Dude, where's my civil war?

GostHacked · March 9, 2006

1) They gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. So has Canada. Interesting attempt by the libertarians at Cato to assume that a $43 million grant was payback for the crackdown on opium. I'm not surprised. Most libertarians think drugs shouldn't be illegal.

2) Yeah, they funded a covert war against the USSR by arming Afghanis--"some" who later joined the Taliban. They had to be secretive because the left tended to be sympathetic to the USSR. I read the Charlie Wilson book (the Texas Democrat behind the aiding of the Afghan resistance). It is disingenuous to say that Wilson and the US armed the Taliban.

3) I have never denied that the US sold arms to Iraq. Numerous times I have posted the SIPRI report where it showed that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the US. Funny that you brought up the US arming Iraq, but forgot to note that 57% of Iraq's arms came from Russia, 13% from France, and 12% from China (Top 3 = 82%, and the 3 countries who blocked the US in the UN's Security Council). I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Don't you read any soldier blogs? They weren't being attacked with US weaponry. Every weapon seemed to be made in Russia and France.

uhm oook(confused here), so what was untrue with GostHacked post then? You just agreed with him and yet you said "Most of what you said is untrue." 2 posts earlier ! I was just trying to prove that what he said was true. Get off the horse buddy.

That is the way he rolls up in this bitch. And that CBS link you gave is fantastic! Even the old evil watching all seeing eye of the CBS is saying what we already know. The funny thing is, I remember when this was all happening in the 80s. I listened to the news regularly. Eventhough I was just a kid during the 80s, I recall so much of the US getting involved in Iraq. Burnsy might not be old enough to remeber even recent history.

lost&outofcontrol, I think I am gonna make a trip to the library, pull out some old newspapers nd check that out. I am glad I am in Canada, so I am not privy to the new Patriot Act and NSA spying. I should scan those articles then post them somewhere, I would be violating copyright laws, but man would it be worth it to prove to Monty and Co that they are blind as bats without ears.

Oh please do. I'm always up for a larf.

Nothing more entertaining than another conspiracy tale from the frothing moonbats.

Challenge accepted.

Montgomery Burns · March 9, 2006

Ralph Peters, who works for the NY post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Fox News Channel, files another report from the Iraq:

AMONG the many positive stories you aren't being told about Iraq, the media ignored another big one last week: In the wake of the terrorist bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, it was the Iraqi army that kept the peace in the streets. It's routinely declared a failure by those who yearn for the new Iraq to fail. But an increasingly capable Iraqi military has been developing while reporters (who never really investigated the issue) wrote it off as hopeless.
What actually happened last week, as the prophets of doom in the media prematurely declared civil war?

* The Iraqi army deployed over 100,000 soldiers to maintain public order. U.S. Forces remained available as a backup, but Iraqi soldiers controlled the streets.

* Iraqi forces behaved with discipline and restraint - as the local sectarian outbreaks fizzled, not one civilian had been killed by an Iraqi soldier.

* Time and again, Iraqi military officers were able to defuse potential confrontations and frustrate terrorist hopes of igniting a religious war.

* Forty-seven battalions drawn from all 10 of Iraq's army divisions took part in an operation that, above all, aimed at reassuring the public. The effort worked - from the luxury districts to the slums, the Iraqis were proud of their army.

[...]

Don't let anyone tell you we're failing in Iraq.

But they do tell me that. They do. Civil war, quagmire, plastic turkeys, 100 zillion innocent Iraqi women and children killed, and the soft bigotry that Iraqis are incapable of creating some semblance of a democracy.

Black Dog · March 9, 2006

I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm. And you certainly suggested he was a moron.

So let me get this straight: you were being sarcastic when you said I said he was a moron, but I still said he was a moron. Ooooookay. :rolleyes:

More BD projection.

What the hell are you talking about? You are the one who constantly brings up John Kerry. Like, every thread, appropos of nothing. You have a serious case of Kerryphobia (hey look: "liberals" can make up bullshit psychological term stoo!)

You said he took one 30 mile drive. He clearly states that he took more than one drive. Where is your reading comprehension?

No. He says he was looking "all week". That doesn't mean anything. He could have been glancing out over his hotel balcony for all you know (oops I forgot: only liberal MSM reporters never venture out of the hotel, just tuff-as-nails ex-military guys like Peters.)

You were questioning his integrity because he was a paid employee of Rupert (Fox News) Murdoch.

Damn right I was.

Black Dog · March 9, 2006

Hmmm....

