"Joe" .

Thats right Thunder. And if we let the likes of Saddam carry on like he
had... Syria would laugh at the UN's resoulution. They would still be
under the impression that the UN never acts on any of its resoulutions.
They would have been happy to tell the UN to get F*cked for another 10
year min.

Guess after the USA stopped playing games and let the world know the
true meaning of the word SERIOUS these thugs are now shaking in their
boots. They know if they do not follow thru they will be taken out. End
of Story..Seriously.

You're right Joe. Thanks to Bush, the secular dictators who stood up to
radical Islamic groups like al Qaeda are scared ****less and are beginning
to accomodate them. Iraq voted to become another Iran. Will Syria, Egypt
and Saudi Arabia follow? Apparently you think that's a good idea.

Joe wrote:
Oh come on Doug..according to you the evil Bush and Cheney and
Halliburton are destroying the earth

No, that's according to you.

According to me (and by their own account) they've stolen hundreds of
millions of dollars... that's your hard-earned taxpayer money... and
delivered shoddy goods & equipment to our soldiers in the field. Perhaps
according to you, that's just peachy as long as it's Bush's pals...


We are saber ratteling physcos willing to 1000's killed for
nothing remember?


No, *we* are not. However you seem to be happy to see thousands of
people killed for some vague propaganda.



Well to bad... so sad.........You were wrong...Your whole stand on the
war with Iraq was wrong.

Really? Then why am I right about so many things, such as the lack of
any connection between Iraq and Al-Queda or Sept 11th, lack of WMDs,
lack of cheering crowds welcoming us with flowers, etc etc?

The facts haven't changed at all.



BTW I did not call you any names...I took that part out before I
posted.


Maybe you're learning.

DSK

Bart Senior wrote:
This is very good news. People everywhere want
freedom. They are entitled to it.


Agreed... with the added note that different people (different cultures)
have varying ideas of what "freedom" means and how to implement it.

Jon Stewart, a liberal, conceded on "The Daily Show"
that Bush's policies seem to be working. His guest
would not admit it. Blind ideology has been proven
to be the failure of liberalism.


Possibly so, although anybody who knows any history at all realizes that
things come & go in cycles. Do you genuinely expect "liberalism" to
vanish from the U.S.? It won't, no more than "conservatism" ever did...
BTW it looks very much to me like real conservatism has had more
setbacks lately than liberalism.

Many liberals can't handle the fact that Bush is
successful promoting democracy in the Middle East,
and will not admit Bush has been proven successful.



Actuall Bart, he has had some successes and some awful setbacks... do
you think that the needless deaths of over 1,000 US servicemen &
women... along with the maiming of 10,000 more... is a "success"?
Especially considering the way the VA is going to treat them now?

The elections in Iraq... especially the discussion of power sharing
among religious blocs... and the probable withdrawal of Syria from
Lebanon, are both great positive steps. But do not forget that they have
been bought at an extremely high price.

.. This will further encourage other
people in the region.

Yes, I hope so.

... Perhaps Iran will crumble next.


Not if we keep threatening them with invasion. The people, including the
moderates who would love to see a constitutional democracy in place of
their fundamentalist theocracy, love their country and will unite in the
face of aggression. Just like Americans did after Sept 11th.

DSK

Geeeee we know Ossma the turd is trying to buddy up to Al Zawari.

We know Saddams men meet with AlQuedia members. And Terrorist training
camp were in Iraq.

I saw many cheering crowds, like the day that gawd ugly statue was torn
down in downtown Bagdad. I read every day real stories about real
soldiers actions and interaction with the locals. I know the press
looks the other way is search of bad news, and focus all they have on
bad news.

Here is a letter from LTC Tim Ryan the Commander, Task Force 2-12
Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in
Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for
the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after
the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly
exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures"
in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of
others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and
video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq
and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the
daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of
international support for the United States' efforts there, and a
strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while
weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced
reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are
aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not
without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold,
good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the
event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies
in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely
devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope,
clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies'
breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both
cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy
and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy
death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win
column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing
negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other
parts of the country.

More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber
Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True,
yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to
mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while
incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention
about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to
achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of
incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job
of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on
being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and
balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers
headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or
"More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"?
Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really
represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all
of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an
indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines:
"Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through
Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for
any day of any year in any state. True yes, accurate yes, but in
context with the greater good taking place no! After a year or two of
headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest
of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end
it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact,
they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the
contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the
ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy
artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The
occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine
Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon
provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from
all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent
forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent
stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.

The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at
least 70-80 percent from late October before Operation Al Fajar began.
The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone.
Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as
it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic
stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds
a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead
with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy
Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far
more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead,
headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless
murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their
actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon,
the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was
kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in
Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to
emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers
at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge
stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these
protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah
and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete
story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated
images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal
force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one
act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the
Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just
about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world
views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter
continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera
isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip
of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al
Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where
they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll
find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very
interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of
incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last
August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous
stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred
city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the
hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything
to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that
burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition
portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one
was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and
their Muslim way of life.

Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably
was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi
Militia Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy
bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city
council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or
the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic
Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their
"crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two
hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the
body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the
world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms
rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from
the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's
"political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen
or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome
of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had
somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda
machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of
the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for
what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the
world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of
the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on
Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its
military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded
and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six
months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not.
Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little
wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like
Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance they never see the whole
truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not
flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as
they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might
offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked
human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the
other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits
are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today
understand the importance of getting out the story the whole story and
trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and
the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good
story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as
planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks
in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the
events for something they were not and then blamed the military for
their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the
cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the
beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took
place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media
representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin.
Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed
was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it
turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse
the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take
place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start
for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a
tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers
from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality
appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and
others took the information they were given and turned it into what
they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is
specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the
press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters
would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception
plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other
cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the
enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy.
You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own
version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him
to great effect. Each time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act
such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready
to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters
take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got
it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what
the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for
them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and
army general Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten
thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through
fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The
media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular
events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world
to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right
every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer
project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and
it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point
and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding
domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting
is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on.
This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears
many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative
safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or
similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and
other thugs wisely target western media members and others for
kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters.
This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps
them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the
press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting
captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at
the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the
next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the
doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave
their hotel rooms how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad
and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising
cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to
the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters
confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of
their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a
distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they
intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent
reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take
place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the
start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These
terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses
and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of
the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering
information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the
stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit
in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things
are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave
Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us
negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It
seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their
unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling
Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire;
Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at
Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to
make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in
the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape
world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success
splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only
emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and
followers.

So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The
fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual
accounts have little or no experience or education in
counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their
assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or
not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who
among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at
this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances
of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these
"experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have
they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfa A French View
on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys
who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq
insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in
Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this
campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or,
have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen
Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work
lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a
journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably
isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's
progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who
probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in
Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some
people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view
on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose
profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar,
but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be
subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's
a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an
expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is
first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but
let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could
have about as much credibility as "The Bachelor" has for showing us
truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is
taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only
two of the following three qualities when developing a product cheap,
fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be
good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it
won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want
it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one
can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a
democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political
system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of similar
socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist
dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those
countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned
from these transfomations, the most important of which is that change
doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the
experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into
stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at
the 20-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever
was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick
solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has
done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the
enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest
influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which
a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions,
and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good
news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every
day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing,
the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We
seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People
believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a
daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These
images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going
on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking
for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and
aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers
in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the
world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think
it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such
an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is
ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause
right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so
steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we
achieve it.

Postscript: I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for
all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have
them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found
it much easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the
western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could
always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western
media ever showed up ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector,
the Abu Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the
outskirts of Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly
wasn't as bad as Fallujah in November and there were reporters in
there.

Hey. The swiftboat Vets for truth have the right to express their
opinions.

If they do not like the AARP stance on Gay marriage then thats their
right.

I bet the AARP membership drops by 55% this year just because of a few
gay boys sitting in the drivers seat trying to force their gay ways
upon people that want no part of it.

BTW Capt. Elliot of the Swiftboat group was the commanding officer on
the USS Samuel Gompers AD-37 the same ship I served on. He's an
honorable man. Your just upset because he is not gay.

Joe

I know... that's what I was referring to.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"JG" wrote
Next up, AARP trashing.


It's already began. They've hired the "Swift Boat Captains" to manage the
smear.

You're right. It's their right to express their opinion. It's also their
right to LIE just like they did with Kerry. A stupid public, members such as
yourself, have a right to believe them. That doesn't make it the truth,
however.

You're clearly more interested in trashing people than speaking the truth.
You're a LIAR and certainly a fool, but that's your right.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hey. The swiftboat Vets for truth have the right to express their
opinions.

If they do not like the AARP stance on Gay marriage then thats their
right.

I bet the AARP membership drops by 55% this year just because of a few
gay boys sitting in the drivers seat trying to force their gay ways
upon people that want no part of it.

BTW Capt. Elliot of the Swiftboat group was the commanding officer on
the USS Samuel Gompers AD-37 the same ship I served on. He's an
honorable man. Your just upset because he is not gay.

Joe

Davey has me killfiled because it's ok for him to talk trash about me, but
it's not ok for anyone to criticize him. Bwahahaha.... another fool.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:55:46 -0500, "Vito" said:

"JG" wrote
Next up, AARP trashing.

I've got Jon KF'd, but I gather he's suffering under the delusion that
AARP
is the voice of its "members" rather than its staff.

So would his third grade teacher, but it never happened.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OzOne wrote in message ...


Joe, I'd be interested to see if you could pick out Syria and Lebanon
on a map!






Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Jon, take that dick out of your mouth before you type.

Loser!

Joe