Re: Why no more anti-war posts?

Gee Paul! I was just wondering when you might do the same!

Have you talked to any of our returning GI's? Or you going to continue to believe what a biased press tells you?

Marching in Anti-American demostrations and visiting Soviet Moscow!

Being a better American that Clinton ever could be!

How many returning GIs do we have from Iran?

Yea, missing his National Guard assignments doing political campaign work. Daddy got him outta that, I see.

The press can only report what GW wants them to because their reports are censored.

First might I suggest you remove head from rectum, take a deep breath and then look around once the cerebral material has begun to rejoice in the new oxygen content and is limping back into action.

What do you consider a person who has taken another mans land, once he is forcibly kicked off it, and then watches the dispossesed person and his family starve to death ?

If you don't address the *actual* grievances which abound around the world then it may be as well to reinsert your head back from whence it came and kiss your colon goodbye.

Reg

Such words of wisdom from an inhabitant of the country that gave a world class example of how to get on top of the situation by subduing Vietnam !

Your armed forces have not been pitted against a worthy opponent for a long while.. it has been easy to bomb the hell out of one or two spots. Did it solve the problem long term ?

Did the Iraqi's roll over and subjugate themselves the first time ? Are the Iraqi's subdued and subjugated this time ? How many helicopters downed todate ?

Trouble with bombing the hell out of someone is (and this has been seen many times before) it actually seems to strengthen their resolve.

You roll up with your hi-tech "weapon platforms" blow asunder the opponents obsolete, scrap yard technology and "take out" his forces (which have mainly been forcibly conscripted. Some civilians, women and children have been killed in the process... but hey, there is bound to be some collateral damage. You then complain when your opponent is now reduced to using suicide bombers as his only remaining "weapon platform"

Despite using Agent Orange, Napalm, helicopter gunships, carpet bombing etc, etc you were pushed to the limit by the enemies inhumane use of... TUNNELS.... good job he didn't develop digitised tunnels or you would have lost !!!!!

What happened to the women and children in some of those Vietnamese villages.... you know the ones that were killed en-masse by U.S troops ? A child who has had most of it's skin burnt off by Napalm doesn't feel the pain ??? There were no school buses in Hiroshima ??? A woman who blows up a bus in Israel because her children were killed by an Israeli tank is a terrorist ???

Might as well leave your brain in the damp, dark place it inhabits as it is atrophied now by the looks of it.. too late to come out and look at what is really going on out there.

Reg

Probably about the same number of school buses that was in Dresden before 796 Lancasters laid waste the city. There was very little left for the B-17's to aim at the next day. What happened to the women and children in Dresden...you know the ones that were killed en-masse by Royal Air Force pilots? What did those children do to Britain to deserve such a fate?

Nonsense! As a newspaper publisher, I get press releases every day from all sides and can publish what ever I choose to.

While the war was in progress, I was e-mailed daily with the latest propaganda from the Iraq minister of information. Remember him? "I can tell you there are no American troops at the airport..."

The reports coming from the Armed Services Press are extremely candid. They outline both the good and the bad, and when compared with reports from the BBC, French, German, and Arab news sources are not censored.

Ergo, if the press is not censored, and the reporters are not censored, where is this censorship taking place?

Reports on alt.conspiracy.censorship not with standing.

While your reply speaks to the horrors of war, and collateral damage, it is not the whole story.

The American purpose in Iraq was to free a people from an oppressive dictator capable of supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

The fact that you can reduce the entire Viet Nam war to a single photo, of a burned child, goes to the heart of my original comments.

As a Viet Nam vet, I can tell you the only thing we were interested in was staying alive in a war we were not permitted to win. A war micromanaged by McNamara and his whiz kids, who's total war experience was a spitball fight in the third grade. If you weren't there, you have no clue as to what your talking about. Spouting the 60's rhetoric does not make you knowledgeable of the situation.

My orig> > Reg, stick to writing programs. Your thought process, as it concerns

Ok, here is from the first Gulf war:

The Pentagon accredited all American journalists and required them to observe the following battlefield press rules: 1.. No reporters could visit any U.S. military unit or travel outside of Dhahran or Riyadh except in a press pool.

