[quote]Gkhan wrote:
But in today’s news, the president of Iraq said that if the US left now, Iraq would become an al-qaeda haven. [/quote]
Well, of course. Without the US’ protection, the whole government will be in jeopardy.
As for “Iraq would become an al-qaeda haven”, what do you think it is right now? A haven for boyscouts? Get real! I highly doubt it could get any worse, but you might speculate otherwise if you want.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, but I had to translate it from lawyerese to english… ;)[/quote]
Zap seems to be awfully silent on the matter. He was the one who brought up the “agenda” bit, not BostonBarrister.
[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:
Yes, but I had to translate it from lawyerese to english… 
Zap seems to be awfully silent on the matter. He was the one who brought up the “agenda” bit, not BostonBarrister.[/quote]
I suppose we could let it degenerate into a “do to”, “do not” discussion.
I happen to believe there is an agenda that is being followed in the selection of the news presented as well as editorial comments. I believe the NYT and FoxNews have different agendas.
I also believe this is nothing new and most major media has always had some sort of agenda.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was a single post by you prior to this one, and all you did in it was cheer the OP’s point.
So when you say “he just blamed it” and “I called it”, I tend to get really confused.
But even if we did cause it, that allegedly being the case, what do we do? Is it right to fight these bastards, or do we just cut and run? I saw we have a duty to destroy them and stop this barbarity.
That is a good question.
It’s not up to you (your administration) or me to decide. Iraq is not yours or mine. Iraq belongs to Iraqis. A referendum should be held and the Iraqis will have to decide.
I did not cheer the OP. I said the islamic leftist terrorist apologists would blame the whole thing on the US and you did.
I agree with you on the referendum. But in today’s news, the president of Iraq said that if the US left now, Iraq would become an al-qaeda haven.
So, in your opinion, what would be best? An Iraq run by a genocidal maniac (ie Saddam), an Iraq run by al-qaeda, an Iraq dominated by Iran, or a democratic US allied Iraq? [/quote]
Al Qaeda will never “run” Iraq. They are a very small percentage of the forces arrayed against us, and are used by the broader Sunni insurgency (i.e. ex-Baathists). Once they stop being useful to the insurgency, they will all be killed.
The danger in us leaving Iraq is much more about regional implications (Iran) and the possibility of a long civil war and a failed state.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
LOL.
As right wingers like to state, things happening that you don’t like doesn’t equate to an agenda.
Internal memos directing staff to cover news in a specific slant would be good support for your argument…
I don’t suppose you have anything to back up your statements other than simply not liking the coverage?
It’s not an organized agenda. It’s merely the result of 95% of journalists in the MSM sharing the same left-leaning worldview. No conspiracy – just like there’s no conspiracy to cover bodybuilding from a non-bodybuilder’s perspective, or steroids from an ignorant perspective.
[/quote]
Some truth to this, but it’s much more true in domestic policy, where certain things, i.e. gay marriage, abortion, are just automatically assumed to be good things.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…
Al Qaeda will never “run” Iraq. They are a very small percentage of the forces arrayed against us, and are used by the broader Sunni insurgency (i.e. ex-Baathists). Once they stop being useful to the insurgency, they will all be killed.
…[/quote]
I disagree with this assessment. It is more likely they would help an Islamist group to power and become their assassins much like they did with the Taliban.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
LOL.
As right wingers like to state, things happening that you don’t like doesn’t equate to an agenda.
Internal memos directing staff to cover news in a specific slant would be good support for your argument…
I don’t suppose you have anything to back up your statements other than simply not liking the coverage?
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not an organized agenda. It’s merely the result of 95% of journalists in the MSM sharing the same left-leaning worldview. No conspiracy – just like there’s no conspiracy to cover bodybuilding from a non-bodybuilder’s perspective, or steroids from an ignorant perspective.
GDollars37 wrote:
Some truth to this, but it’s much more true in domestic policy, where certain things, i.e. gay marriage, abortion, are just automatically assumed to be good things.[/quote]
REVISED
Maybe it’s just that reporting is unreliable.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/008981.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/a_matter_of_trust.php
However, Michael Yon has offered to let his account be published for free:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/update-on-bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They massacred plenty in Afghanistan before the US liberated it.
[/quote]
I’ll say.
Uzbegs, Tajiks and Hazaras
[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps we can step back from political slogans like cut and run and realize that in war, sometimes a strategic retreat or regrouping is a wise maneuver.[/quote]
This would be a genius tactic. Bush is no genius.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I disagree with this assessment. It is more likely they would help an Islamist group to power and become their assassins much like they did with the Taliban.[/quote]
And I disagree with yours.