Why is it I, a professional journalist, get tarred with a “liberal” brush when I have never, ever written for Mother Jones, the Nation or Granta, etc. But polemicists who spend the all their energies cranking out pieces for the National Review, Front Page and the New York Post somehow don’t get called “conservatives” but instead are “truth tellers”? Such a mystery.
...

(Peters) also says we western reporters don’t get out on the streets, which is patently untrue. I don’t get out as often as I’d like, but I do get out. My colleagues at TIME, who look much less western than I do, get out much more. And, unlike Peters, we don’t travel with a big-ass armed convoy under the protection of the U.S. military.

He then further slanders Ellen Knickmeyer, of the Washington Post, when he says, “Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies — a rough count would have done it — before telling the world the news? I doubt it.”

Well, actually, Ralph, I know Ellen. And yes, she did go down to the morgue. While there are many issues with her story, what is undeniable is that she risked a hell of a lot more than you did when she put her life in jeopardy to go down there.

Then he says, “If reporters really care, it’s easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment — and other great military units — will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere.” Well, no, they won’t. Some reporters I know are having trouble getting embeds because they’re not the “right” reporters. They don’t write the “right” kind of stories — meaning they don’t follow the military’s playbook.

...

Montgomery Burns · March 9, 2006

Black Dog:

Why is it I, a professional journalist, get tarred with a “liberal” brush when I have never, ever written for Mother Jones, the Nation or Granta, etc. But polemicists who spend the all their energies cranking out pieces for the National Review, Front Page and the New York Post somehow don’t get called “conservatives” but instead are “truth tellers”? Such a mystery.

Perhaps you are tagged with the "liberal" brush because you worked for liberal organizations like the Associated Press, NY Times, and Salon (the far-left rag that is asking former Premium Members to re-subscribe so they can release 100s more Abu Ghraib pics from 2003). They don't get much more liberal than the above 3. Besides, I looked at your archives and I see the leftwing blogs you link to (Billmon, Josh Marshall, anti-war voice George Paine, etc).

Sorry you are unable to solve the "mystery", Mr Allibritton.

(Peters) also says we western reporters don’t get out on the streets, which is patently untrue. I don’t get out as often as I’d like, but I do get out. My colleagues at TIME, who look much less western than I do, get out much more. And, unlike Peters, we don’t travel with a big-ass armed convoy under the protection of the U.S. military.

He said many western reporters don't get out on the streets. That is true. You can see it with all the bylines from Iraqi stringers--stringers who have learned that the western media does not pay for good stories. If someone is travelling daily and sees no signs of a civil war, there is likley not a civil war--no matter how hard you have been fantazing aboutit for 3 years straight.

He then further slanders Ellen Knickmeyer, of the Washington Post, when he says, “Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies — a rough count would have done it — before telling the world the news? I doubt it.”

How does this slander Ellen Knickmeyer? Allbritton is projecting.

Well, actually, Ralph, I know Ellen. And yes, she did go down to the morgue. While there are many issues with her story, what is undeniable is that she risked a hell of a lot more than you did when she put her life in jeopardy to go down there.

"There are many issues with her story" (IOW, her story was incorrect) but at least she "put her life in jeopardy" to go to the morgue.

How melodramatic. I'm sure they'll turn this into a made-for-TV movie in the near future.

Then he says, “If reporters really care, it’s easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment — and other great military units — will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere.” Well, no, they won’t. Some reporters I know are having trouble getting embeds because they’re not the “right” reporters

.

Perhaps if these journalists made sure so-called news stories contained some modicum of truth when they traveled with the troops, they wouldn't be so leery of you knifing them in the back.

They don’t write the “right” kind of stories — meaning they don’t follow the military’s playbook.

They won't take me to Abu Ghraib! Wahhhh.

Take a look at this guys website. It's all anti-war, anti-Iraq, and anti-US military.

The Iraqi "government" <--- his sneer quotes, not mine.

Everything the US military says is balderdash.

He tends to agree that Iraq is set to burst into flame.

He then says it is "impossible to tally up the death and destruction, and the many Sunni and Shia shrines and mosques that were damaged or destroyed".

We all know that that was grossly overexaggerated by the media. But Allbritton dismisses this and puts his numbers on the situation. He doesn't trust the Iraqi "govt" and everything the US military says is balderdash.

He says he is sorry for reality intruding on the State Dept's claim that reports were exaggerated about a civil war. The he tells them to "shut your mouth, you people in Washington have caused enough damage already. He says that there has been a "low-grade civil war" for the last 18 months, but now it has been upgraded to a "medium-grade civil war." He then admits that perhaps all his doom-saying will be proven wrong.

