posted 03-28-2003 07:26 PM            

"Removing Saddam will be a blessing to the Iraqi people" — Tony Blair, March 19/03

"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months" — Donald Rumsfeld, February 7/03

"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators" — Vice-President Dick Cheney

Colin Powell describes progress as remarkable and says the campaign will be successful in "the not-too-distant future" — March 25

Pentagon officials said on Friday March 21 that all 8,000 men in the 51st Iraqi Mechanised Division based in Basra had surrendered. The unit went on fighting.

"We promised this would be the most powerful campaign ever seen, and it will be. It will be unlike any we have seen in the history of warfare, with breathtaking precision, almost eye-watering speed, persistence, agility and lethality” — Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, US Navy.-- By Day Six US forces were bogged down by heavy resistance and bad weather 60 miles south of Baghdad

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberators" — Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defence Secretary, March 11

posted 03-28-2003 09:22 PM            

When we invaded France in June, 1944, it took another 11 MONTHS before we finally took Germany. And the Battle of the Bulge drove allied forces back into France for weeks before the German advance was halted.

Six days....SIX!...and we're already positioning the forces to take on the heart of the Iraqi regime.

I say stop trying to compare this to Operation Desert Storm...the two operations are apples and oranges. And remember...Desert Storm's ground phase was preceeded by over a month of intense bombing before a single allied soldier stepped foot across the line, never mind the fact that the only strategic goal of that war was to drive Iraqi forces OUT of Kuwait...the farthest north we advanced was just south of Basra.

And it makes me sick that some people are referring to the Special Republican Guard units and the Fedeyeen Saddam units as if they are some valiant defenders of their home...

posted 03-29-2003 01:24 AM            

Baghdad will be a problem PRECISELY because we will likely attempt to avoid street fighting and bombing civilian targets (where Saddam has placed his remaining military assets). We may, however, be forced into this situation by an attack on our forces encamped outside Baghdad, but even then, our attacks will likely be limited to targeted command and control infrastructure. I think this is the phase of the war in which we will possibly choose to just wait out the bastards in Baghdad, while simultaneously dropping humanitarian aid and securing the rest of the country. We are here to stay for a relatively long term, so why not set up some permanent camps outside Baghdad? We’ve got time….

Obviously, anyone with half the brain cells of an eggplant, can see that this is not strictly about oil, not even really about liberating the Iraqi people, even though that is a beautiful side product. The objective here is to eliminate Saddam's WMD capability and threat his regime poses to the rest of the world. Iraq will no longer be a supermarket of biological, chemical and potentially nuclear WMDs for terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, which threaten the United States directly. It is absolutely certain that this objective is achieved.

Secondly, in eliminating Saddam's WMD threat, we also eliminate an evil regime that killed and tortured over 2 million people. That is not insignificant and no small achievement. If we had taken the same pre-emptive action with Hitler, WWII could have been avoided along with 50 million deaths. It is a similar situation that we are avoiding by taking out Saddam Hussein. This is not only an astounding achievement, it is miraculous in my opinion.

And what about the oil? Well, our stated objective is to use the natural wealth of Iraq in the form of it's oil, to rebuild the country. (A hell of a better option than US tax payer money!!!!). Before, Saddam was using oil profits to build his palaces and his WMD programs while simultaneously starving his people. (Leftist idiots like Mech and Gas don't seem to have a problem with that) Now, those oil profits will go directly to the people of Iraq, rather than a Satanic dictator This will be one of the most incredible humanitarian achievements in the history of human affairs. Obviously, if oil was our main objective, we would keep all profits for ourselves. We did not do this after the first Gulf War. We will not do it now. To argue that this is about oil then is to ignore history. It's another base-less and openly stupid argument that is the hallmark of people like Mech and Gas.

