk  a hitler like guy into becomming decent member of the civilized world. But you demand we keep talking till he kicks in the door and starts killing and then you shout how we are not prepared to do something.

Then when we start to do something you want to tie the hands of the troops till they can neither carry out the job or see to their own safety  and then shout about that.

That is what the appeaser are to me. Still want that job?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#42 Pallas

Pallas

    Wicked--Like the Witch of the West

  • Islander
  • 833 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:04 PM

Quote

You know next time the UN does not want enforce it's resolutions we should leave.

How ironic. You do know that the United States is one of the main reasons why the United Nations doesn't function that well right?
We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and sea--Aristotle

#43 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:09 PM

Ah Yeah Right. The Useless Nations never worked to take a position against the US.  Sorry the UN is a waste of breath except to get parties that want to talk into the same room.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#44 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:06 PM

The rockets that G1223 is refering to are the Al Sammoud missiles that were discovered during the run up to the war that violated the UN mandated range limitation on what ballistic missiles Iraq could have. As part of the ceasefire agreement that ceased hostilities in 1991 Iraq had to not operate aircraft in or hinder Allied air operations in the two No-Fly Zones, turn over all documentation or materials related to Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, turn over all material components for destruction by a UN observer group and destroy and no longer produce missiles with a range of greater than 70 kilometers.
Both the Iraqi No Fly Zone activities and the production of those missiles put Iraq in breach of the cease-fire agreement.
The destruction of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs continued well into the 1990s. It was still an open question how much was left when Operation Desert Fox hit both the air defence sites that were shooting at Allied aircraft and suspected weapons production sites in 1998. Apparently that strike did a death blow to them but no one knew that  with certainty in 2003.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#45 Pallas

Pallas

    Wicked--Like the Witch of the West

  • Islander
  • 833 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:25 PM

View PostG1223, on Oct 31 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

Ah Yeah Right. The Useless Nations never worked to take a position against the US.  Sorry the UN is a waste of breath except to get parties that want to talk into the same room.

Do you even know what it is that the UN does? I'm guessing not.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what CNN is reporting. Those who don't like the message that's being broadcast will always find fault no matter what reason or logic can be presented in the defence of the news. When it suits your purposes, it's the news; when it doesn't, it's propaganda. It's pointless to debate this. I personally usually take the news with a generous grain of salt and assume that details are missing (and media studies have confirmed this time and time again) but the gist of the message is usually factually correct. It's just decontextualized to the point where it seems...worse than it is.
We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and sea--Aristotle

#46 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 07:13 AM

View Posttennyson, on Nov 1 2006, 04:06 AM, said:

The rockets that G1223 is refering to are the Al Sammoud missiles that were discovered during the run up to the war that violated the UN mandated range limitation on what ballistic missiles Iraq could have. As part of the ceasefire agreement that ceased hostilities in 1991 Iraq had to not operate aircraft in or hinder Allied air operations in the two No-Fly Zones, turn over all documentation or materials related to Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, turn over all material components for destruction by a UN observer group and destroy and no longer produce missiles with a range of greater than 70 kilometers.
Both the Iraqi No Fly Zone activities and the production of those missiles put Iraq in breach of the cease-fire agreement.
The destruction of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs continued well into the 1990s. It was still an open question how much was left when Operation Desert Fox hit both the air defence sites that were shooting at Allied aircraft and suspected weapons production sites in 1998. Apparently that strike did a death blow to them but no one knew that  with certainty in 2003.

A couple of Scuds are hardly WMD. They had destroyed almost all of them by the time of the invasion, anyway. BTW, Wikipedia gives the allowed range of 150km and the missles had a claimed range of 180km - and I'd bet that their actual range is a lot less, based on the first Gulf war.

In any case, no 180 km missle fired from Iraq put the US in any danger.

What Bush kept on talking about were real WMDs - chemical and biological weapons. No such weapons were ever found.

