Fewer US Dead = Less Coverage On Iraq

oceanbreeze · #21 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

OB, how much in denial will you be in 2009. Hopefully, you won't be as easily fooled and out of touch as you were in 2008! This remains to be seen...Right?

As much as you're in.

kgpoolerev · #22 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

Don't worry Smitty, the current course and ops tempo the Bush Admin has committed our military to is not only ruining the military, but this endeavor is unsustainable and unaffordable.

The military can't wait for the current batch of incompetent leaders in the W.H. to hit the road. The next President will listen to the Generals, and will greatly lesson the foot print of using conventional 20th century cold war armies, to using interpol, global joint special forces and air sttrikes to attack Terrorist and Terrorism.

No more slow cumbersome, 101st Air Borne or the 9th Marine Expeditionary Force!!! Of the failed going door-to-door and harrassing iraqi citizens who have nothing wrong!!!

Yes, the failed unnecessary and illegal Bush occupation of Iraq will soon end. And the vast numbers of Military members and their families who remain in the service will breathe a deep sigh of Relief! That the Village Idiot from Texas has gone home, and the GOP is no longer running things and fucking up everything they TOUCH.

The military will have a chance to rebuild and re-equip their totally depleted force infrastructure!

The Defense contractor had better bilk and steal from the American tax payers as much as they can over the remaining months of the Bush failed Presidency.........b/c they're greedy-theiving Ass will be kicked out of Iraq and allow the Iraqi's to rebuild their own country.

The only remants of the U.S. military left in Iraq, will be the necessary allowable force structure to protect the U.S. Embassy in the next 3 years.

*sighs* Your ignorance is mind boggling. Democratic leaders never care about the military unless it involves bases in their districts or contractors in their districts. The decisions Democratics make in regards to the military has always weaken it. For example, I served in the early to mid 90s, due to Clinton's slashing of the military Russian linguists were being encouraged to accept early retirement. The cuts were so deep that in a short time the Air Force was paying large bonuses to keep the linguists.

San Vito air base underwent millions of dollars in renovations shortly before it was closed, but before it was closed millions more were spent to redo the same things. This is while a Democratic was president.

To clue you in both parties are responsible for BILLIONS of wasteful spending every year. As long as being reelected depends on bringing home pork spending the Federal government will never have an incentive to run and efficient government. Unfortunately having a balanced budget without having raised taxes is not a requirement for a politician to be reelected. So instead they squander OUR money. Since the Democratics took over power in the Congress the pork projects have reached all time highs.

As a Democratic liberal you need to come clean and admit that you could not care less about the military or it's personnel. As my brother in law prepares to return to Iraq, eagerly prepares liberals try to speak for him and the other servicemen. You pretend to speak for my sister and my nieces and nephews. Stop lying. You speak for the Democratics who NEED a lot of soldiers dying in Iraq, you NEED us to fail as your Democratic party has hinged their hopes on our servicemen not being able to get the job done.

Go to Barack Obama's website, read his plan for Iraq, then listen to what he says. If Al Qaeda moves into Iraq he will send the troops back there. Newsflash, Al Qaeda in Iraq is actually IN Iraq. So is Barack too uninformed to know Al Qaeda is in Iraq? Or is he lying about withdrawing the troops?

Stop try to speak for my family and my friends. YOU have not been elected to represent them nor any part of the military. Your ignorance of the legality of the invasion of Iraq proves that you do not want to deal with reality. Fine, I have long thought you could lead liberals to wisdom, but you could not make them think. But STOP lying about my family and friends. You have no idea what our servicemen and their families think.

kgpoolerev · #23 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 11:09 PM

Countries Supporting Ops in Iraq

Country
In Iraq In Theater Total Future
1 United Kingdom ~7,200 1,300 ~8,500
2 South Korea ~2,300 ~2,300 ~1,100 (?)
3 Australia ~850 ~541 ~1,400
4 Poland 900 900
5 Romania 865 865
6 Denmark 460 ~35 (NATO and UNAMI) ~500
7 El Salvador 380 380
8 Georgia 300 550 (UNAMI) 850 ~2,400 (?)
9 Azerbaijan 150 150
10 Bulgaria ~150 ~150
11 Latvia 136 136
12 Albania 120 120
13 Czech Republic 100 100
14 Mongolia 100 100
15 Lithuania ~50 ~50
16 Armenia 46 46
17 Bosnia & Herzegovina 37 37
18 Estonia 34 34
19 Macedonia 33 33
20 Kazakhstan 29 29
21 Moldova* 12 12
TOTAL ~14,200 ~17,000
UNAMI Fiji ** 150 150
Hungary *** 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Nicaragua 0 Withdrew troops: Feb. 2004
Spain 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Apr. 2004
Dominican Republic 0 Withdrew troops: Early-May. 2004
Honduras 0 Withdrew troops: Late-May. 2004
Philippines 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Jul. 2004
Thailand 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Aug. 2004
New Zealand 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Sep. 2004
Tonga 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Dec. 2004
Portugal 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Feb. 2005
Singapore**** 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Norway 0 Withdrew troops: Oct. 2005
Ukraine 0 Withdrew troops: Dec. 2005
The Netherlands 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Japan 0 Withdrew troops: Jul. 2006
Italy 0 Withdrawal troops: End of Nov. 2006
Slovakia 0 Withdrew troops: End of January 2007
* A contingent of Moldovan soldiers arrived in Iraq in February 2006 to clear unexploded ordinance. This contingent replaced the third contingent of Moldovan soldiers which had redeployed to Iraq in February 2005. Many media reports regarding Moldova's supposed full withdrawal of troops have failed to mention either the 2005 or 2006 redeployment.
** Fiji's troop contingent is deployed as part of UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)
*** Was part of NATO Training Force.
**** Singapore's token contribution was a landing ship tank deployed to the Persian Gulf which arrived home on March 19, 2005.