Another side benefit of this war will be the important message it gives to other tyrants of the world. This is an incredibly important deterrent to future terrorism, because the only way aggression is deterred is to stand up to it with force and promises kept. The world now knows we are serious, that we are not weak, and that we intend to defend ourselves to the point of taking pre-emptive action. The powerful effect of this message should not go underestimated on it's influence of people like Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, and countries like Syria and Iran. They know damn well that any act of terrorism on the US could mean they are next on the list. This is a powerful deterrent.

In short, this war will achieve these objectives with remarkable efficiency, and minimal loss of life, barring any major catastrophe such as Saddam's remaining regime using WMDs on our troops or its own people in the coming desperate days....If we can overcome this hurdle, this war will be one of the great human success stories, and the world will be a significantly safer place with the knowledge that the US has teeth and seriously plans to defeat the terrorist enemy.

posted 03-29-2003 09:36 AM            

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15507

An Army of Propaganda

By Kari Lydersen, AlterNet

March 28, 2003

Kari LEmbedded reporters. Weapons of mass destruction. Surgical strikes. It's no coincidence that Americans, and others around the world, are echoing the exact same phrases and news bites at the same times with near-military precision. It's the result of a slickly orchestrated public relations campaign on the part of the military and the U.S. government that is borrowing the best practices of the corporate PR world.

In an effort coordinated by the White House Office of Global Communication (which also coordinated press coverage of the war in Afghanistan), everyone connected to the government during the war on Iraq is echoing a pre-scripted message of the day.

According to PR Week, a trade publication of the PR industry: "The OGC, an office born out of post-September-11 efforts to combat anti-American news stories emerging from Arab countries, will be key in keeping all U.S. spokespeople on message. Each night, U.S. embassies around the world, along with all federal departments in DC, will receive a 'Global Messenger' e-mail containing talking points and ready-to-use quotes."

The PR industry, as many may know, was actually started by the military during World War I, when persuasive techniques were developed to recruit soldiers.

"After the war a lot of those people went to work for the private sector and are seen as the grandfathers of PR," says Laura Miller, associate editor of PR Watch (www.prwatch.org), a corporate and media watchdog group. "They were very up front about the fact that [in their opinion] in a democracy, public opinion needs to be controlled by a small number of people who know what's best for the public."

In the case of the war against Iraq, that means that there should be no confusion or dissent about the aims and progress of the war. In what was apparently meant as a compliment to the OGC network, PR Week noted that, "The network is intended not only to disseminate, but also to dominate news of the conflict around the world."

Sanitizing the Conflict

One aspect to this kind of domination of the news is the control and manipulation of viewpoints and information coming directly from the government.

The Bush administration has also been hard at work on limiting and ideally silencing opposing or challenging viewpoints and factual narratives coming from other sources. The administration has attacked Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based and state-funded media outlet which is the primary news source for much of the Arab world.

On March 25 the New York Stock Exchange revoked Al-Jazeera's credentials. Meanwhile hackers have prevented either its Arab or English-language sites from being accessible in the U.S. And the administration has pressured Qatar amir, Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, to force Al-Jazeera to give more emphasis to their versions of events.

Far from being anti-U.S. or pro-Saddam Hussein, media critics note that Al-Jazeera is widely seen as a moderate, balanced outlet that offers plenty of airtime to U.S. officials. Al-Jazeera actually drew the ire of the Iraqi government for reporting on Hussein's lavish birthday celebration.

It has drawn intense fire from the U.S. for airing video of the interrogation of American POWs, which the U.S. says violates the Geneva Convention.

"The POW footage has been shown by numerous TV stations around the world, yet Al-Jazeera was singled out by the U.S. government and demonized," said Lamis Andoni, an independent journalist and analyst who has covered the Middle East for over two decades. "They [the U.S. administration] want one story line to be out there, but they cannot control the story line when there are other stories like Al-Jazeera's."

A sanitized view of the conflict serves an important political purpose for the U.S. administration, both in downplaying the vulnerability of U.S. troops and dehumanizing and de-emphasizing Iraqi casualties, especially of civilians. In keeping with this strategy not only is it unacceptable to show video of the American POWs, but also images of death in general.

