sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.
Poll
Which Scenario is more likely to Happen? (Read Before Answering)
| Apocalypse Now | 15% | 15% - 5 | ||||
| Mad Max | 12% | 12% - 4 | ||||
| Partition | 25% | 25% - 8 | ||||
| Let's Make a Deal | 15% | 15% - 5 | ||||
| They're all BS | 31% | 31% - 10 | ||||
| Total: 32 | ||||||
Are you suggesting that Mother Jones is just as sensationalized as Fox News and The Daily Mail? If you are, then you need to read more Mother Jones.usmarine wrote:
Ya eh? Where the fuck are you when people go "zomg fox news" and "zomg this or that?"Spearhead wrote:
Are you saying the article sucks?usmarine wrote:
lulz...............what?
And you bitch about the dailymail.
Who gives a fuck about the source, as long as the content is factual, or with this article, an open minded assessment of something.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-02-25 13:45:52)
There is a difference between sensationalizing news (which, admittedly, is what all of the 24 news agencies are guilty of), and biased news reporting. At least it is blatent, and is not some of the more subtle, reasonable sounding, news reports that skew one way or the other and try to pretend they are "neutral."
Well, I'll put it this way... How is it any worse that Mother Jones report the way they do than it is that lobbyists for the defense industry continually prod our government into war?
Someone has to fight the hawkish interests that run our government. If not the media, then who?
Someone has to fight the hawkish interests that run our government. If not the media, then who?
Dangercloseusmarine wrote:
I think we need to bring it within 50 meters on this forum.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
splash, overusmarine wrote:
fire for effect!
(highlights are mine; they were not put there by turquoise.)Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way... How is it any worse that Mother Jones report the way they do than it is that lobbyists for the defense industry continually prod our government into war?
Someone has to fight the hawkish interests that run our government. If not the media, then who?
Those little items are propaganda trying to masqurade as fact. Ok, beliefs, then. But they are simply viewpoints.
Last edited by imortal (2008-02-25 14:15:31)
Well its pretty naive to think otherwise, no offense. Its why our government has been even more fucked up than usual lately.imortal wrote:
(highlights are mine; they were not put there by turquoise.)Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way... How is it any worse that Mother Jones report the way they do than it is that lobbyists for the defense industry continually prod our government into war?
Someone has to fight the hawkish interests that run our government. If not the media, then who?
Those little items are propaganda trying to masqurade as fact. Ok, beliefs, then. But they are simply viewpoints.
Maybe we don't know about Iraq as much as you two Colin Powell and David Petraeus, but the article have some views that sound interesting to say the least. Even if it's from mothergoose like you said marine.usmarine wrote:
fire for effect!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is the part where somebody is going to sayusmarine wrote:
But they are way off. It appears the person who wrote that has never been to Iraq.
"so we have to go to a warzone in order to know whats going on blah blah blah blah blah blah dont cry for me blah blah blah"
pre-emptive strike.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-02-25 14:40:10)
I agree with serge, you didnt have to be a dick about it marine.
Im Powellsergeriver wrote:
Maybe we don't know about Iraq as much as you two Colin Powell and David Petraeus, but the article have some views that sound interesting to say the least. Even if it's from mothergoose like you said marine.usmarine wrote:
fire for effect!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is the part where somebody is going to say
"so we have to go to a warzone in order to know whats going on blah blah blah blah blah blah dont cry for me blah blah blah"
pre-emptive strike.
and there is no maybe about it, you dont.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-25 15:19:55)
Pretty much, but I guess it's just "business as usual" to certain people.Spearhead wrote:
Well its pretty naive to think otherwise, no offense. Its why our government has been even more fucked up than usual lately.imortal wrote:
(highlights are mine; they were not put there by turquoise.)Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way... How is it any worse that Mother Jones report the way they do than it is that lobbyists for the defense industry continually prod our government into war?
Someone has to fight the hawkish interests that run our government. If not the media, then who?
Those little items are propaganda trying to masqurade as fact. Ok, beliefs, then. But they are simply viewpoints.
