What part of this statement was "reported as fact by the BBC", and which is your own conjecture? That is why I called you Saddam. You are taking the reporting and twisting it to your bias point of view, much like Saddam would.
This is unfortunate. Innocent people have been killed and thats regrettable. We have prayed for minimal loss of life and despite the 14 lost today civilian fatalities have been very small. But among most of the posts in the thread this one is very peculiar. 1) I didn't know the Iraqi population had such a keen cognition of the military's arms. 2) People don't openly voice their opposition to the regime. Thats a no, no in Baghdad. Given our great success of keeping civilians away from the wrath of our weapon systems, for something like this to happen it is suspicious to say the least.
Furthermore, you accused me of having some sort of pattern of starting threads only about things we have done wrong in the war...despite the fact that I have only started two, and one of them was about something happening to us...While I do agree with you that I too wish you could count that number, ie 2, it's more from an educator's point of view than agreeing with you on the ponderous nature of the number in question. That was what I meant by dismissing; saying I was only saying it as reflective of an agenda dismisses the vlidity of it, or at least sidesteps it. And re: the casualty ratio of the war vs. what Saddam would have done...from a moral standpoint, it makes no sense..If we say that the wrong in what he does is to suppose that it is up to him to end others' lives to further his own ends, we are adopting a moral position...one which we abandon when we justify doing the same just because the body count is lower.
No, not at all. I think he was just pointing up your consistent contra-American ( I don't want to go so far as to say anit-American) position. You continually point up American short-comings. I get weary of that. There is not a doubt in my mind that this tragedy was an American short-coming. It is tragic. It is to be expected; we just do't know when or where. As DaDa said, this is war. I'm not pretending to be unbiased and I know you're not either. I see the failures. I just don't think they define the effort.
That was someone else. I did cite your consistent "contra-American" slant on the news though. I once called you Chicken Little, I beleive...
Again...see the reports for yourself...if anything I underplayed what the BBC is saying on the air, and what I did report has already been coroborated by both other viewers and the BBC print version...The assumption you made about my 'twisting', especially without knowing one way or another for yourself was evidence of your bias...The Saddam comment was evidence of your ignorance.
Let me go over this one last time...This was the LEAD STORY on the BBC and in Canada...and was recieving little or no play on US stations at the time, and hod not been mentioned in here once... So I reported what was said, acccurately...and was accused of bias. What bias was I showing when I reported that some of our soldiers had been captured and some killed? That was the only other report I had ever given, and was very short, to the point, and asked for a link...bias? Maybe the bias lies with those who feel that they can define what is and isn't American by concuring it with what they agree with, and therefore ableling anyone who disagrees with them as anti or contra American.
Desert Scar - that's your argument to make, not mine. You guys are seriously confusing my role here. Are you saying behad and giddyup's comments require admin action? Are you saying my comments to MacBeth was admin action? I treat this just the same as if someone said "Cuttino Mobley sucks!!" I don't agree, but I tend to agree with a more sensible and milder version of the statement -- I'm probably not going to respond to it. I'll let others do that. Meanwhile if someone comes in, rips anyone critical of Mobley and praises him as a top 3 shooting guard, I'm probably going to give my opinion against it. You, MacBeth, Batman Jones however are trying to create a situation where I can't give my opinion against your posts (perhaps because politics can be very personal), because if so you're being oppressed by an admin. i.e. you can't trust me to separate my role as admin from my role as a poster (even though checks and balances are in place - last I checked Jeff, who also has admin rights, doesn't stray to the right very much) I guess in the same way that you can't trust our government. Oh well. You'd be wrong, but I know you guys are hip to any conspiracy theory, so keep claiming something seriously is amiss with the board. No response to the hypocrisy of the far left regarding Iraqi civilian deaths?
Wow. MacBeth, how you could stick around after this thread is beyond me. The guy posts a news story from BBC and is called Saddam and accused of enjoying the deaths of these Iraqi citizens. I'd have been banned by now.
1) I agree with and welcome debating the issues with you on their merits. 2) But when you, an administrator, consistently admonishes me or those who like me disagree with those you agree with, not for the content of our opinions, but for what you depict as an insulting, close minded way of making that same argument, without ever addressing anything said to us, even if it is much worse, than that smacks of preferential treatment. To wit, I don't, and I assume others don't give any extra weight to your political thoughts because of your position, but your comments on how we conduct ourselves in here do carry extra weight, and when you throw that weight around, knowingly or not, to support only one side while ignoring the other it is more than just opinion...and it's unfair. Jeff has yet to condemn the people who called me a murderer...or said I was happy about these deaths...or previously said that they wished I would get hit with a bomb...you, however, have jumoed in to point out how my response to some of these was less than cordial...Honestly, Clutch, don't you see how selective you are with regards to criticism re: appropriate expression?
RMT - "holy Nielsen jihad" ... that was funny. I actually agree 100% with what you said in your last post. I should atleast thank liberals in a small way that they have complained enough about war propaganda by us that they have me looking for it more now, but to anywhere close to the level of Iraqi TV or Al Jazeera, I just don't see it. I sincerely hope this is over fast, though I worry it won't be. Baghdad is going to be very interesting and I worry a great deal about what the troops will have to face and be prepared for. MacBeth - I'll respond shortly. Have to be at a work meeting.
