Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

McGentrix wrote:

Imagine why I would post such a thing in this particular thread?

It would be a proof that you learnt history better than mysteryman.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay OE, you've said your peace and I have no rebuttal other than what I've been posting for days now. Again I don't pretend to understand a world view that allows for focus on one aspect and closes out all the rest, but you answered the question, and I appreciate your doing that. Thank you.

Our disagreement is not about our worldview. If you thought it was a fact that the US invasion made a bad situation in Iraq worse for the Iraqis, you would agree with me. If I believed that US forces are bringing peace and democracy to Iraq but terrorists are obstructing them, I'd agree with you. This has nothing to do with our worldview and everything to do with facts.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Do you resent postings of photographs of US military doing good things?

It depends on the context, but like FreeDuck, I saw nothing wrong with the photograph McGentrix posted.

There WAS nothing wrong with the photo McGentrix posted. It's a nice picture, showing that nice things are being done. (Although I bet it got more coverage than did Fallujah once the military had finished with it)

What was wrong, was that it was posted by someone who has been a pig-headed cheerleader for the killing since the "Shock and Awe" days.

Again, same (stupid, IMO) logic that blatham employed (attacking the message merely because of the messenger).

Quote:
So I will not take a "look at the caring side of our occupation" message from him. The occupation is brutal, murderous, illegal. Counter-productive, wasteful and stupid.

You've left me confused, and I wonder if you can clarify. Are you willing to take a "look at the caring side of our occupation" from anyone? Had FreeDuck posted the picture, would the picture have drawn your ire? What about Thomas? Walter? You have isolated McG and his "pig-headed cheerleading" of the war, but I wonder whether you don't want to see these pictures posted at all. In fact, I would find that position to be the more consistent one, as opposed to not wanting to see the picture merely because it was posted by a particular poster.

I would be pleased tp clarify. There is nothing wrong with the picture per se, but the fact that it was posted out of context by a person like McG is offensive.
It (the act of posting) is offensive because he has continuously supported this military action in the most strident terms, and the effect (which was quite predictable) of the military action in such a theatre was to cause huge civilian casualty numbers.
With the background of large numbers of children being killed and maimed by military action (and photographs showing this being comprehensively suppressed by the military), to show a photo of a soldier cuddling an injured child is perverse.

Used in this way (they even tried to suppress pictures of servicemen's coffins, remember) the picture is propaganda.

0 Replies

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2137694.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2134877.ece

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/78333.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6243335.stm

News and views from the UK this morning

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Imagine why I would post such a thing in this particular thread?

If this was referring to me: because mysterman asked me a question.

If this was referring to the picture you posted: because you support Bush?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Imagine why I would post such a thing in this particular thread?

If this was referring to me: because mysterman asked me a question.

If this was referring to the picture you posted: because you support Bush?

No, I was referring to the fact neither Fox nor Tico had seen the picture previously.

0 Replies

There are dozens of threads devoted to showing how terrible the USA, its leadership, its military, its oil companies, its corporations, etc. etc. etc. are not even including how "hypocritical" or "blindly partisan" or "stupid" or "immoral" etc. etc. etc. are those who dare to see anything good or positive in anything.

I think one thread where showing the positive side is welcome is not too much to ask. I for one appreciated the picture very much and would like to see a whole lot more stuff like that, especially on this thread.

0 Replies

I think, MarineTimes really needs more subscribers!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Imagine why I would post such a thing in this particular thread?

If this was referring to me: because mysterman asked me a question.

If this was referring to the picture you posted: because you support Bush?

No, I was referring to the fact neither Fox nor Tico had seen the picture previously.

A good thing that you knew that before posting the picture.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Imagine why I would post such a thing in this particular thread?

If this was referring to me: because mysterman asked me a question.

If this was referring to the picture you posted: because you support Bush?

No, I was referring to the fact neither Fox nor Tico had seen the picture previously.

A good thing that you knew that before posting the picture.

I didn't.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think one thread where showing the positive side is welcome is not too much to ask. I for one appreciated the picture very much and would like to see a whole lot more stuff like that, especially on this thread.

