“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.

… Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by “our” side. …

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. …

In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.”

-George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

As to the future of Iraq, it seems that once the people who f..ed everything up are held accountable, we could start with the decidedly positive and honorable task of helping to rebuild Iraq.

Less cheerful stupidity and more honesty and sincerity would be a way to honor and support the troops, methinks.

bin Laden is where?

…six months later…

Doom, doom, da-doom doom, doom, doom, doom

Anyway, it seems like too many of the troops are brainwashed to begin with. They go into fighting a war like this with very specific biases and they believe all that tripe about the military “fighting for this country” (which it hasn’t since the Civil War, honestly–no war since has been a defense against attack, even WWII came *after* Pearl Harbor and then we went after Germany first), so you can’t tell them anything. And really, it’s for the best in terms of military readiness–if individual soldiers question the chain of command they may get their comrades killed in combat. But it’s not for the best in terms of the future of this country.

But anyway, with all the brainwashing, I read interviews with some of the soldiers who came back and it’s like a point-by-point regurgitation of all the lies the White House is spewing. I’m still waiting for them to find a stash of active, relatively new WMDs and all they’ve found is oil. Which is its own WMD, really, but according to the Bush regime global warming isn’t happening in the first place, so they’re not gonna see it that way.

It doesn’t matter how they individually vote. They’re gonna slant their stories any way their editors and publishers tell them to do it. And it’s not liberals who *own* most of the media, I promise you.

Even NPR, whatever their bias, gives conservatives a platform on their programs. Literally. I heard them interviewing Richard Perle one day, and treating him with respect. Wanted to puke.

You seem to imply that the US should be able to mind control all of the tribal/ethnic/religious radicals into not uprising…. I don’t think we can do that. I also don’t believe we can, nor should, simply slaughter or imprison them all. It really isn’t our job anymore if you ask me.

Now don’t tell me, “We started this war and we should finish it!”. Because in the next breath you’ll tell me, “We should pull our troops out!”. Because you can’t have it both ways. Finishing it means leaving it as a whole country that can handle its problems internally, and, it would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise. Remember when we pulled out of ‘Nam and thousands upon thousands of civillians were slaughtered in the uprising there?

Basic Journalism 101: run stories people actually give a crap about.
…but, thanks for playing.

Idiots. When the United States of America builds a school in Iraq, that is about the furthest thing from a news story.

When the United States of America CAN’T QUELL A TRIBAL/ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS UPRISING in Iraq, THAT’S NEWS and I’f you don’t know why, take a big glass of bleach and chug it.

Or maybe we can tell both side of the Iraq War story. In addition to how we’re LOSING, maybe we can run stories on why they’re WINNING.

*Playes taps*

As to liberal bias, there is and there isn´t, but I can tell you this. I am currently in spain at the moment, and the only way most people are informed is through there media and the media from America. most people barely know who John McCain is, and you can´t turn on most of the common television stations in the US to be informed about him. You may or may not think that john mccain deserves coverage, but the fact that we know so much more about Obama (nothing about his foreign policies are actually solid steps he is going to take, you really think he is going to meet without preconditions AND get anything done? HA!) and barely anything about McCain shows that at least the media prefers one candidate over another.

Lastly, Support our Troops means give them emotional support, you can´t support a person if you do not believe in the cause or reason they are doing something. You may not agree with the war, but you should emotionally support the troops by helping them finish what was started there, and then vote for those that would discontinue any more military action. If that doesn´t make sense to you I cry that you have the ability to vote.

I would point out that everyone one of these articles is pretty old. The latest one is September 2006.

Regarding fleeing. The CSM is a pretty reliable source. However, the source suggests that 1/4 of the middle class has applied for passports. This would suggest that they want to travel, not necessarily flee the country. The second citation cites a number of people, much lower than those seeking passports, requested to have their childrens academic records be allowed oversees. I think that of the two, this is a more reliable indicator of people wanting to leave the country. Your contention was the entire middle class has fled. Your source seems to suggest otherwise.

Regarding torture. The “expert” uses the oft cited “many people” as his source for saying that things are worse now (in 2006) than under Saddam. This “expert” than loses all credibility when referring to Guantanamo Bay as a torture camp.

Regarding the rights of women. Can you imagine what the outcry would have been had the U.S. forced its constitution on Iraq? I can. Also, this article is written from a point of view that is clearly less than onjective. As evidence, notice the many times the U.S. is referred to as an “occupying force.” That is pure rhetoric used by radical Muslim sympathizers. Lastly, having worked with several groups like “MADRE”, I can tell you that it is there sole mission to identify and exaggerate the problems going on in places like Iraq. That is how they obtain funding, by screaming bloody murder. And when there is good news, they deny it and say there is still a problem that needs their help, therefore justifyiing their existence.

I will not say that none of these things were going on ever, but each of your citations is stale, one is clearly biased, and another cites a person who lacks credability. Of all three, I would say that the CSM article presents the most balanced approach and makes some points using statistics. However, I think we both agree that statisitcs alone do not present the who story.

And Mouthpiece- can i has you shutting ups? kthxbai!

Needless to say, not so stellar a review.