A Price Too High

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
From the NY Times.

Bob Herbert says it better than I ever can.

Wake up people. The Bush invasion of Iraq was based on lies. Because of those lies we are now occupying a Muslim nation, facing a guerilla war and playing right into the hands of the terrorists Bush ignored as he invaded Iraq.

It's time to dump the Bush administration and re-join the world as a responsible super-power, not a bully invading nations which pose no threat by spinning lies.

This is a disgrace to our nation and to every American in whose name these lies were propagated.


A Price Too High
By BOB HERBERT


How long is it going to take for us to recognize that the war we so foolishly started in Iraq is a fiasco ? tragic, deeply dehumanizing and ultimately unwinnable? How much time and how much money and how many wasted lives is it going to take?

At the United Nations yesterday, grieving diplomats spoke bitterly, but not for attribution, about the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. They said it has not only resulted in the violent deaths of close and highly respected colleagues, but has also galvanized the most radical elements of Islam.

"This is a dream for the jihad," said one high-ranking U.N. official. "The resistance will only grow. The American occupation is now the focal point, drawing people from all over Islam into an eye-to-eye confrontation with the hated Americans.

"It is very propitious for the terrorists," he said. "The U.S. is now on the soil of an Arab country, a Muslim country, where the terrorists have all the advantages. They are fighting in a terrain which they know and the U.S. does not know, with cultural images the U.S. does not understand, and with a language the American soldiers do not speak. The troops can't even read the street signs."

The American people still do not have a clear understanding of why we are in Iraq. And the troops don't have a clear understanding of their mission. We're fighting a guerrilla war, which the bright lights at the Pentagon never saw coming, with conventional forces.


Under these circumstances, in which the enemy might be anybody, anywhere, tragedies like the killing of Mazen Dana are all but inevitable. Mr. Dana was the veteran Reuters cameraman who was blown away by jittery U.S. troops on Sunday. The troops apparently thought his video camera was a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The mind plays tricks on you when you're in great danger. A couple of weeks ago, in an apparent case of mistaken identity, U.S. soldiers killed two members of the Iraqi police. And a number of innocent Iraqi civilians, including children, have been killed by American troops.

The carnage from riots, ambushes, firefights, suicide bombings, acts of sabotage, friendly fire incidents and other deadly encounters is growing. And so is the hostility toward U.S. troops and Americans in general.

We are paying a terribly high price ? for what?

One of the many reasons Vietnam spiraled out of control was the fact that America's top political leaders never clearly defined the mission there, and were never straight with the public about what they were doing. Domestic political considerations led Kennedy, then Johnson, then Nixon to conceal the truth about a policy that was bankrupt from the beginning. They even concealed how much the war was costing.

Sound familiar?

Now we're lodged in Iraq, in the midst of the most volatile region of the world, and the illusion of a quick victory followed by grateful Iraqis' welcoming us with open arms has vanished. Instead of democracy blossoming in the desert, we have the reality of continuing bloodshed and heightened terror ? the payoff of a policy spun from fantasies and lies.

Senator John McCain and others are saying the answer is more troops, an escalation. If you want more American blood shed, that's the way to go. We sent troops to Vietnam by the hundreds of thousands. There were never enough.

Beefing up the American occupation is not the answer to the problem. The American occupation is the problem. The occupation is perceived by ordinary Iraqis as a confrontation and a humiliation, and by terrorists and other bad actors as an opportunity to be gleefully exploited.

The U.S. cannot bully its way to victory in Iraq. It needs allies, and it needs a plan. As quickly as possible, we should turn the country over to a genuine international coalition, headed by the U.N. and supported in good faith by the U.S.

The idea would be to mount a massive international effort to secure Iraq, develop a legitimate sovereign government and work cooperatively with the Iraqi people to rebuild the nation.

If this does not happen, disaster will loom because the United States cannot secure and rebuild Iraq on its own.

A U.N. aide told me: "The United States is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world, and right now it's sitting on the terrorists' doorstep. It needs help. It needs friends."

EDIT
added link but you still must join to read it.
 

RDWYTruckDriver

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
300
0
0
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

What is your opinion of the statements made by the UN diplomat?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

So, obviously, we'll never see you comment on a linked story other than to comment on it's biased viewpoint one way or the other.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
Like there are not any UN diplomats that are anti-US. This is just one of them.

So it's the rest of the world that's the problem? Everyone is biased against the USA?

What about the lies Bush told to invade Iraq? How do they fit into the puzzle?

Maybe, RDWY, the rest of the world sees the Bush administration for what it has shown itself to be. An arrogant, power hungry group of madmen who will stop at nothing to further their agenda which is no less than world domination.

Do you think that's a fair assessment of the view other nations have of the USA? Why on earth would they ever think that way? What have we done to deserve this?

Invaded and occupied a nation which posed no threat to us based on lies.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

So, obviously, we'll never see you comment on a linked story other than to comment on it's biased viewpoint one way or the other.

