War ‘Against Iraqi People’

[Timber Loftis]

It is war - civilian casualties happen. The forces in Iraq are among the most considerate of civilian casualties of any countries in the world - because their FREE citizens WHO HAVE A VOICE demand it. Some will still die.

I must admit, I sniffed the BS in this article in the first 2 sentences and judged it not worth my time.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Skunk: Off the top of my head, Dhahran, Jidda, Riyadh and I think that there are four other 'official bases' and several other 'unofficial' bases. Also the presence of United States forces helps to keep the ruling royal family [read: dictatorship] in power. Why?

The presence of military bases in Saudi is the principal THREAT to the ruling family. You seem to think that Saudi's hate the ruling family, but I never saw that when I was there. The average Saudi citizen lives a very comfortable life, and they don't seem particularly purturbed by anything except infidels in the heart of Islam... just go ask Osama.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see all Americans kicked out of the country not long after Saddam is confirmed defunct.

Originally posted by Skunk: Off the top of my head, Dhahran, Jidda, Riyadh and I think that there are four other 'official bases' and several other 'unofficial' bases. Also the presence of United States forces helps to keep the ruling royal family [read: dictatorship] in power. Why?

Those are cities not bases...name the bases.
As for keeping the Royal family in power....nope not even close. US military presence is not making the royal family many friends in the arab world, and those forces are not there acting as police for the royals.

Edit: Just because there are a few military people in a place does not make it a base.

[ 04-08-2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[pritchke]

It is funny how the article is simply dismissed as being false by almost everyone here just because it is from an Arab newspaper. I am not dismissing it as false, or truth but I expect to some extent the killings listed in the article are true. Possibly taken from scattered areas and instances. They are probably a small percentage compared to the amount of traffic that goes through the checkpoints. Nevertheless very real.

As for some US soldiers being scared, and fidgety on the trigger, it is quite a possibility. We all do not face death the same way.

As for having a translator at checkpoints I think it is a very good idea. Are there translators at coalition check points? Often in different cultures hand signals can mean something different.

Pritchke, that is what I was trying to say, it is understandable for men in combat to be on a hair trigger, snipers are one of the most feared encounters. It also makes sense for people in a WAR ZONE to keep their heads down and to find safe holes to hide in...not high rise hotels That make good sniping platofrms..

[ 04-08-2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[pritchke]

Noooo.....

Magik, we are not suppose to agree. I am suppose to be like your polar opposite.

Just kidding!!

It is good to find a few things to agree on.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by pritchke: It is funny how the article is simply dismissed as being false by almost everyone here just because it is from an Arab newspaper. I am not dismissing it as false, or truth but I expect to some extent the killings listed in the article are true. Possibly taken from scattered areas and instances. They are probably a small percentage compared to the amount of traffic that goes through the checkpoints. Nevertheless very real. As for some US soldiers being scared, and fidgety on the trigger, it is quite a possibility. We all do not face death the same way. As for having a translator at checkpoints I think it is a very good idea. Are there translators at coalition check points? Often in different cultures hand signals can mean something different.

Well I actually did read it all before deciding that the volume of potential BS in the article overwhelmed the volume of potential data. I can understand that arab media behave very much like Fox... bias for the "home team" is virtually expected, but that article went quite a bit over the top IMO. Al Jazeera seems to be the only Arab source I've read/seen that can provide real information, with only a medium smattering of bias.

Err While I admit FOX is obviously biased toward the US side of the war, I believe they are covering the events and reporting them impartially. The reports good and bad get made. The Oped pieces are not used to hide the facts...so while FOX is PRO-USA and Conservative in make up, I still theink they report better than CNN or any of the other networks. The others see no problem with quashing a story if it doesn't agree with their point of view.

[pritchke]

I am glad to be disagreeing again, MAGIK I thought for a moment the planets were aligned or something. I think FOX has the worst coverage it is way to pro-war to provided impartial coverage. CNN at least shows some reports from the other side and interviews people from Al-Jazera to get their view and opion on coverage. This sort of thing I find interesting. I find CNN is probaly more impartial than most American news I get.

[ 04-08-2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by pritchke: I am glad to be disagreeing again, MAGIK. I think FOX has the worst coverage it is way to pro-war to provided impartial coverage. CNN at least shows some reports from the other side and interviews people from Al-Jazera to get their view and opion on coverage. This sort of thing I find interesting. I find CNN is probaly more impartial than most American news I get.

And I agree with that! CNN is the news website that I run to, even if they are the last to report. I tend to wanna hope that their delay is for confirmation of data...whereas the other news sites tend to be quicker but less trustworthy. I dunno.

Why am I not more involved in trying to beat IWD2?