Erich Marquardt, editor and publisher of YellowTimes.org, found this out when his site was shut down by its Internet provider after posting photos of U.S. prisoners of war and dead Iraqi civilians. Journalism professors and media experts note that while there has not yet been widespread blatant censorship, U.S. media outlets in step with the government have practiced their own form of carrot and stick self-censorship.

Stars and Stripes Forever

A few high-profile journalists with anti-war or anti-administration sentiments have suffered actual retribution for their views. Talk show host Phil Donahue had his show pulled by MSNBC because, according to inside memos leaked to the press, his anti-war and left-leaning views were contrary to the current patriotic fever. Meanwhile MSNBC recently awarded a show to right-wing shock jock Michael Savage, who among many other things has referred to young urban gunfire victims as "ghetto slime."

While actual demotions or firings like Donahue's are relatively rare, University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen notes that ambitious journalists are made all too aware of how their coverage of the war could affect their future careers.

"This is more a system that rewards those who comply than punishes those who don't," said Jensen, author of the book "Writing Dissent." "There are only a couple dramatic cases where people were punished, but then it doesn't take many demonstration cases to scare people away. And the rewards the system offers are quite tangible - if you play the game you'll get this; if you don't play the game you might just get that."

Jensen says that overt displays of patriotism from journalists should be considered just as taboo as blatant anti-war sentiment. "Journalists make the claim of being neutral, but you have journalists saying we're neutral but we're also patriotic," he said. "Yet patriotism is a political position, it's not a neutral position. You can't be both."

Clear Channel, the largest owner of radio stations in the country, has scrapped even any pretense of objectivity with its sponsorship of pro-war rallies in major cities throughout the U.S.

Embedded in War

One reason patriotism seems to be running so high among journalists covering the war from Iraq is the "embedded reporter" system. This new strategy has roughly 500 journalists from different media outlets actually integrated with troops, traveling and living with them. While this offers a decent number of reporters first-hand views of the action, critics say the drawbacks are far worse than the benefits.

"It is unusual to have this many reporters with this much access to the battlefield, but that access has come at a high price," said Rachel Coen, an analyst for FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting).

The embedded reporters' work is highly regulated by government officials. They are not permitted to interview Iraqis without permission and they cannot interview soldiers off the record, drastically reducing the likelihood that troops will say anything negative about the U.S. effort. And it's only natural that reporters who are living and traveling with soldiers in such close quarters will quickly form strong bonds and camaraderie with the troops.

As with a journalist who gets too friendly with any source, this presents an ethical dilemma.

"Embedding is a way to kill the press with kindness," said NYU media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller. "You absorb reporters into the advancing military unit, and they're psychologically inclined to see themselves as part of the military operation. They even dress like soldiers."

During the Vietnam War, growing media skepticism and coverage of the conflict played a major role in turning public opinion against the war. But Robert Jensen said he sees two main types of stories coming from the embedded reporters and neither of them fills the need for big-picture accurate reporting.

"First are the human interest stories - what are they eating, what are they doing for fun?" he said. "Those are valid stories, but they aren't very important in helping the public understand the nature of the conflict. The other kind are just narrating the movement of troops - we're going down the road, we're going down the road some more, there are people shooting at us. Those are reports that are very dramatic, but what do they tell us about the war, about the politics of war, about the lies we're being told by the Bush administration?"

Casualties of Truth

Reports from FAIR document how truth has been one of the major casualties of the media's unquestioning reliance on government sources. On March 20, reporters from NBC, NPR, ABC and other outlets reported as fact the military's assertion that the Iraqis had used banned Scud missiles. However two days later the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that in fact no Scud missiles had been fired. Similarly on March 23 various media trumpeted the government's claim that a chemical weapons factory had been found near the town of Najaf, though a day later that claim was totally debunked. With increasing Iraqi civilian casualties and military setbacks, however, the press is slowly being forced to admit that things aren't all rosy.