Thanx Clutch. It seems like a jihad among the media regarding covering this war. They are all trying to top each other. Baghdad scares the crap out of me. I do not believe the Iraqis will use WMDs because I believe they care very much about international sentiment, and that would be against them if they used WMDs just like it would be if the USA used a tactical nuke. I fear that Baghdad will turn into a house-to-house battle that will resemble Stalingrad and will severely jack up the casualty rate on both sides. I just want this war to be over with. It's depressing as hell to me, and I'm looking for ways (that do not involve alcohol) in which to deal with it. Method #1 so far is to not turn on CNN or FOXNews while I am at home. Method #2 might be to spend as little time at home as possible.
What about the outrage from the left about Iraqi troops dressing up as Americans and then executing their own countrymen when they try to surrender. War is not pretty, but because of crap like this, it is necessary. DD
<b>DesertScar</b> and <b>RM95</b>: People understand what they want to understand. I said that MacBeth was "enjoying" the accident not the individual deaths of the innocent Iraquis. In my follow-up I said that I didn't think he was even thinking about the individual deaths as much as the accidental nature of the catastrophe. Further I didn't criticize him for being biased; I criticized the nature of his bias. I openly embrace my bias, yet I am not without criticism. I will repeat the most astute thing I said: I won't let the failures along the way define the success of the mission.
Pretty soon I expect some of the conservatives on the board to come up with the old quote that I think was originally from Stalin. "If you want an omelet you have to crack some eggs" to justify their war for , I guess their last rationale was , the liberation of the Iraqi people. It is interesting to see the fury of the pro Iraq war crowd at the reporting of Iraqi causalties. As was pointed out the US press only does this once it is embarassingly out of the bag due to the foreign press. They react like it is a surprise that Sadam would hide his forces in cities with huge civilian populations and not line them up in the desert for a turkey shoot I'm not sure why as this was widely discussed before the war broke out.
<b>The point of contention might be that we have decided for the Iraqi people to put ourselves in a situation where our accidents cost their lives, and at least according to some people we have done so to save them.</b> I think this is why people are upset with you MacBeth. As soon as their are civilian casualities people jump on and say "Look at the United States, killing innocent people in the name of liberating them", not taking into account that Saddam has killed MILLIONS of his own people. As tragic as cilivians dying is, it beats 15 to 20 cilivials dying to liberate them compared to millions dying meaninglessly and helplessly.
Glynch, It was widely discussed. And truthfully, I can not blame Saddam, he is fighting for his life, and will become more and more desperate as his control slips away. I am sure that the US is saying the right things, but I am also sure they are hardly surprised, and are probably happy with how few civilian deaths there have been to date. DD
I don't know where you get I am big into conspiracy theories (with war or this board). In fact I have largely stayed away from the war debate (been on peripheral issues at most) since the war started. Now I don't think this war in the context of the international events leading to it was the best foreign policy decision for our country down the road or maybe even immediately--but at this point we are into it and the best I can hope for is a swift end with as few coalition forces and innocent Iraq civilian causalities. The whole thing is sad, I know with a few different turns in my life I could be over in the desert too with my life in balance, what more can I say, it is hard to think about and write about. Also, no one takes contention with you airing your views, as you said their is diversity of opinions among admins. It is just seems lately you[b/] (not admins in general, not big brother BBS, and not reflecting some grand “conspiracy”) have quite often been interjecting based on some on the style of liberal posters or perceived personal biases they uniquely have that you are "checking" with the pretense that you don't have similar biases. I think everyone right or left of Jeff pretty much knows where he stands, and when he posts on such matters it is not under the pretense of an admin even if the admin tag is there. Maybe that isn't your intention, maybe your intention is to express your views like everyone else, but it hasn't come off that way to me much lately. Heck, your human, you have an opinion, some of them like me are pretty strong opinions, and right now is an awfully tense and emotional time in our nation, maybe I am wrong on this but I was just pointing out what I perceived—that you have had a lot of mixing of personal with substantive critiques of posters who are handling themselves cordially and putting a lot of thought into posts, and IMO as an admin and the founder of the site you should be extra careful on that line except for pretty egregious examples (like what Behad said). It is one thing to focus on the content of a post, it is another to take on their credibility of someone bring a lot of thoughtfulness into the debate. If someone was blasting Giddyup, Madmax or some other very cordial, honest, generally open minded, and thoughtful posters (even though I rarely agree with some of their fundamental premises) based not on substance but more based on critiques of their personal underlying biases or lack of intellectual integrity etc, I would point that out too. That cool, I appreciate your clarification. I still think the initial “enjoying” the accident was just way out of line, but I think you brought it back. I won’t speak for MacBeth, but it is a terrible position for me to think this war is a mistake, to think the worst is yet to come, and to see our people and other innocents die and be tortured. I hope it has a swift end with great result for Iraq and us—that would be the best thing for the world—but what can I say even though I hope this now I don’t think it will go down this way. It really sucks to feel and think this, and I feel really sad about it, so more or less I have stayed away from this debate because of it. Being flat wrong would never make me happier as it would if shown tomorrow and over time and over time.
If this is true, it is unfortunate, however, accidents, friendly fire and other things happen in times of war... I would be more inclined to focus of what SH has done over the years and even in this war, killing his own people that disagree...