#47 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 12:09 AM

Quote

and I'd bet that their actual range is a lot less, based on the first Gulf war.

Why would you say that?, Saddam's two Scud derivatives that were actually fired in the Gulf War at Israel and Saudi Arabia as well as during the "War of the Cities" period of the Iran-Iraq War had ranges of 300 kilometers and 600 kilometers respectively in addition to his basic North Korean and Soviet supplied Scud-Bs.
The Al-Sammoud isn't a Scud or Scud derivative, it is a development of the FROG(Free Rocket Over Ground) series of Soviet artillery rockets, also supplied to Iraq.  

Quote

In any case, no 180 km missle fired from Iraq put the US in any danger.
They made him a danger to his nieghbors, him having used his ballistic missiles on three of them, two of them US allies.
and you do realize that the missiles are just the delivery system for whatever happens to be in the warhead? Those missiles had been designed to carry nuclear or chemical warheads and could have delivered them to anywhere within thier range.
Bush also specifically mentioned the Al-Sammoud as a violation during the UN speech so it was exactly among the things he was talking about.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#48 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 12:17 AM

Tennyson the thing is that it is Bush that found them and therefore they do not count.  Do not confuse the left with facts they made up their mind when they lost in 2000 and 2004.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#49 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 07:11 AM

View Posttennyson, on Nov 2 2006, 05:09 AM, said:

Quote

and I'd bet that their actual range is a lot less, based on the first Gulf war.

Why would you say that?

Because studies done after the war suggested that the Patriot missles did a lot less in bringing down the Scud missles; that the things were in such poor condition that it's likely that some of the just self-destructed in-flight.

Quote

The Al-Sammoud isn't a Scud or Scud derivative, it is a development of the FROG(Free Rocket Over Ground) series of Soviet artillery rockets, also supplied to Iraq.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Al-Samoud (الصمود, alternately "Al-Samed") of the former Iraq regime is a liquid-fuel missile which is essentially a scaled-down Scud, though parts are also derived from the Russian SA-2 'Guideline' surface-to-air missile...On February 13, 2003, a UN panel reported that Iraq's Al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km, splitting opinion over whether they breach UNSCR 1441. The limit allowed by the UN is 150 km.

Wikipedia isn't perfect, but that's my source.

Quote

Quote

In any case, no 180 km missle fired from Iraq put the US in any danger.
They made him a danger to his nieghbors, him having used his ballistic missiles on three of them, two of them US allies.

And which of these countries asked for our help? We launched a war because Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat to us, not their neighbors.

Quote

Those missiles had been designed to carry nuclear or chemical warheads and could have delivered them to anywhere within thier range.

But only if such weapons actually existed.

Quote

Bush also specifically mentioned the Al-Sammoud as a violation during the UN speech so it was exactly among the things he was talking about.

And as I mentioned before, Iraq was dismantling them when we invaded; had we invaded, they may have finished the job.

Saddam was afraid at this point; otherwise he wouldn't be dismantling the weapons.

Edited by Broph, 02 November 2006 - 07:12 AM.


#50 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 05:04 PM

Quote

Because studies done after the war suggested that the Patriot missles did a lot less in bringing down the Scud missles; that the things were in such poor condition that it's likely that some of the just self-destructed in-flight.

The work that Iraq did to make the Scud derivatives longer range did make them less stable but that has no bearing on the Al-Sammoud which wasn't even used during the 1991 Gulf War.

Quote

And which of these countries asked for our help? We launched a war because Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat to us, not their neighbors.

In 1991 it was Saudi Arabia and Kuwait directly asking for help and Israel staying out because of our assistance.
In speeches dating back to his Republican primary the current Bush commented on how an Iraq with ballistic missiles was a threat to its nieghbors. I think some of them were recorded in the book Rocket's Red Glare about the missile defense debates in the US.
I'll see if I can find a better source than Wikipedia for the missile data.