When you can't refute the facts attack the source.
rolleye.gif

 

RDWYTruckDriver

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
300
0
0
Hires reporters that make up stories
Are you refuting this fact ?

Being " biased " is only believing ones own viewpoint. Everyone who posts here in P&N has biased viewpoints. That's why I posted:

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.




 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

So, obviously, we'll never see you comment on a linked story other than to comment on it's biased viewpoint one way or the other.

When you can't refute the facts attack the source.
rolleye.gif

Oops, thought Driver said that.

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Well before the Truck Driver gets out his flame thrower and just aims it wildly at everyone but himself -

A serious dialogue would recognize that we have a problem of not only how the rest of the world now sees the U.S.A.
90% of the world is against what we have done Iraq, and that was before the knowledge that intelligence data was
fabricated to support only our position, or in fact the position that the Bush Administration wanted the world to believe.
That has been pretty much proved as a false presentation and the shifting of the facts has failed to gain support.

What is even more troubling is that while only about 20% of the U.S. population itself is behind the Bush policies,
this elitist 20% is being allowed to run amock, unchallenged by the 80% of the population that questions it.
It could be appathy, or it could be FEAR of the quick-draw tactics of this minority to play the McCarthyism card.

Bottom line is that a well organizied minority section that is now in charge are forcing their doctrine on the
majority of the population. the "80%" that make up the population that are moderate Republicans, most Democrats,
Independants, Libertarians, or just plain pond scum, the Neo-Con Right feels it's their duty to impose their interpretation
of law just as Evangelistic Religions feel that they must change to world to think within their boundries.

Oh, by the way - registered Republican since I was 21, and that's a long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away. . . .
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

Hey dummy they fired him immediatly. Which is worse FOX who fires reporters for NOT making up stories or NYT who corrects thier problems immediatly?

Text
Text
Text
On February 14, a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organisation lying, concealing or distorting information. The
court reversed the US$425,000 jury verdict of 2000 that was in favour of journalist Jane Akre, who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and
lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

On August 18, 2000, a six?person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what
jurors decided was "a false, distorted or slanted" story about the widespread use of Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically engineered growth hormone given to dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the
truth in court as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Well before the Truck Driver gets out his flame thrower and just aims it wildly at everyone but himself -

A serious dialogue would recognize that we have a problem of not only how the rest of the world now sees the U.S.A.
90% of the world is against what we have done Iraq, and that was before the knowledge that intelligence data was
fabricated to support only our position, or in fact the position that the Bush Administration wanted the world to believe.
That has been pretty much proved as a false presentation and the shifting of the facts has failed to gain support.

What is even more troubling is that while only about 20% of the U.S. population itself is behind the Bush policies,
this elitist 20% is being allowed to run amock, unchallenged by the 80% of the population that questions it.
It could be appathy, or it could be FEAR of the quick-draw tactics of this minority to play the McCarthyism card.

Bottom line is that a well organizied minority section that is now in charge are forcing their doctrine on the
majority of the population. the "80%" that make up the population that are moderate Republicans, most Democrats,
Independants, Libertarians, or just plain pond scum, the Neo-Con Right feels it's their duty to impose their interpretation
of law just as Evangelistic Religions feel that they must change to world to think within their boundries.

Oh, by the way - registered Republican since I was 21, and that's a long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away. . . .


IMHO a very accurate assessment, CaptnKirk.

One that sounds strangely similar to the Sunni minority's rule in Iraq.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

Hey dummy they fired him immediatly. Which is worse FOX who fires reporters for NOT making up stories or NYT who corrects thier problems immediatly?


The rabid right is constantly looking for an excuse to defame the press. Freedom of the press isn't one of their favorite sections of the Bill of Rights.

But as you say, a mistake was made and several heads rolled at the Times. Case closed.

At the same time they complain about one reporter on a newspaper which hires hundreds or thousands worldwide they sit passively while their leader commits complete fabrication of facts to justify an invasion and occupation in Iraq.

Hypocrites.
 

povertystruck

Member
Aug 19, 2003
154
0
0
The price is high and the lies are cheap. What are you americans going to get besides more terrorism, and respect for your military. Does anyone think zionists were involve in the plan? Remember its only a matter of time before a nuclear or radiological bomb is used to attack America or friends.


news: The pentagon is actually thinking of using nuclear weapons in the future. A big nuke now is about 436 kilo tons whiles they want to use mini nukes 5 kilo. Thes mini nuke were developed during the cold war but proven to be dangerous as they would explode to the site from which they were fired from, i guess that could be fixed.
These mini nukes would be used on bunker that regular bombs could not penetrate.


Maybe: Mini nukes become so small and inexpensive terrorists just swallow them.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,439
3,864
136
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
NY Times = No credibility.

Hires reporters that make up stories.

You can find any links out there on the web supporting your views or going against other peoples views. Just depends on you.

You, being anti-Bush, will post exactly this kind of link and info. No surprise there.

Wasn't FOX News the one banned for awhile in England for its crappy reporting ?

I never heard of NYT getting banned.