2.. No pool was permitted in the field without an escort, usually a U.S. military public-affairs officer (PAO). 3.. No interviews of U.S. military personnel were permitted without an escort present. 4.. All pool dispatches must first pass through the "military security review system." (PAOs at ach pool location reviewed all dispatches and could delete or change any "military sensitive information." Reporters could appeal any censorship to the military pool coordinating office in Dhahran and then to the Pentagon.)

5.. Violations of the above rules could result in arrest, detention, revocation of press credentials, and expulsion from the combat zone. Nope, don't see no censorship there!

The second time around:

John MacArthur, publisher of Harpers magazine, has said, "This will be the most censored war in history."

The Associated Press Managing Editors Conference voiced concerns about the current extent of censorship in a statement that said, while the need for "unusual measures" in time of war is understandable, the restrictions also "pose dangers to American democracy."

And the thousands of other quotes from journalists.

Do a google search for yourself.

Still nonsense, a quote from Harper's, made before the war? Did you not watch TV during the war? It virtually captured the chaos of war.

If you have an axe to grind, feel free to grind it! However your google search of censorship and the findings you reported here are far worse forms of censorship than found coming out of Iraq.

The following is from The World Socialist Web Site, which I think you would agree is not in lock step with the admistration.

'One section of the Pentagon document says there is "no general review process for media products." But a latter section says: "If media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering."'

Of course you will find quotes like that. Journalists are paid to get the story first so they can beat their competition. They will always rant and rave if they don't get to transmit everything live because somebody else might get the scoop on them.

Some journalists will do anything to beat their competitors...including live reporting that the enemy can use to its advantage. How would you like to be in the camera frame of a live TV report near an enemy landmark that lets them walk their artillary right into your foxhole?

Absolutely not. 85% or more trust the BBC more than the government, and

51% think he deliberately lied, rather than didn't understand.

That is totally irrelavent to the claim that there was no censorship.

Did I condone indiscriminate bombing.... wherever it has taken place ? Has there not been controversy about those raids ever since ?

Did the bombing of English cities cause us to give up ? No, all it did was stiffen the resolve of the people to carry on the conflict... even if we had to use pick handles. This "effect" has been seen many times as a consequence of trying to bomb into submission. If things had gone differently then we would still be offering resistance to the invasion of our country... in effect we would carry the label of "terrorists" for resisting the imposition of "law and order".

O.K you bomb your enemy into submission 'cos he hasn't got anything left to effectively fight back with. If that enemy still harbours a strong sense of injustice and if that is based on *real cause* then you have achieved nothing because a few years down the road it all starts up again

If you don't put out all the flames then the fire is going to re-ignite. If we don't address the *real* problems underlying most troublespots then our kids get to do it again in the future.

We have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, think that's the end of it ?

Reg

Well it sure got further along than you have so far managed.

Whoooooaaaa! The American and British purpose in Iraq was to remove an evil dictator who had weapons of mass destruction which he could deploy within minutes... 45 minutes was quoted by Blair. He was also supposed to be feeding material to OBL and his organisation. It was much, much later when things were getting hairy for the politicians in both countries that the concept of freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal oppressor got into the game. Funnily enough, in the intervening years since the first Gulf war, Saddam committed great acts of brutality and oppression against his own people.... no one batted an eye lid. Then shrub gets into power and OBL gave him the perfect excuse to go avenge daddy. T.V replays of Blair and Shrub show that freeing the Iraqi people didn't get mentioned until it was apparent that there was opposition to their plans. Blair sold the war to a doubtfull British public by stressing the deployment, within minutes, of WMD. That is why the row is now developing in both Britain and America over the justification for invading Iraq.

Lets see.....

The Twin Towers were destroyed by OBL and his very sophisticated network.

Saddam is playing "brinksmanship" ('cos that was what he always did) with the weapons inspectors.

The weapons inspectors gain access and can't find even a trace of WMD.

