bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Several media outlets have marked the five years since the US lead invasion of Iraq, not by relating any stories from inside or outside the "Green Zone", but by reporting the loss of interest in the story at all. Not long ago, Americans were bombarded constantly with bomb blast and body counts. Even this weekend's anniversary protests attracted little attention compared to previous years. The blasts and counts continue, but only on page 2. This forum has demonstrated a similar trend in waning interest. Has the "Surge" in Iraq also quelled the rabid attention payed until late 2007? Or has Iraq's media bandwidth been displaced by what really matters.....politics and the economy, with Iraq only being a secondary storyline? The invasion and occupation of Iraq has now been co-opted as only one issue (among many) in an American political campaign. The passion and fury over an "illegal war" have been muted by time and lost opportunities to win the day with Congressional elections in 2006. Maybe it's a good thing that Saddam isn't alive to see that Iraq is no longer the lead story. It would have killed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 This forum has demonstrated a similar trend in waning interest. That's because having a real discussion wrt the illegal wars with so many on this forum is like having a conversation with a bag of nails. Though, I would wager the bag of nails has more points to add than most posters here. The media (read mainstream corporate liars) is complicit in all of this - from the gagged embedded reporters who simply tow the government line - to the bubbleheaded bleach blond regurgitating the same 'company policy'. It's no wonder that so many yuppie mall waddlers have NO clue what crimes their leaders have committed in thier name. You mention also the US economy - well gosh darn it all - where DID all the money go? Harruumpph look no further than to those global corps who have made a killing in the war ridden area - Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc. No worries War is great for the pocketbook of some. Never mind that a million people are now dead, a country lays in ruin, and sectarian violence is raging across the sands of the entire middle east. No, it's the profits that count! Oh and never mind at all about the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon - conveniently just at the time that the WTcenters were 'attacked'. You, of course applaud all of this. It is no wonder, you have no feeling for others, in fact the term sociopath describes most of your posting habits quite well!! Anyway - rejoice BC - as your nation slips further into debt, a once proud people defeated - homes lost, hope lost well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) That's because having a real discussion wrt the illegal wars with so many on this forum is like having a conversation with a bag of nails. Though, I would wager the bag of nails has more points to add than most posters here. The legality of international conflict is at best an academic exercise, with no substantive relevance. You can start with the problem of jurisdiction. I have often wondered why it is considered OK for "millions" to die in a legal war. The media (read mainstream corporate liars) is complicit in all of this - from the gagged embedded reporters who simply tow the government line - to the bubbleheaded bleach blond regurgitating the same 'company policy'. It's no wonder that so many yuppie mall waddlers have NO clue what crimes their leaders have committed in thier name. Perhaps they do know, but just don't care as much as you do. The personal appearance of on-air anchor talent is irrelevant. You mention also the US economy - well gosh darn it all - where DID all the money go? Harruumpph look no further than to those global corps who have made a killing in the war ridden area - Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc. No worries War is great for the pocketbook of some. Never mind that a million people are now dead, a country lays in ruin, and sectarian violence is raging across the sands of the entire middle east. No, it's the profits that count! Oh and never mind at all about the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon - conveniently just at the time that the WTcenters were 'attacked'. Yes, economics trumps virtue. If the USA can afford to have $2.3 trillion go missing, then there must be plenty more where that came from. You, of course applaud all of this. It is no wonder, you have no feeling for others, in fact the term sociopath describes most of your posting habits quite well!!Anyway - rejoice BC - as your nation slips further into debt, a once proud people defeated - homes lost, hope lost well done! Thank you...your personal attacks are victory trophies! Edited March 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Hm, who is this guy, From Buffycat "Rejoice,As your country slips futher into debt, a once proud people defeated, homes lost, hopes lost as well." And his answer "Your personal attacks are victory trophies" I think you are right, buffycat, this guy is a socialpath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 The legality of international conflict is at best an academic exercise, with no substantive relevance. You can start with the problem of jurisdiction. I have often wondered why it is considered OK for "millions" to die in a legal war.Perhaps they do know, but just don't care as much as you do. The personal appearance of on-air anchor talent is irrelevant. Yes, economics trumps virtue. If the USA can afford to have $2.3 trillion go missing, then there must be plenty more where that came from. Thank you...your personal attacks are victory trophies! Who said that the US can afford the missing money? Who took the money, the Clintons or the Bush's or maybe both? I wonder if you asked the people of the US was it worth going into Iraq, I think alot of them would have a different view than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Hm, who is this guy, From Buffycat "Rejoice,As your country slips futher into debt, a once proud people defeated, homes lost, hopes lost as well."And his answer "Your personal attacks are victory trophies" I think you are right, buffycat, this guy is a socialpath. Reading and comprehension are two separate functions for you? You, of course applaud all of this. It is no wonder, you have no feeling for others, in fact the term sociopath describes most of your posting habits quite well!!Anyway - rejoice BC - as your nation slips further into debt, a once proud people defeated - homes lost, hope lost well done! And to compound the error, you throw in your own insult... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Reading and comprehension are two separate functions for you?And to compound the error, you throw in your own insult... It's not an insult it's simply a statement of FACT.... Birds of a feather eh Dancing Boy???? Whatever.... LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 It's not an insult it's simply a statement of FACT....Birds of a feather eh Dancing Boy???? Whatever.... LOL Unless you have a clinical evaluation, it's an insult. Not a very clever one either so it blends in well with the rest of your post....which probably explains why Marg didn't pick up on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Unless you have a clinical evaluation, it's an insult. Not a very clever one either so it blends in well with the rest of your post....which probably explains why Marg didn't pick up on it. Oh Dancer, shut up already. Read the man's posts. He has NO emotion, or feeling about the killing of vast innocent people. He has NO problem with scorched earth politics, he never has and never will have. I'm just calling a spade a spade... Don't get me started on YOUR posts... which lie under a different psycho-analytical category. Edited March 18, 2008 by buffycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Unless you have a clinical evaluation, it's an insult. Not a very clever one either so it blends in well with the rest of your post....which probably explains why Marg didn't pick up on it. deleted Edited March 18, 2008 by buffycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 ...I think you are right, buffycat, this guy is a socialpath. Perhaps you meant "sociopath"? I find it is best to know the meaning of terms before using them to insult people. Carry on..