"The recent reverses the U.S. has suffered have made some of the coverage better than it might otherwise have been," noted Miller. "Over the last couple of days they've had to admit that the spin we're getting from people like Rumsfeld is just false."

Ideally, many say, journalists' skepticism and media outlets' willingness to criticize the administration will grow if the war drags on and casualties on either side mount.

"It's a really interesting gamble they've taken with this embedded reporter thing," said Miller. "They are hoping the journalists will do their PR work for them, and so far they have been. But there are so many journalists there, and journalists do have this idealist streak in them. So if things go bad, and the journalists are at the right place at the right time, or the wrong place at the wrong time, depending how you look at it, they could be reporting some crazy stuff."

posted 03-29-2003 09:47 AM            

By David Miller
Stirling University
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00277.htm

The attack on Iraq looks set to be the most censored conflict of modern times. Media coverage in mainstream media will be controlled as never before. The US is determined to eliminate independent reporting of and from Iraq and it will go to unprecedented lengths to ensure that its propaganda and spin will dominate media agendas in the UK and US and it will expend massive resources in minimising critical coverage across the world.

The US and UK governments have shown themselves adept at learning propaganda lessons from successive conflicts. In both Suez (1956) and most importantly Vietnam, the UK and US governments came to believe that propaganda and media control were key to winning wars. In the Suez debacle General Sir Charles Keightley concluded in an internal government report in 1957 that the 'over-riding lesson' was that 'world opinion is now the absolute principal of war' [1] The role of the media in the Vietnam war was believed by many to have been a key factor in the defeat of the US and the victory of the Vietnamese. But in fact the US media only started to feature dissent after the US ruling elite became split on the war. Nevertheless America’s future war planners decided not to risk uncensored press coverage of their own conflicts. 'They determined - evidently beginning in the Reagan Administration - that reporters would never again have the opportunity to confuse the American public about the government’s war aims, whether deliberately or by accident' [2].

The lessons of Vietnam were put into effect in the Falklands conflict in 1982. There was close control of the 29 journalists who were allowed to accompany the military to the South Atlantic and no independent facilities for reporting. A dual system of censorship operated which ensured that journalists' copy was censored on naval vessels in the South Atlantic and then again at the Ministry of Defence in London before being released. The success of the news management in the Falklands was not lost on the US government as Lt Commander Arthur Humphries of the US Navy noted in 1983: 'In spite of a perception of choice in a democratic society, the Falklands War shows us how to make certain that government policy is not undermined by the way a war is reported… Control access to the fighting, invoke censorship, and rally aid in the form of patriotism at home and in the battle zone.' [3] This policy was followed in the invasions of both Grenada (1984) and Panama (1989)

Humphries also noted that if there was one deficiency in the policy, it was in failing to fill the resulting information void with pictures. 'In the Falklands the British failed to appreciate that news management is more than just information security censorship. It also means providing pictures’. [4]

By the time of the Gulf War in 1991 this lesson had been well learned. In the Saudi desert journalists were isolated from the fighting and newsrooms were supplied every day with new footage of ‘precision’ bombs hitting their targets. This was the new clean war in which civilians would not be harmed as ‘smart’ technology enabled ‘surgical strikes’. This was a systematic charade. Only 7% of the ordnance was ‘smart’. The other 93% being indiscriminate weapons including weapons of mass destruction. The smart technology turned out not to be so smart and missed its target in 40% of cases according to official figures. [5]

Needless to say we didn’t see any of the footage of either the ‘dumb’ bombs or the smart bombs which missed. But even when the smart weapons hit their targets, civilians died, as in the case of the al-Amariyah bunker in Baghdad which was not a military installation but an air raid shelter. This time the US and UK are claiming that most bombs will be of the smart variety and that the technology has been improved. According to the British Ministry of Defence, ‘greater attention to precision-guided weapons means we could have a war with zero civilian casualties’. [6] This statement was falsified on the first night of bombing when between three and five Iraqi civilians were hit by shrapnel.