Well, then again this thread is not titled "The United States supporters' thread", or "The Iraq War supporters' thread".

Come to think about that, it was a pretty good question to ask if McG posted that picture in support of Bush...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I think one thread where showing the positive side is welcome is not too much to ask. I for one appreciated the picture very much and would like to see a whole lot more stuff like that, especially on this thread.

Well, then again this thread is not titled "The United States supporters' thread", or "The Iraq War supporters' thread".

Come to think about that, it was a pretty good question to ask if McG posted that picture in support of Bush...

Well you see OE, as incomprehensible as it may seem to some, most of us don't agree with the President on everything, and most of us can see where he screwed up or dropped the ball on stuff, but we don't condemn the whole man because he isn't perfect. We think the more constructive way is to praise where praise is warranted, and let our concerns be known when it isn't. We can appreciate that somebody has the right motives even when he or she is wrong.

It seems to be ONLY those however who don't condemn our President (or anybody else) because they aren't perfect who can appreciate the good that is happening in spite of things going wrong and who are willing to look at the good that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So it is more than appropriate that Bush supporters would also recognize the good things about all aspects of America. I am just glad that there are more of us than there are those who seem to want to see America as bad, evil, corrupt, immoral etc. etc. etc.

0 Replies

There is a hundred time more stuff going on in Iraq like this than there is the bad stuff that makes the headlines every day:

FOOD DELIVERED TO RAMADI
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6, 2006 -- Iraqi forces, with coalition forces in support, delivered emergency food supplies to a mosque in Ramadi Nov. 4, military officials in Iraq reported.
Iraqi policemen and Iraqi soldiers delivered more than 6,000 pounds of food supplies to the Al Bohemla mosque Nov. 4 to help relieve a food shortage in the central portion of Ramadi.

Local residents approached Iraqi army soldiers during patrols to express their concern about the food shortage.

""Being the sons of Ramadi,"" Maj. Kathem from the Iraqi police said, ""we must help the people of Ramadi.""

Marines with 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, provided external security while soldiers with the 2-1-7 Iraqi Army and policemen from the western Ramadi police station unloaded rice, flour, beans and cooking oil for the people of the area to a local Imam. The Iraqi government provided the food supplies.

VICTORY BOXES SPORTS IN AFGHANISTAN NEW SCHOOLS OPENED

0 Replies

More propaganda...

http://k41.pbase.com/v3/97/108997/1/47558266.pi081105a5.jpg

A U.S. soldier assigned to the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash., takes time to play with Iraqi children at a medical screening in Mosul, Iraq, July 28, 2005. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jeremy D. Crisp

http://i5.pbase.com/v3/97/108997/2/47558321.08.jpg

U.S. Army Soldiers from HHC, 2nd Battalion, 130th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, distribute supplies and provide medical assistance to local residents during a humanitarian relief mission in Baghdad, Iraq on July 28, 2005. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jorge A. Rodriguez. 050728-F-4441R-104 (Released)

http://k43.pbase.com/v3/97/108997/2/47558345.03.jpg

U.S. Army Sgt. Jeff McGee, from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 142nd Infantry Regiment, 56th Brigade Combat Team, gives a hug to local Iraqi girls near Nasiriya, Iraq on July 17, 2005. U.S. Air Force Photo by Staff Sgt. Suzanne M. Day. 050717-F-9629D-089

http://k47.pbase.com/v3/97/108997/1/44945793.pi061705b1.jpg

U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Scott Hambrick interacts with Iraqi children during a quick break from conducting a patrol in Fallujah, Iraq, June 14, 2005. The 2nd Marine Division and Multinational Force-West are conducting counter-insurgency operations with Iraqi Security Forces. Hambrick is attached to the 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Robert R. Attebury

http://i5.pbase.com/u34/kburch/upload/41322381.032305front7.JPG

Spc. Jeff Sinclair, with the 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 40th Infantry Division, distributes donated sandals to Iraqis in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Al Dora on Wednesday.