Of course I don't, I never pretended otherwise.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im Powellsergeriver wrote:
Maybe we don't know about Iraq as much as you two Colin Powell and David Petraeus, but the article have some views that sound interesting to say the least. Even if it's from mothergoose like you said marine.usmarine wrote:
fire for effect!
and there is no maybe about it, you dont.
"maybe" implies that there is a possibility.sergeriver wrote:
Of course I don't, I never pretended otherwise.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im Powellsergeriver wrote:
Maybe we don't know about Iraq as much as you two Colin Powell and David Petraeus, but the article have some views that sound interesting to say the least. Even if it's from mothergoose like you said marine.
and there is no maybe about it, you dont.
Well, I'm not a natural English speaker, so forgive the misuse of the word. Change maybe for sure.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
"maybe" implies that there is a possibility.sergeriver wrote:
Of course I don't, I never pretended otherwise.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im Powell
and there is no maybe about it, you dont.
I know spanish too. no excuse.sergeriver wrote:
Well, I'm not a natural English speaker, so forgive the misuse of the word. Change maybe for sure.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
"maybe" implies that there is a possibility.sergeriver wrote:
Of course I don't, I never pretended otherwise.
They seem like pretty realistic outcomes regardless of the percentages. But im "left wing". So i probably don't know what realistic is, right, Gunsinger and USMarine??
Just wondering if anyone in here HAS been to Iraq, other than at war time?/ If so perhaps share what Iraq was like during times of peace. Either before or after first Gulf War.
There are definetely some more positive "possibilities" that could happen. They are just very unlikely to happen. Lets hope one way or another things all work out for the better, doubtful as it may be.
Just wondering if anyone in here HAS been to Iraq, other than at war time?/ If so perhaps share what Iraq was like during times of peace. Either before or after first Gulf War.
There are definetely some more positive "possibilities" that could happen. They are just very unlikely to happen. Lets hope one way or another things all work out for the better, doubtful as it may be.
no, not really.PluggedValve wrote:
They seem like pretty realistic outcomes regardless of the percentages.
I sure took the thunder out of a lot of posters it seems.
seems like the generic response button doesnt work with this one. the fact is, no, they dont seem like realistic scenarios. they seem like movie plots.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-25 15:43:42)
Que tipo culto que eres GS, la verdad sorprendes cada vez mas con tus conocimientos generales, que suerte tienes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I know spanish too. no excuse.sergeriver wrote:
Well, I'm not a natural English speaker, so forgive the misuse of the word. Change maybe for sure.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
"maybe" implies that there is a possibility.
Do you have to be right ALL of the time?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.
condescension is a universal languagesergeriver wrote:
Que tipo culto que eres GS, la verdad sorprendes cada vez mas con tus conocimientos generales, que suerte tienes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I know spanish too. no excuse.sergeriver wrote:
Well, I'm not a natural English speaker, so forgive the misuse of the word. Change maybe for sure.
not at all, just seems to work out that wayATG wrote:
Do you have to be right ALL of the time?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-25 15:54:46)
Yup, I must stop being condescendent with you.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
condescension is a universal languagesergeriver wrote:
Que tipo culto que eres GS, la verdad sorprendes cada vez mas con tus conocimientos generales, que suerte tienes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I know spanish too. no excuse.not at all, just seems to work out that wayATG wrote:
Do you have to be right ALL of the time?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.
oic. We can bash fox and other sources, but not this one. Copy that. I also bash the article, not just the source.Spearhead wrote:
I agree with serge, you didnt have to be a dick about it marine.
Why would the shiites make an agreement with the sunnis to share oil revenues?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.
why was a sunni in charge of a shiite majority for nearly 30 years?san4 wrote:
Why would the shiites make an agreement with the sunnis to share oil revenues?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.
Violence + fear + oil money. And Iran stayed out.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why was a sunni in charge of a shiite majority for nearly 30 years?san4 wrote:
Why would the shiites make an agreement with the sunnis to share oil revenues?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sadr needs to die. the shiites will be pissed for a while. the kurds will keep autonomy. there will be an eventual agreement between the sunnis and shiites for oil revenues. the US will always have some kind of military presence. like germany. like korea. like japan. like kuwait.