The emphasis on the clean war again is an attempt to divert attention from the fact that weapons of mass destruction such as depleted uranium tipped shells and ‘bunker buster’ and ‘daisy cutter’ bombs will be used. Conjuring up the smell of freshly mowed grass, the daisy cutter is actually a bomb the size of a small car which destroys everything in an area the size of a football pitch. It is said to resemble a small nuclear bomb.

************

The Pool

In past wars including the 1991 gulf war, the pool system has been the main means of control of journalists ‘in theatre’ – a propaganda term adopted by many journalists. The pool allows the military to control the movement of journalists as well as almost everything they see. In 1991 the Pentagon tried to bully journalists not to operate outside the pool and some adopted the value system so fully that they turned in any journalists who tried to report independently.

This time the Pentagon has got more sophisticated and more determined to eliminate the possibility of independent reporting. They have pressured journalists to leave Baghdad and by 18 march about half of the 300 there had left, including many of the key UK and US journalists (from US networks such as NBC and ABC and UK press such as the Times and Telegraph) who would likely have more credibility in their own countries. [7]

The rules issued by the Pentagon were themselves part of a process of spin. They are presented as voluntary and appeared to some to offer ‘unprecedented freedom to report the facts’. But on closer inspection, a number of clauses buried in the text indicate the iron fist in the velvet glove. While the rules state that there is ‘no general review process’ of reports by the Pentagon, a later section notes that ‘if media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering’. A security review also becomes compulsory if any sensitive information is released deliberately. In a classic passage attempting to present strict censorship rules as voluntary, the Pentagon notes that ‘agreement to security review is in exchange for this type of access must be strictly voluntary and if the reporter does not agree, the access may not be granted’. [8]

The pool this time has a further new feature known as ‘embedding’ which entails that reporters operate in close proximity to military units. They will not be allowed to travel independently and some suggest that control of the technology of communication will be controlled by the military too. These new rules mean that journalists will don military uniform and protective clothing and, the Pentagon hopes, start to identify with the military.

According to reports there are 903 journalists embedded with US and UK forces, six times the number of journalists in Baghdad. At US military headquarters in Qatar the daily briefings will be delivered from a huge press centre complete with a mocked up studio with five large TV screens to show accurate bombing runs. Topped of by tastefully deployed camouflage netting installed by a specially flown in Hollywood designer, the centre cost in the region of $250,000.

In a little noticed interview on Irish radio, veteran BBC war correspondent Kate Adie has argued that the Pentagon is ‘entirely hostile to the free spread of information’. ‘I am enormously pessimistic of the chance for decent on the spot reporting’, she said. But the threat to independent journalism is potentially more severe. Adie reported being told by a ‘senior officer’ in the Pentagon that if broadcasters’ satellite uplink signals were detected by the military they would be ‘targeted down’ even if there were journalists there. ‘Who cares…they’ve been warned’ said the officer. [9]

War does strange things to both military and media. The Director of Corporate Communications for the British Army Brigadier Matthes Sykes has a reported enthusiasm for conflict. He ‘is most animated when talking of his spells in the field, indeed he admits that is where his heart belongs.’ [10]

Journalists too suffer from the malaise of getting too involved. According to widely respected Middle East reporter Robert Fisk many are back to ‘their old trick of playing toy soldiers’. [11]

The former Daily Telegraph editor Max Hastings admits he got too close in the Falklands war: ‘I was accused of getting too involved with the troops – I have to plead guilty to that.’ In Iraq now he worries for younger colleagues: ‘TV stations and newspapers tend to get overexcited in wars… It’s a case of boys with toys, but the hardest thing to remember is that this is ultimately all about lives’. [12]

On the first day of the attack, Iraqi missiles fired into Kuwait were unequivocally reported on the main BBC bulletins as consisting of Scud missiles, even though this had not been confirmed and doubt was cast on the hypothesis by minority audience BBC programmes. [13]

BBC News 24, the globally available service continually repeated the propaganda. Just after midnight (GMT) on the morning of the 21st March BBC reporter Ben Brown repeatedly used the word ‘scud’ without any qualification. [14]

As many news outlets pointed out the use of Scuds would be a material breach of UN resolution 1441. But in fact the missiles were not Scuds as was confirmed the next day. But by then the damage was done and the correction did not gain the prominence of the original reports.