Sources:
Media Reports as listed.
Directly contacting the embassies of the respective countries within the United States.
Embassy websites
MNF-I
State Department
CENTCOM

To all the liberals who describe this as Bush's war, please note that there was a decent size coalition of forces. There are a lot of lawyers from numerous countries that all reached a conclusion that the invasion was legal. Your ignorance of the fact that there was a coalition has now been fixed. Your ignorance about the legality of it has also been fixed. As liberals seldom let the truth get in the way of their opinions I doubt that educating you will change you mind.

dgh25 · #24 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

Networks Minimize Good News From Iraq, Don’t Press Democrats on “Wrong-Headed” Predictions
Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq -- 02/28/2008 - Media Research Center - Media Reality Check

Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq

One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. “A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. “Many experts warn, it’s too little, too late,” NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC’s Today, the network’s graphic describing Iraq was “Lost Cause?”

At the same time, leading Democrats left themselves no wiggle room as they, too, denounced the surge. Senator Barack Obama called it “wrong-headed” and countered with a proposal to pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Senator Hillary Clinton came back from a quick trip to Iraq to declare: “I am opposed to this escalation,” while another Democratic candidate, Senator Joe Biden, blasted the troop surge as “a tragic mistake.”

One year later, the President’s surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported February 16. Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month since November.

And U.S. military deaths have also declined, falling from 126 in May 2007 to 40 in January 2008 and just 29 so far in February, with two days left in the month. Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite’s interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq.

MRC intern Lyndsi Thomas helped tabulate all ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Iraq since the beginning of 2007, just as the surge strategy was being implemented. After heavy coverage of the shift to a new Iraq policy in January and February 2007, the TV coverage began to closely track the rising and falling death rates for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. When the number of U.S. fatalities jumped in May, TV coverage jumped, too. When U.S. casualties began to steadily decline, TV coverage of Iraq dramatically decreased. (See chart.)

[For more on how the broadcast networks are tuning out the Iraq war, see the February 4 CyberAlert.] ABC Champions Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton 'Dream Ticket' --2/4/2008-- Media Research Center

While the amount of coverage has shriveled, the tone remains more negative than positive. So far this month, the three evening newscasts have aired just 41 items on Iraq, most (23) just brief items read by the anchor. A mere seven stories were field reports from Iraq. Only ABC’s World News (February 13) noted the passage of key legislation by the Iraqi parliament, followed by a unique story the next evening on the success of the surge. The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News offered no such stories in February, but NBC did find time to report a visit to Iraq by actress Angelina Jolie.

Back in December, NBC’s Tim Russert conceded that the media were less interested in covering a successful U.S. mission in Iraq, telling anchor Brian Williams that “with the surge in Iraq and the level of American deaths declining, it is off the front pages.”

This is not neutral news judgment, but a great favor to anti-surge Democrats, since TV’s lack of interest in Iraq spares them the chore of defending their now-discredited opposition to the surge. Does anyone think the media would have let John McCain off the hook had the surge failed as spectacularly as it has succeeded? — Rich Noyes

Stop Politicing the troops. All what the extreme right does is hide behind our troops using predictible, boring, and old rhetoric. You have to understand these points before you start typing:

A war should be fiscally managed in a responsible way if you engage. AND before you engage you should think (KEY WORD: THINK) not use the Evangelicals radical views about the middle east.

See, we have all the military might and the necessary allies (right now) in the region to literally control Iraq, its resources, and award great contracts to our and some European corporations (to extract and refine their oil, build their bridges, and train their police for example). That's what we can do.

What we cannot do are:
1) Give over two millions people their dignity, lives, and home back (under Saddam they were mistreated also, but that's not our job to interfere within their domestic problems, even though that's not why we went in there in the first place; I guess it shouldn't been called operation Iraqi freedom after all it's an oxymoron don't you think so).
2) Convince Iraqis that they can live together peacefully (actually, we can do it in about 200 years and $1000^122, that's how long it took us but we did it ourselves).