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Perhaps you meant "sociopath"? I find it is best to know the meaning of terms before using them to insult people. Carry on..... My boss is a socialpath...if you can track marty's path you have found the path to the party... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Oh Dancer, shut up already.Read the man's posts. He has NO emotion, or feeling about the killing of vast innocent people. He has NO problem with scorched earth politics, he never has and never will have. I'm just calling a spade a spade... Don't get me started on YOUR posts... which lie under a different psycho-analytical category. I don't mind being your punching bag...it must be frustrating to face each day with unrealistic expectations. In fact, I have cultivated the amoral perspective on purpose, if only to disabuse pollyanna thinkers of their false understanding, even as they live and thrive in the Wicked West (cognitive dissonance). But attacking me won't change the collective and purposeful behaviours of people or nation states. Your ideas have to compete with others, and you are losing where/when it counts. Of course, you can still cry us a river if that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 In a program on Socio and psyo--Paths they estimated that 30% of the people fitted into this mold. Just goes to show how right it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 In a program on Socio and psyo--Paths they estimated that 30% of the people fitted into this mold. Just goes to show how right it was. Could be higher than that...look how many women have abortions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regulus de Leo Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Several media outlets have marked the five years since the US lead invasion of Iraq, not by relating any stories from inside or outside the "Green Zone", but by reporting the loss of interest in the story at all. Not long ago, Americans were bombarded constantly with bomb blast and body counts. Even this weekend's anniversary protests attracted little attention compared to previous years. The blasts and counts continue, but only on page 2.This forum has demonstrated a similar trend in waning interest. Has the "Surge" in Iraq also quelled the rabid attention payed until late 2007? Or has Iraq's media bandwidth been displaced by what really matters.....politics and the economy, with Iraq only being a secondary storyline? The invasion and occupation of Iraq has now been co-opted as only one issue (among many) in an American political campaign. The passion and fury over an "illegal war" have been muted by time and lost opportunities to win the day with Congressional elections in 2006. Maybe it's a good thing that Saddam isn't alive to see that Iraq is no longer the lead story. It would have killed him. Good post. Left liberals never really cared about the people of Iraq so much as confirming their old "America is bad" narrative. When they can't do that they lose interest and move on (dot org...usually). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 The view of Americans hasn't changed in recent months. They want the troops home. Why? Because they are less convinced of the reasons for going and the reasons for staying. Is the story out of the news? Yes. The media is focussed on the election and the promises on Iraq have been made. Issues such as the economy are more prominent as people start to fear about losing their jobs or their homes. However, the bombs that go off and the dead that mount for Iraqis and the U.S. are not out of people's minds. Bush knows full well not to announce the triumph of "mission accomplished" anymore. The surge was supposed to two things: Bring security to Iraq and to enable it to get a government. It has reduced problems related to security by partitioning the country but a working government is no where in sight. The appetite to stay in Iraq is not there. Five years in Iraq is no call for celebration, especially when the promise made by exuberant Republicans was in and out because the Iragi people would embrace them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 The Iraq war is old news in terms of debacles derived from Bush's total incompetence. The economy is the new debacle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 The view of Americans hasn't changed in recent months. They want the troops home. Why? Because they are less convinced of the reasons for going and the reasons for staying. Partially true....one presidential candidate has actually proposed shifting more resources (troops) to Afghanistan. That would be coming home the long way. Is the story out of the news? Yes. The media is focussed on the election and the promises on Iraq have been made. Issues such as the economy are more prominent as people start to fear about losing their jobs or their homes. Shucks...then what's a peace protester to do? The appetite to stay in Iraq is not there. Five years in Iraq is no call for celebration, especially when the promise made by exuberant Republicans was in and out because the Iragi people would embrace them. That we are still having this discussion after FIVE YEARS is testament to the complete opposite. Senator McCain said it best...."I don't think the American people are concerned if we are in Iraq for 100 years". If that were to happen Americans will also have "been" in Germany, Japan, and Korea for over 150 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regulus de Leo Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 The Iraq war is old news in terms of debacles derived from Bush's total incompetence. The economy is the new debacle. How is Bush to blame for bankers making poor loans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 How is Bush to blame for bankers making poor loans? Excellent observation..the fault (if any) goes back to at least the 1990's, when 55 year old laws were swept away to permit banks to enter the equities markets and insurance business. President Bush had to clean up Mr. Clinton's Enron disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 (edited) How is Bush to blame for bankers making poor loans? Because he is the President. Blame flows uphill. Edited March 19, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 President Bush had to clean up Mr. Clinton's Enron disaster. This financial catastrophe was very predictable. Bush perpetuated a legislative climate that allowed it to happen. Now he'll leave his own disaster to President Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 (edited) This financial catastrophe was very predictable. Bush perpetuated a legislative climate that allowed it to happen. Now he'll leave his own disaster to President Obama. Nonsense...in this matter, Bush "perpetuated" the laws of the land. See "US Congress". Edited March 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regulus de Leo Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 This financial catastrophe was very predictable. Bush perpetuated a legislative climate that allowed it to happen. Now he'll leave his own disaster to President Obama. Specifically what legislative provision caused the subprime lending crisis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.