This is all a familiar pattern from previous wars where the BBC bulletins seen by the mass UK audience follow a distinctly propagandist pro-war agenda. As war approached in the UK the government attempted to eliminate dissent by arguing that past differences must be put aside to support ‘our’ troops.

Dissent had already been under pressure from at least the beginning of February when the Director of News at the BBC Richard Sambrook issued a confidential memo to senior BBC management. Quickly leaked by angry BBC staff, the memo showed that even before the biggest ever demonstrations in British history the BBC was attempting to marginalise the broadcasting of anti-war voices.

Too much dissent was being broadcast, it claimed, which 'forces our presenters to put the Bush/Blair position to callers -- sometimes making us appear to be siding with govt. Not true in all cases.' A tacit admission, if ever there was one, that much BBC output is shaped to support war. As war started the first signs of patriotic censorship appeared. The owner of more than 100 weekly newspapers Sir Ray Tindle wrote to the editors of all his papers asking them ‘to ensure that nothing appears… which attacks the decision to conduct the war’. [15] Drawing immediate protests from free media campaigners, this example is sure to be the first of many infringements of independent reporting.

posted 03-29-2003 10:22 AM            

Al-Jazeera is NOTHING but a propaganda machine. It is not "moderate" as your dumb-ass article says. It was parading our dead, mutilated, executed soldiers before the world, in mockery… in strong defiance of the Geneva conventions and any level of decency or humanity ...It was lying to the Arab people about their success in the war, which leads to more death. It is nothing put a propaganda machine for evil...

Yet you sit there and blame US embedded media. This is NOT a propaganda machine, you moron. It was, in fact, a stroke of genius on the part of Rumsfeld because it strengthen ties between the media and the military...It makes the embedded reporters dependent upon the military success for their very lives. Therefore, the embedded media are going to have respect for the military that it deserves. They are going to be unable to spin and lie with live feed, and they are not going to have the traditional adversarial role with the military. In other words, they are compelled to report truth. This is why this war will be the most video taped war in human history. There is a reason for that; The reason is to counter-act the lies and spin coming out of Saddam's state-run TV, and propaganda machine. Saddam is a master of spin to influence world option, but we can counter-act the spin with live video feed from the battlefield to the world. We show the world in an instant that we are not committing the atrocities that liars like Mech, Gas, and Saddam's regime are claiming we are committing by doing this. Like I said, a stroke of genius on the part of Rumsfeld...

posted 03-29-2003 11:46 AM            

Being against warfor profit is sick and twisted?..Since when?

FW: "This is why I say you are under the influence of dark forces, Mech.--"

NO, you are...The Bush regime is one of the most evil incarnations the world has ever seen, as far as I am concerned.

FW:"You are unable to see true evil for what it is.."

On the contrry..Bu$h and his thugs are PURE evil.

FW: "Al-Jazeera is NOTHING but a propaganda machine."

Really? Then why has it won awards for hard hitting journalism. Why was it HACKED by Bush's lackey's?

FW:"It is not "moderate" as your dumb-ass article says. It was parading our dead, mutilated, executed soldiers before the world, in mockery… in strong defiance of the Geneva conventions and any level of decency or humanity ..."

Oh..Kind of like John Walker and Those goat herders down at Camp X-ray?

FW:" It is nothing put a propaganda machine for evil..".