Quote

And as I mentioned before, Iraq was dismantling them when we invaded; had we invaded, they may have finished the job.

Saddam was afraid at this point; otherwise he wouldn't be dismantling the weapons.
You do have a point, this is part of why I didn't see war as inevitable then.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#51 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 07:57 PM

Quote

The appeasers are those folks who out of spite for losing two elections will make demands unrealistic. Like waiting for the folks profiting from selling stuff to Iraq under the table, to come out and join in making a stand against Saddam.

Don't make this a "party" issue please G because on the issue of self serving, gutter politics I've seen nothing that held a candle to the current GOP. Whether it's smearing war vets to win elects or distorting intell to garner votes for a war. Perhaps you might want to take up your complaints about under the table dealings with Iraq with Dick Cheney or a host of American companies that had their greedy little fingers in the pie as well.

Quote

You guys seem to be so sure that with 50 years you can talk a hitler like guy into becomming decent member of the civilized world. But you demand we keep talking till he kicks in the door and starts killing and then you shout how we are not prepared to do something.

Well since we're slinging generalizations here...It seems that you guys think the answer to every dispute starts and ends at gunpoint. Comparing Saddam to Hitler would be insulting to Hilter's global distruction as well as regional genocide. In other words, Saddam wasn't fit to carry Hitler's jock in the category of global threat, let alone in actual carnage. Saddam was a despot with delusions of grandeur but that's all they were, delusions. Now as to what *I* demand. I demanded we allow the inspectors to do the job the administration claimed they wanted them to do...INSPECT.  Here's my theory on that issue. Bush demanded inspections assuming Saddam wouldn't allow them and there would be his pretense for war but Saddam didn't give him the excuse he was looking for. He let the inspectors in. So then we got more mushroom cloud hype, more disputed or refuted intell claimed as "fact". Next thing we know, Bush is telling the inspectors to leave.

Quote

Then when we start to do something you want to tie the hands of the troops till they can neither carry out the job or see to their own safety and then shout about that.

Tie their hands? No. I'd have never sent them in the first place. Not for an overhyped vendetta against a pathetic wannabe like Saddam. I'd have gone after Bin Laden (you know, the guy responsible for 911) and Al Qaeda.  I'd have actually secured Afghanistan instead of leaving it to flounder and allowing the Taliban to reform and begin attacking again. I'd not have tied the troops hands on that one. I'd just not send them where they didn't need to be to fight and die in a war we didn't need to fight.

Quote

That is what the appeaser are to me. Still want that job?

I think your "job discription" is wayyyyyyyyy off the mark G.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#52 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 November 2006 - 12:10 AM

View Posttennyson, on Nov 2 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

Quote

And which of these countries asked for our help? We launched a war because Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat to us, not their neighbors.

In 1991 it was Saudi Arabia and Kuwait directly asking for help and Israel staying out because of our assistance.

And this was relevant to Bush invading Iraq how? No one asked for our help this time around, did they???  :crazy:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#53 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 03 November 2006 - 12:26 AM

Quote

And this was relevant to Bush invading Iraq how? No one asked for our help this time around, did they???

Just certain Iraqi dissident groups were asking for help this time, no national governments that I'm aware of. It was a point of clarification intended for Broph since we have two people named Bush involved and a lot of jumping around between the two time periods in the original series of posts between Broph and I.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#54 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 November 2006 - 08:29 AM

View Posttennyson, on Nov 2 2006, 09:26 PM, said:

Quote

And this was relevant to Bush invading Iraq how? No one asked for our help this time around, did they???

Just certain Iraqi dissident groups were asking for help this time, no national governments that I'm aware of. It was a point of clarification intended for Broph since we have two people named Bush involved and a lot of jumping around between the two time periods in the original series of posts between Broph and I.

Ah, got it. I read all the posts but couldn't completely figure out the relevancy of that one particular statement.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, 2006, Enemy Propaganda, CNN

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users