100 or so casualties?????
No, she talked to her son. He did not write it. Not that it did "sounded like her son."
"100 or so casualties" was about 3 months ago. We are well over the 300 or so amount. I guess that it just does not matter that so many are being killed. I mean, what did we expect? Just to be able to leave?
I have spent part of every year, for the last 15 years overseas. The one thing I do note is that it is the american press that does not accurately reflect what the rest of the world is feeling.
Excuse me, but what is the endgame here? It is clear that Rumsfeld had not thought far enough into the future to plan for what happens after the war. Can you show me what is supposed to happen now? The plan, as I heard it from dubya was that the revenues from the oil was going to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. Wrongo, it is us, to the tune of 90 million dollars!! I moved her from Texas. I lived there when Dubya was elected. I know that he did not have a clue then and doesn't now. Did you know, that in the state of Texas, the Lieutenant Gov. runs the state? Dubya was like Queen Eliz. He cut ribbons. He was a FIGUREHEAd. And not very good at that, I might add.
The "stream of negative reporting" is the reality of the situation. What would you like to believe? Where are you getting your information from?
>>>Is there anyone out there still not clued into the fact that we're at war with these guys?
No, as a matter of fact, Dubya said we have ended the war months ago, where have you been?
Please give me one good reason why we should be in Iraq right now.
As far as "overly negative reporting" goes, whose idea was it to have imbedded reporters? Rumsfeld. Reporters report. If you do not want to know what is really going on, then LOSE the Reporters!
>>Iraq goes back to the way it was, because quite frankly, no one but the US and Britain (and a couple of others) has any guts to stand up to these thugs.
So, I suppose this indicates how intelligent these two countries are? And, how stupid the rest of the world is? Get a clue. The Brits seem to be figuring out, and are asking for Blairs head. If they get it, what does that mean for his number one ally?
3)
Originally posted by SamSpade
The only thing like that that I saw was a mother who commented that the note did not sound like her son, and it simply wasn't like him to report good news.
That being said - I *do* believe that the stream of negative reporting about Iraq is eroding support for us there. It's been six lousy months. Do you realize that every year we lose about 150 guys due to *training accidents*? Geez. Saddam and bin Laden were right - send a few home in body bags, and they'll cry and go home. No wonder the Iraqis aren't fully on the bandwagon yet - a lot of them still think we'll pull up stakes and let Saddam and the Fedayeen come back and slaughter them all. And they're right.
You know, read OUR papers from overseas and you'd think the streets ran red with blood every day. It doesn't. 200,000 guys in Iraq and what, 100 or so casualties since May? Is there anyone out there still not clued into the fact that we're at war with these guys?
Picture this - American sentiment against the war grows, just while the Iraqis are getting a hold of their own. bin Laden and the forces supporting Saddam really crank up the attacks over the next few weeks because of this, and we go home. Iraq goes back to the way it was, because quite frankly, no one but the US and Britain (and a couple of others) has any guts to stand up to these thugs. Things go back to the way they were except worse for the newly liberated Iraqis, who'll be slaughtered WORSE than after the first Gulf War.
What do you think? Do you think overly negative reporting helps us, or them?