The weapons inspectors ask for more time and state, in their opinion, that they doubt the existence of any weapons.

We then go invade Iraq, the British public only half-heartedly supporting the invasion because they are told the WMD are there and the evidence will be displayed within a couple of weeks.

No WMD are ever found and after many deaths the place is in turmoil.

So thats it then job sorted and Iraq will live peacefully and happily from here on in....... dream on !!!

Fact is there were no WMD and as it was pointed out at the time Sadamm would not be helping OSB 'cos Saddam was hated slightly more than America by OSB. You perhaps need to do a bit or research on OSB... there is some good material which will show you what drives him. You may well get a shock when you realise how clever the guy is and the success he has had in huge commercial projects.. before taking off on his later terrorist career.

Unfortunately we can't, we could however fill a large hall with similar photo's of women and children.

Ah yes. As was stated afterwards America would never again fight with one arm tied behind it's back.... hell the only thing you didn't dump on Vietnam was nukes !!!

A war micromanaged by

60's rhetoric ??? Speaking the truth is now called rhetoric if it doesn't suit... no rhetoric here just facts.

As a load of crap for all to see.

Next time you have an idle moment try reflecting...

OSB received a large slice of funding for his network from drug sales. Ironic or what ? The druggies on the streets of America and the the more affluent coke snorters in the boardrooms, government and other high places funded the guy who brought down the Twin Towers. Has there been a big ad cmpaign in the press and on T.V to dissuade people from pouring millions of dollars into OSB's campaign chests ? Has the fact that America's drug users funded him been widely discussed ?

There are plenty of drug users here... but the bulk of his revenue came from the States.... well it is such a huge commercial market compared to anywhere else !!!

Reg

Let me reduce it to simple terms, you mess with the bull - you get the horns.

Thank God for a couple of leaders with balls.

A letter captured today along with card #48 attests to the fear that is in the hearts of the terrorists. Seems they WAY underestimated the resolve of the coalition to pursue them, and put them out of business.

Here it is for your perusal is the contents of a letter written by Zarqawi :

He is terrified of the coalition's will," Kimmitt said today. "He's terrified of the coalition's military capabilities. He is terrified of the fact that we are building (an) Iraqi security structure that prevents him from establishing a base inside this country. And he is terrified of a country that, rather than bowing to terrorism, is moving toward democracy."

The general said the letter confirms the coalition's current strategy is the correct one. "And as we continue to work - the coalition and the people of Iraq together - to hunting down Zarqawi and those of his ilk, that is the best strategy we have to ensure that we limit his capability to operate inside Iraq."

Senor said today the letter makes it clear Zarqawi is frustrated by the increasing difficulty he's having in trying to hide in Iraq. The country's geography, combined with an ever-dwindling number of Iraqis willing to help or harbor terrorists, are working against Zarqawi, Senor said.

Coalition administrator Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III is sharing the letter with key Iraqi leaders, Senor said, to generate some publicity to aid in intelligence gathering, and so Iraqi leaders will recognize efforts at creating ethnic strife for what they are, so they can protect against the ethnic warfare that is Zarqawi's aim.

"So if there is an attack against Shiia leadership, or there is an attack against a Shiia holy site, the various ethnic leaders won't be easily drawn into reprisals, because that's exactly what Zarqawi and al Qaeda are trying to provoke in this country," Senor said. "They're trying to tear this country apart with ethnic bloodshed."

Another reason for sharing the letter with Iraqi leaders, Senor said, is to emphasize what it means about the combined efforts of the coalition and the Iraqi people.

"It's important when we say the strategy of building up the Iraqi security services is working," he said. "It's important when the Iraqi Governing Council leaders say that the building up of Iraqi security forces is working.

"But nothing is more important," he emphasized, "than when the enemies of Iraq say that the building up of Iraqi security services is working."

No but, it would appear that the bombing of American cities has made you give up. And certainly the bombing of Iraqi cities, no matter how discriminating the ordinance is, has also made you give up.

We have a word for such attitudes. Starts with a C

Chuck