But FOX NEWS isn't ?

FW: "This is NOT a propaganda machine, you moron."

FREAKING LMAO!!!!!!Bull$#!+. You have to be kidding man. CENSORSHIP IS IN FULL SWING IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. They only want you to see what THEY sanction you to see.It's PURE SPIN.

FW:" This is why this war will be the most video taped war in human history."

Of propganda.

FW: "Like I said, a stroke of genius on the part of Rumsfeld..."

Rumsfeld is Satans Protege'.

FW:"Here again, we have yet another example of traitor Mech siding with the enemy.."

Bull$#!+...I don't support Bu$h OR Saddam. For the most prt..THEY are on the same side.

FW.".. in believing the propaganda of the enemy's media over our own embedded live reporters."

Qatar is the enemy? Al Jazeera is Qatari based.

In summation FATwalker...if anyone here is the loser..it's you being the kiss @$$, chickenhawk, constitutional traitor that YOU are.

Iraq didn't attack us.

Where are the WMD's?

Bush is just as evil as Saddam.

This is going to create further problems down the road.

Those who sacrifice LIBERTY for "SECURITY" deserve neither liberty or security.

posted 03-29-2003 07:33 PM            

Pacer, if you are going over there, then you really are a dishonorable person. Take the 2 years in the brig, and dishonorable discharge. At least you would still have your conscience. Oopps..I forgot...The price of a gallon of gas is more important than your conscience.

This from someone who has never served a day in uniform. I don't get it, I really don't.

Mech says:

In summation FATwalker...if anyone here is the loser..it's you being the kiss @$$, chickenhawk, constitutional traitor that YOU are.

Those who sacrifice LIBERTY for "SECURITY" deserve neither liberty or security.

Mech, I have never seen anyone who hates the United States government the way you do. And you say you joined the Navy for protecting the constitution and freedom? BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT IN BIG CHUNKS!

posted 03-29-2003 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proud Veteran:

This from someone who has never served a day in uniform. I don't get it, I really don't.

---

You see PV, you are a obnoxious traitor to this country. How could I serve with a childhood disease, and second it's loud mouth people like myself, Mech and others, who stand up for liberty with our writing. I know quite a few Vets who loathe Bush, and are deeply troubled about the shredding of the Constitution, that they faught to defend. I respect them and they respect me. None consider me a traitor, in fact some look to me for my opinions. Now Proud Veteran, I consider you A F..KING TRAITOR to this country like your BRAIN DEFICiENT P-resident. And so do my Vet buddies. We are going to stay here and fight asses like yourself, and we'll not be chased out of here. You and your ilk can invent all of the Constitution destroying legislature, but things always cycle back. The world will unite to stop Bush in 2004.

posted 03-30-2003 10:01 AM            

I enlisted and volunteered because of lies from the Johnson regime.

May no one else fight and die for purely political goals.

For those who lack knowledge:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm
>Welcome to the special Wartime Edition of the Aeronautics.Ru What you see is the lighter version of the usual main page. This is a temporary measure designed to improve the response time of this site. The server was overloaded by unexpected increase in traffic as well as by attempted denial of service attacks coming mainly from US-based domains.< http://www.aeronautics.ru/copyright.htm
GRU's take on things http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news066.htm
prep in the N http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news067.htm
prep in the S http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news068.htm
1st day of war http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news069.htm
2nd day of war http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news070.htm
how radio is intercepted: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news071.htm
what is GRU?: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news072.htm
movement around basra: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news073.htm
basra & al nasiriya http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news074.htm
news vacuum: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news075.htm
southern iraq: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news076.htm
an-nasiriya update: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news077.htm
fighting the people: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm
better coalition performance: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news079.htm
coalition needs more troops: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm
battle update http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news081.htm
a week of war http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

posted 03-30-2003 03:19 PM            

Americans were tught to fear the "Red Menace" so damned much that they will be a little suspicious if you start posting GWII news info out of Russia.