Fair and balanced, my ass. The guy is totally one-sided. It's all doom and gloom. He is the typical liberal that ignores the successes and has an agenda to weaken morale back home. Indeed, it is Vietnam again--in that instance. At least Peters admitted that things weren't perfect in his articles. According to Allbritton, little or nothing is going right in Iraq. Doesn't square with all the accomplishments that have happened in Iraq in less than 3 years.

If you look at his archives, he has been predicting failure/civil war for years and he is rabidly anti-Bush administration.

GostHacked · March 10, 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5674663,00.html

Looks like if the civil war happens, Rummy may not be able to do anything about it

WASHINGTON (AP) - Dealing with a civil war in Iraq would be the responsibility of Iraq's own security forces, at least initially, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday.

Burnsy, burnsy, burnsy. But so you won't jump down my throat ect. He is a positive note

Both Abizaid and Rumsfeld cited progress in the training of Iraqi security forces. Abizaid said more than 100 Iraqi battalions are now conducting counterinsurgency operations, compared with only five in 2004. He did not mention that the number of Iraqi battalions rated as capable of operating without U.S. military assistance had recently dropped from one to zero.

Black Dog · March 10, 2006

Fair and balanced, my ass. The guy is totally one-sided. It's all doom and gloom. He is the typical liberal that ignores the successes and has an agenda to weaken morale back home. Indeed, it is Vietnam again--in that instance. At least Peters admitted that things weren't perfect in his articles. According to Allbritton, little or nothing is going right in Iraq. Doesn't square with all the accomplishments that have happened in Iraq in less than 3 years.
If you look at his archives, he has been predicting failure/civil war for years and he is rabidly anti-Bush administration.

I'll just address this point (because really, one doesn't try to reason with the man in rags talking to himself at the bus stop): Monty believes you can't question someone's integrity if they work at an unabashed pro-war publication. But the integrity of someone who works for a (subjectively) pro-war publication, their honesty and integrity is immediately in question. Also, Monty claims that the "liberal media" has a vested interest in undermining he war (what that interest is, I'm not so sure), while ignoring he possibility that someone lke Peters could have a vested interest in creating a favourable picture of events (especially since, as Allibritton notes, the current administration has a proven track record of buying favourable media coverage). All this is a clear demonstration of Monty's hypocricy: every claim he makes can be turned back on him (I believe this is called "projection", a phrase Monty uses often but doesn't really understand).

What it boils down to is this: anyone who claims there's a large conspiracy among the media simply doesn't understand the media.

Oh and one more thing:

Perhaps if these journalists made sure so-called news stories contained some modicum of truth when they traveled with the troops, they wouldn't be so leery of you knifing them in the back.

Interesting choice of words.

Montgomery Burns · March 12, 2006

I'll just address this point (because really, one doesn't try to reason with the man in rags talking to himself at the bus stop): Black Dog believes you can't question someone's integrity if they work at an unabashed anti-war publication. But the integrity of someone who works for a (subjectively) pro-war publication, their honesty and integrity is immediately in question. Also, Black Dog claims that the so-called "liberal media" was not irresponsible when they immediately started claiming "civil war" in the wake of the bombing of the Askariya shrine....while ignoring he possibility that someone lke Allibritton could have a vested interest in creating an unfavourable picture of events (especially since, as Allibritton notes, has worked for the leftwing AP, NYT, and the far-left Salon--all 3 being anti-war rags).

All this is a clear demonstration of Black Dog's hypocricy:

every claim he makes can be turned back on him (I believe this is called "projection", a phrase Monty uses often but doesn't really understand).

Oh yeah? I'll give you another example:

What it boils down to is this: anyone who claims there's a large conspiracy among the media simply doesn't understand the media.

From me noting that the MSM has been unfair in their Iraq coverage, you morphed it into a claim of "a large conspiracy".

Black Dog · March 13, 2006

Of cpourse Monty's cut and paste job doesn't actyually undermine my argument in the least. For instance: what does a reporter like Allibritton have to gain from the failure of the war? It's uncleear. On the other hand, we know for a fact that the U.S. government has paid for favourable coverage of its policies. So, what are we left with? Monty doesn't have a clue (soemthing which comes as no surprise to anyone who's familair with his "work".)

Montgomery Burns · March 17, 2006

Keep trying BD. And please continue repeating those hopeful tales of civil war written by the Baghdad Hilton Hot Tub Club. You've been wrong for 3 years straight and the rest of us find it amusing as you stumble into your 4th year still braying the same Donk talking points.