http://k43.pbase.com/u49/kburch/upload/40824935.pi031405a5.jpg

A U.S. soldier, assigned to the 155th Brigade Combat Team, Charlie Company, Mississippi National Guard, from Tupelo, Miss., interacts with Iraqi children during a patrol through the neighborhoods of Iskandriyah, Iraq, March 8, 2005. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Brien Aho

http://i5.pbase.com/u38/kburch/upload/39329287.pi020105a3.jpg

Curious children surround U.S. Army Spc. Brandon Laird, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 133rd Field Artillery Regiment, 56th Brigade Combat Team, 36th Infantry Division, Texas Army National Guard, during a visit to their village in Baatah, Iraq. U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Lek Mateo

http://k53.pbase.com/u39/kburch/upload/34994694.052104irq.jpg

http://k47.pbase.com/u39/kburch/upload/34994699.30Apr03101st.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/u39/kburch/upload/34994755.index.4aa.jpg

http://i5.pbase.com/u40/kburch/upload/35127057.citizen12.bmp

http://k53.pbase.com/u40/kburch/upload/35127060.kids2lr.jpg

http://k47.pbase.com/u39/kburch/upload/34994779.Pitch.jpg

0 Replies

This picture has circulated on the Internet quite a bit, and it is included among the horses and beautiful scenes that I include in the slide show that is my screen saver on my computer.

It isn't as heart warming as the thousands upon thousands of photos showing our men and women in uniform interacting positively with the Iraqi people. But it sure strikes a responsive chord if you are willing to see our guys and gals over there as human beings doing a difficult and dangerous job and almost every one are proud and happy to be doing it for the benefit of others as well as for their country.

To abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists after so much blood and treasure has been invested in their liberation is just too tragic to contemplate.

http://www.extremefunnypictures.com/items613/197.jpg

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I would be pleased tp clarify. There is nothing wrong with the picture per se, but the fact that it was posted out of context by a person like McG is offensive.

First of all, thanks for your clarification.

I'm at a loss to comprehend how you think it was posted "out of context." Here was his post:

McGentrix wrote:

In what way do you contend his posting that photo was "out of context"?

Quote:

It (the act of posting) is offensive because he has continuously supported this military action in the most strident terms, and the effect (which was quite predictable) of the military action in such a theatre was to cause huge civilian casualty numbers.
With the background of large numbers of children being killed and maimed by military action (and photographs showing this being comprehensively suppressed by the military), to show a photo of a soldier cuddling an injured child is perverse.

Used in this way (they even tried to suppress pictures of servicemen's coffins, remember) the picture is propaganda.

Okay, were your opposition to the photo absolute -- i.e., you object to its publication at all because you oppose any photos of US servicemen showing tenderness to Iraqi children because you believe the US military is slaughtering large numbers of them -- I might understand (although completely disagree with) your position. But for you to take the position you have because you think that McG is "using" this photo is beyond my comprehension. In the unlikely event that someone sharing your views of the war were to have posted that photo (which is akin to the flight attendants describing the "unlikely event of a water landing" prior to a flight over western Kansas), would you have displayed the same opposition to the photo? According to your explanation, you would not. You only oppose the photo because you think it's being "used" by supporters of the war to support a political agenda.

So, what do you think about the photos showing US military doing bad things, violent acts, mistreating prisoners? Do you conclude those are propaganda when posted by those who oppose the war? After all, they are being posted to support their political agenda, are they not? You would have to think so for your position to be consistent here.

Your complaint is political, and it is hollow. McG is not a "twisted arsehole" for posting the photo ... he's merely presenting the side of the story you don't want to hear.

0 Replies

The Brits seem to have a problem with photos, in general.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6324771,00.html

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
I would be pleased tp clarify. There is nothing wrong with the picture per se, but the fact that it was posted out of context by a person like McG is offensive.

First of all, thanks for your clarification.

I'm at a loss to comprehend how you think it was posted "out of context." Here was his post:

McGentrix wrote:

In what way do you contend his posting that photo was "out of context"?