The situation that lead to the Talibans rising to power in Afghanistan’s is not at all comparable with today’s Iraq.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I disagree with this assessment. It is more likely they would help an Islamist group to power and become their assassins much like they did with the Taliban.
And I disagree with yours.
The situation that lead to the Talibans rising to power in Afghanistan’s is not at all comparable with today’s Iraq.[/quote]
Tell me how you think a secular Sunni government would arise if the US pulled out.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Tell me how you think a secular Sunni government would arise if the US pulled out.[/quote]
Fascinating insight Zap.
You acknowledge that the presence of the US in Iraq is motivated by putting a US-friendly government in place. You don’t seem to care the least bit about what the Iraqi population or the Shi’a majority thinks…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Tell me how you think a secular Sunni government would arise if the US pulled out.
Fascinating insight Zap.
You acknowledge that the presence of the US in Iraq is motivated by putting a US-friendly government in place. You don’t seem to care the least bit about what the Iraqi population or the Shi’a majority thinks…[/quote]
WTF?
I was trying to discuss GDollars position that when the US leaves the Sunnis will eliminate AQ.
I think if the US leaves that AQ will ally itself with an Islamist Sunni group and try to help it rise to power much like it did with the Taliban.
AQ will continue to murder the Shia.
Now rather than make your own analysis you appear to be making a non sequiter.
I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to say.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I was trying to discuss GDollars position that when the US leaves the Sunnis will eliminate AQ. [/quote]
You tried to argue that without the US, Iraq will “likely” be transformed into a Taliban-style government associated with Al-Qaeda. I disagreed with that. Then you expect me to guess that your reply to my post was actually in reference to GDollar’s position, which I neither supported nor refuted (though I think anyone who believes that Al-Qaeda’s got a chance in running Iraq is an nothing but an idiot).
You asked:
“Tell me how you think a secular Sunni government would arise if the US pulled out.”
I inferred that you expect the US presence in Iraq to yield a “secular Sunni government”. And any analyst will tell you that it’s indeed the ideal form of government the US would wanna see in Iraq.
Clear?
[quote]lixy wrote:
The rest of us expect a bit more than some dude’s word.[/quote]
unless, of course, it is the word of a dude who agrees with you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This should be front page NYT.
It would probably be more useful if it was shown on Middle Eastern media…[/quote]
Good Point. I think that more Muslim/Middle /Eastern countries need to educate their people that organisations like Al-Qaeda are completely wrong in their ideology.
These governments need to take a responsibility and educate the public about what Islam is, and to encourage education about their religion from authentic, learned and scholarly sources so that young men do not join these organisations, who mask their political zeal with religion.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
unless, of course, it is the word of a dude who agrees with you.[/quote]
Oh, I agree with Yon plenty. For starters, we both consider Al-Qaeda one of the lowest scums to have ever walked the Earth. There’s absolutely no question about that.
I got a bit disturbed by Zap’s willingness to take Michael’s word that it was indeed Al-Qaeda that perpetrated those acts. That sort of blindly believing whatever is reported to us, is at the core of the problem. Be it the brainwashed terrorists, or the American public that bought Bush’s pretexts.
I didn’t refute Michael’s position. I just asked Zap for vigilance and keeping a critical mind. Yet, you managed to find something wrong about that. Give it a break!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I was trying to discuss GDollars position that when the US leaves the Sunnis will eliminate AQ.
You tried to argue that without the US, Iraq will “likely” be transformed into a Taliban-style government associated with Al-Qaeda. I disagreed with that. Then you expect me to guess that your reply to my post was actually in reference to GDollar’s position, which I neither supported nor refuted (though I think anyone who believes that Al-Qaeda’s got a chance in running Iraq is an nothing but an idiot).
You asked:
“Tell me how you think a secular Sunni government would arise if the US pulled out.”
I inferred that you expect the US presence in Iraq to yield a “secular Sunni government”. And any analyst will tell you that it’s indeed the ideal form of government the US would wanna see in Iraq.
Clear?[/quote]
Clear as mud.
I expect the US presence will bring about a Shia dominated government with a Sunni voice.
I also think the only group that will kill off AQ are secular Sunnis.
The Shia want them killed off but since AQ hides among the Sunnis it is too difficult.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Clear as mud.
I expect the US presence will bring about a Shia dominated government with a Sunni voice. [/quote]
That’s exactly the reason the troops will never leave Iraq. The US will never allow Iraq to get close to Iran. But, I’m digressing here…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I thought everyone agreed the agenda was to shock citizens so they will watch the news… ?[/quote]
No. The agenda is to shock so you get ratings and then your ad-space value increases, and you get more revenue from that.
Its a business. Not a conspiracy.