IcyPeaceMaker · #25 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 11:29 PM

Iraq did not have WMD, Iraq did not threaten America, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush lied to go in there to do Israel's heavy lifting, without regard for American live or treasure, and fabricated support for his murders. Those are the facts, now quit giving Bush head!

kgpoolerev · #26 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPeaceMaker

Iraq did not have WMD, Iraq did not threaten America, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush lied to go in there to do Israel's heavy lifting, without regard for American live or treasure, and fabricated support for his murders. Those are the facts, now quit giving Bush head!

Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He should not be held accountable for your inability to hear what is said. Vladimir Putin in a public address did say Russian had given the U.S. intelligence that Saddam was planning a 9/11 style attack on the U.S.

Visit this site, it has declassified reports detailing information on hundreds of WMD found in Iraq, http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf

Stop calling our soldiers murders. You are undoubtly one of the many liberals who "support the troops, but not the war". But by saying Bush is a murder, you are saying our servicemen are murders. I have given you proof that Saddam had WMD. So stop lying and stop slandering our troops.

dgh25 · #27 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgpoolerev

Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He should not be held accountable for your inability to hear what is said. Vladimir Putin in a public address did say Russian had given the U.S. intelligence that Saddam was planning a 9/11 style attack on the U.S.

Visit this site, it has declassified reports detailing information on hundreds of WMD found in Iraq, http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf

Stop calling our soldiers murders. You are undoubtly one of the many liberals who "support the troops, but not the war". But by saying Bush is a murder, you are saying our servicemen are murders. I have given you proof that Saddam had WMD. So stop lying and stop slandering our troops.

Support War=Believe in Tooth Fairy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqis did not ask bush 'to liberate them', tax payers money and US armed forces are to be used only for americans by americans. It is not our job to liberate other poeples nations. Nobody liberated us in 1776, we did it ourselves. And if you believe that we invaded Iraq to liberate it, mind as well start believing in the tooth fairy!!!! Join the real republicans: Pat buchanan, Kessinger, Buckley, and ron paul; read what they said about bush. Stop being a fool.

kgpoolerev · #28 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgh25

Support War=Believe in Tooth Fairy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqis did not ask bush 'to liberate them', tax payers money and US armed forces are to be used only for americans by americans. It is not our job to liberate other poeples nations. Nobody liberated us in 1776, we did it ourselves. And if you believe that we invaded Iraq to liberate it, mind as well start believing in the tooth fairy!!!! Join the real republicans: Pat buchanan, Kessinger, Buckley, and ron paul; read what they said about bush. Stop being a fool.

Our goal in going in was not 'to liberate them'. You might want to stick to reality. If there was a threat and looking at the information known at the time, the WMD and the intel that Putin gave us, then Bush had to act. If he had not acted and we had been attacked you would be whining that Bush did not act and should be prosecuted for not acting. And I would agree with you.

Why should I look to other people to find out HOW I should think? I am not a liberal who needs to be told what I should think. Instead I look at as much information as I can and make up my own mind and act on it.

If you need someone to THINK for you then I really hope you never vote, for liberals nor conservatives.

IcyPeaceMaker · #29 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 07:27 AM

Looka here, warmonger, war is a bad thing. Ask the troops if you don't believe me. WE HAD NO VIABLE REASON TO GO INTO IRAQ, NONE! You can fabricate all the lies and so-called declassified WMD reports you want, or buy someone else's fabrications if you like, but I seek the truth and not yours or Bush's bullshit.

It is one thing to go to war when it is necessary to protect OUR country, and quite another thing for profits (oil & war material). We are wasting lives and money to enrich Bush, Cheney and several others, at the expense of the American people, and BUSH is the murderer, a fucking serial killer. Wake the fuck up!

kgpoolerev · #30 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPeaceMaker

Looka here, warmonger, war is a bad thing. Ask the troops if you don't believe me. WE HAD NO VIABLE REASON TO GO INTO IRAQ, NONE! You can fabricate all the lies and so-called declassified WMD reports you want, or buy someone else's fabrications if you like, but I seek the truth and not yours or Bush's bullshit.

It is one thing to go to war when it is necessary to protect OUR country, and quite another thing for profits (oil & war material). We are wasting lives and money to enrich Bush, Cheney and several others, at the expense of the American people, and BUSH is the murderer, a fucking serial killer. Wake the fuck up!

The military, you mean my family and friends and I do speak with them. I have listed the coalition nations that believed Saddam was a threat and that it was lawful to go into Iraq. I have given you access to a site that covers a declassified document about the WMD in Iraq that was found in the aftermath. If you read it you will find out that the intel about Saddam making new WMD was wrong. But he had it. Stop lying.

Every time you say BUsh is a murder you are saying that the servicemen are murders as Bush is not physically in Iraq. Stop insulting them. Go talk to the servicemen and find out that they are people with the best character, morals, and love of the Constitution that you will find in the country.

If you ever bothered to do genuine research you would find out that oil was going to the exact same place it was going to before the war. I personally believe that we should be getting more oil from it at a cheaper price to offset the expense of fixing Iraq so we do not have to go back in 10 years and have the children of our current servicemen dying over there since liberals are too blind to see reality.

Since you clearly do not clear about the lives of the conservative servicemen what are you complaining about. Cut the bullshit and tell me what your true concern is.