Quote:
It (the act of posting) is offensive because he has continuously supported this military action in the most strident terms, and the effect (which was quite predictable) of the military action in such a theatre was to cause huge civilian casualty numbers.
With the background of large numbers of children being killed and maimed by military action (and photographs showing this being comprehensively suppressed by the military), to show a photo of a soldier cuddling an injured child is perverse.

Used in this way (they even tried to suppress pictures of servicemen's coffins, remember) the picture is propaganda.

Okay, were your opposition to the photo absolute -- i.e., you object to its publication at all because you oppose any photos of US servicemen showing tenderness to Iraqi children because you believe the US military is slaughtering large numbers of them -- I might understand (although completely disagree with) your position. But for you to take the position you have because you think that McG is "using" this photo is beyond my comprehension. In the unlikely event that someone sharing your views of the war were to have posted that photo (which is akin to the flight attendants describing the "unlikely event of a water landing" prior to a flight over western Kansas), would you have displayed the same opposition to the photo? According to your explanation, you would not. You only oppose the photo because you think it's being "used" by supporters of the war to support a political agenda.

So, what do you think about the photos showing US military doing bad things, violent acts, mistreating prisoners? Do you conclude those are propaganda when posted by those who oppose the war? After all, they are being posted to support their political agenda, are they not? You would have to think so for your position to be consistent here.

Your complaint is political, and it is hollow. McG is not a "twisted arsehole" for posting the photo ... he's merely presenting the side of the story you don't want to hear.

I have explained all this before.

Good pictures (pictures showing human kindness, positive aspects) are newsworthy.
Bad pictures (showing atrocities, injuries) are newsworthy.

The problem lies when a person like McG, or you, who has a record of supporting the policy of using military firepower against civilians (or where civilians are bound to die) and has shown himself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population (even showing enthusiasm), selecting for display a picture like that.

The army is there to suppress the country, by force if it will not submit. It will not. And so the army does what armies do.
It is sophistry to pretend it is there to run hospitals or boys' camps (McG's latest offering).

It is propaganda.

0 Replies

MizunoMan wrote:

The Brits seem to have a problem with photos, in general.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6324771,00.html

They have laws re that - as stated by that report. Thought it might well be that laws are problem for some.

Quote:

"Photographs of named people that are in police possession are classed as data and their release is restricted by law.

"Acpo (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidance states that releasing a 'wanted' photograph of a named person should only happen in exceptional circumstances where officers believe that the named suspect may be a danger to the public."

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I have explained all this before.

Good pictures (pictures showing human kindness, positive aspects) are newsworthy.
Bad pictures (showing atrocities, injuries) are newsworthy.

The problem lies when a person like McG, or you, who has a record of supporting the policy of using military firepower against civilians (or where civilians are bound to die) and has shown himself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population (even showing enthusiasm), selecting for display a picture like that.

The army is there to suppress the country, by force if it will not submit. It will not. And so the army does what armies do.
It is sophistry to pretend it is there to run hospitals or boys' camps (McG's latest offering).

It is propaganda.

If it's propaganda, so are the photos that support your cause. It's ALL propaganda. If you fail to see that much it's clear to me you are hopelessly wallowed in your bias, and your position here is hypocritical (in addition to being wrong).

Now, speaking for myself, I have not shown myself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population of Iraq. That is simply your erroneous sense impression. But I do not believe a necessary and justified war should not be undertaken because of the reality that there will be innocent casualties. The reason this war started was entirely because of Saddam Hussein. But the war is undertaken, and the majority of the American forces are endeavoring to do battle with the enemy -- a cowardly enemy that hides itself in and among the civilian population -- and minimize civilian casualties. That is a daunting task, and it is impossible to do perfectly. Your bias will not allow you to consider that view, for you view it completely repugnant that the American forces are doing battle in the first place, and that places you in the position of believing the American forces are more evil than the enemy they face, who are actually the proximate cause of the civilian casualties by virtue of their tactics.

Now, I believe I fully understand your position, and I could not disagree with it any more strongly.

Here is a photo of a US serviceman which you might appreciate:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4048/012705armyiraqnb5.jpg

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know