War in the Middle East

[chozen 1]

You hear way more about the coalition casualties on the news than you do about the Iraqi losses.

...I don't, I hear more about Iraqi deaths.

*applauds Alexander*

At last, someone who isn't bound by political sides, just their own opinions.

[Ender 8]

Yes, the reporters can have their own opinions - that is unavoidable -

but the news they report can't favour either side.

Yet it still does.

[chozen 1]

I think, this is where we Brits different from you Americans.

Me and Beeurd both know what an unbiased news station is.

You do not.

You don't understand the idea of it because you've been brought up in a world of Fox and CNN.

Think of the most unbiased new station in America... and you're still miles away from BBC.

btw, bbc reporters don't give their opinions, they just say whats been happening in the news.

[Tsl 7]

Yes, the reporters can have their own opinions - that is unavoidable -

but the news they report can't favour either side.

Ah, but even a simple thing like word choice can lean to favor one side or another...

Grade school example:

The Revolutionists vs. The Rebels

Means the same thing, really, but revolution sounds good, rebellion sounds bad. Hence we like to call it the American Revolution rather than the American Rebellion.

Anyways, the point is even the simplest things, and not even meant to intentionally influence one side or the other, can still make some difference.

Though I agree that the BBC is a billion times less biased than any American news show. (Yes, we get BBC World News over here and sometimes other programs, lol)

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

Geez, they weren't "putting the troops down" they were just reporting news, which is what news corporations do, funilly enough.

Besides, the BBC is legally bound by the UK government to provide unbiased news reporting.

as it's been said, American news is really biased. rather annoying, actually. sometimes it's not so much word choice as the way it's said. some reporters sound like they're saying, "Geez, won't somebody realize our President is a moron and bring our men and women home?" of course, Congress won't because there are so many Republicans right now, but if they want they can vote to pull out and Bush will have 60 days to get the troops home. but, again, a mostly Republican Congress is not going to go against a Republican president.

[Alexander 0]

Personally, I believe that if politicans want to continue fighting a war they should be on the frontlines. But that's just me.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

oh, you know it's not their sons and daughters out there; it's regular people like us. if it was their kids out there, you bet your tailfeathers we'd either have gotten this done a lot sooner or we wouldn't have gone at all.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Then become a politician the war would end then

[TheUnknown 39]

Damn, I missed some good arguing. *Cries*

I think that everyone (not just the US...everyone) should just leave all of the third world countries...maybe take the people who want to leave with us. Let them work out their own problems. No one was around to help Britain or any of the first world nations when they were first developing.

It's a harsh and cruel sounding solution but it saves us the headache.

1) Much of the world's terrorism comes from Third World Countries.

2) Much of the world's disease comes from the Third World.

3) Most immigration comes from Third World Countries.

4) American jobs (and I presume Canadian and British jobs as well) are being outsourced to Third World countries with much lower environmental and labor standards.

5) Third World countries are now developing WMD.

6) Much of the Earth's oxygen comes from Third World Countries.

7) The Third World can potentially be very profitable from First World. (Just don't exploit it).

8) Most of the oil we use comes from the Third World.

9) A good deal of agricultural and mineral products come from the Third World.

Look at the bigger picture. We cannot survive (literally and figuratively) without the Third World. That's why you should care.

[Andy 60]

I have to argue with number one on that list. I think terrorism comes in equal amounts from all parts of the world.

Also, I thought third world countries were too poor to develop WMD.

[Chickenman 9]

Well...if by WMDs you mean nukes...real nukes...than yes...but dirty bombs, and CBWs are relativly cheap compared to nukes.

[Drake 53]

When you're low on cash, just turn to the Russian black market. :p

[Ender 8]

That's why just about every extremist group in the world uses RPG's and AK47's.

[chozen 1]

They're also very reliable... Cheap though.

[Chickenman 9]

Which sucks, because the AK-47 is better than the M-16 in some regards.

[Ender 8]

Actually, in ALL regards. The M16 is without doubt the worst weapon ever bestowed upon the American military.

[Chickenman 9]

I knew that. But since I am less experienced in the war buff field than you, I decided I'd make my comment more neutral and avoid a possible lecture. :p

[Andy 60]

lol

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

good plan, Chickeman. although we may get a lecture anyway. :p

[Chickenman 9]

Well, at least then I'll get to lecture some other poor sap.

[Ender 8]

lol... I do that a lot. It's just an affliction from reading too many books by David Hackworth...

[chozen 1]

good plan, Chickeman. although we may get a lecture anyway.

:rofl:

[Bushy 0]

I didn't read all the posts. No time to. But I'll comment anyway...

I'm sure Andrew already said this, but has anybody given any consideration to the American soldiers who were butchered and dragged through the streets? No. So why is the media all up in arms about a few Iraqis who got a lil roughed up? Well, I'll tell you why. Cause the mainstream media only reports on the bad, the negative, the titilating, anything that's interesting, controversial, anything that will get them ratings. Do they ever report on all the Hospitals that are built in Iraq, or the schools that are started? No. Out of the hundred good things that happen in Iraq every day, they report on the 3 bad things. It's sad, really...

Ok, I got a lil sidetracked there...

Anyway, those guys got what was comming to them, in my honest opinion. If they wanna be asociated with killing thousands of people "in the name of Allah", then I think a little roughing up for information on the whereabouts of of their comrades is completely justified.

[chozen 1]

Anyway, those guys got what was comming to them, in my honest opinion. If they wanna be asociated with killing thousands of people "in the name of Allah", then I think a little roughing up for information on the whereabouts of of their comrades is completely justified.

Shut

the

****

up

A good majority of the prisoners in that prison were left over from Saddam Husseins regime.

Two, it goes strictly against the Geneva convention.. Ie. Illegal. Ie. Wrong

- Wait a sec. Why did the coalition go into Iraq? Somethign to do with Human rights.. ah, no.. couldn't be.

Three.

they wanna be asociated with killing thousands of people "in the name of Allah"

No, just in the name of American puppetry, anyone, taht's getting sidetracked.

The scumbags of Saddam's regime weren't Muslim Fundermentalists, don't get them confused.

Do they ever report on all the Hospitals that are built in Iraq, or the schools that are started? No. Out of the hundred good things that happen in Iraq every day, they report on the 3 bad things. It's sad, really...

{EDIT- Watch the swearing Chozen, the filter's down ~Prin}

Does the one sin of mine wipe away all the goods deeds?

Edited June 18, 2004 by Princess

[Bushy 0]

I won't even bother retorting. I said my piece. I'm tired of debating...