GostHacked · March 17, 2006

Keep trying BD. And please continue repeating those hopeful tales of civil war written by the Baghdad Hilton Hot Tub Club. You've been wrong for 3 years straight and the rest of us find it amusing as you stumble into your 4th year still braying the same Donk talking points.

Hey Monty, we would like NOT to see a Civil War in Iraq, but we are not blind and dumb to the reality that is is a HIGH possibility that it can happen. Do us on the left want to see a civil war? NO F'N WAY. We would like this resolved as well, but I think it is time to change some strategies. Don't you think? Or blindy follow the CIC into any battle?

I was watching an interview with Donald Rumsfeld through Google Video, it was Meet The Press, and he was saying how they need to have the right media propaganda to support their cause.

Black Dog · March 17, 2006

Keep trying BD. And please continue repeating those hopeful tales of civil war written by the Baghdad Hilton Hot Tub Club. You've been wrong for 3 years straight and the rest of us find it amusing as you stumble into your 4th year still braying the same Donk talking points.

Psst...you're projecting again.

newbie · March 17, 2006

You've been wrong for 3 years straight and the rest of us find it amusing as you stumble into your 4th year still braying the same Donk talking points.

I don't know who you consider "the rest of us." Given the latest Gallup, it's certainly not Americans.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Black Dog · March 17, 2006

I don't know who you consider "the rest of us." Given the latest Gallup, it's certainly not Americans.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

By "the rest of us" he means him, his mom and, of course, Elite Force Aviator George W. Bush.

newbie · March 18, 2006

LMAO, good one BD.

ceemes · March 18, 2006

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

You clearly don't understand the oil argument.

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

And how it is paid for.......Saddam wanted Euros, not Greenbacks......a big no-no in the US and UK's books...now Iran is porposing the same thing and surprise surprise.....the rhetoric and rationals to attack Iran have been racketted up big time.

Montgomery Burns · March 20, 2006

Black Dog:

Damn right I was [questioning Ralph Peters' integrity because he is a paid employee of Rupert (Fox News) Murdoch]

Blah blah blah Faux News is all lies Sean Insanity, Bill O'Lielly. blah blah blah moonbat talking points.

Are you going to question the Washington Post's anti-war critic David Ignatius, who was in Iraq the last few weeks?

A brutal stress test came on Feb. 22, when Sunni insurgents destroyed a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra. For a moment, Iraq seemed to be slipping toward civil war, but the Iraqi army performed surprisingly well. In many areas Iraqi forces -- backed up by overwhelming U.S. firepower -- helped restore order.

Ignatius was zapped by Karl Rove's Evil Mind Control ray gun!!

Didn't he look at the poll? (No, not the November 2, 2004 poll). :lol:

Montgomery Burns · March 20, 2006

When it comes to Black Dog and Newbie's fanatical obsession with a civil war in Iraq, I can't help but think of this video of a pro-wrestling fan blubbering "It's still real to me, damnit!" :lol:

newbie · March 21, 2006

No civil war in Iraq? Read on:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_Sen_...l_war_0319.html

newbie · March 22, 2006

And still more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1735993,00.html

geoffrey · March 22, 2006

Gosthacked,

It find it amusing that you think its laughable that Iraqi's need US help to operate their military. I'm with you, it is definitely not a good sign.

But then, what does it means for a first world G8 country like Canada to also need the US help to operate our military. We'd be stuck in Canada without their airlift, and we use their helicopters over there (we don't have gunship helicopters either).

BubberMiley · March 22, 2006

Headlines today read "100 gunmen storm jail near Iraq’s border with Iran, free fellow insurgents."

If the existing civil war was a media concoction, they'd have called the "100 gunmen" a rebel army.

geoffrey · March 22, 2006

When the hundreds of Metis over-ran the Mounties during that insurgency, would you go to the extend of saying Canada was involved in a full scale civil war?

How about when the FLQ used explosives and kidnappings to pressure the government? Was that civil war?

I'd argue both of those cases are more civil war than whats in Iraq. Iraq is just random acts of violence against Americans and Iraqi's, to make the American's look bad and get them out. Which isn't a civil war. A civil war requires someone attempting to overthrow the government, which isn't happening to any degree.

No one wants control, they want the US out. Thats a resistance per say, not a civil war.

BubberMiley · March 23, 2006

When the hundreds of Metis over-ran the Mounties during that insurgency, would you go to the extend of saying Canada was involved in a full scale civil war?

On the scale of Manitoba, yeah. It was Manitoba's first civil war (the second was the war of 1919.)