DC Tom Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I am not going to defend the mass media by saying they are really good at what they do, but I not wishing that they bea more efficient medium of propaganda either. Number #8 I find quite interesting. If they missed that, they really dropped the ball. Actually, concerning the WMD issue, the media's reporting has been vastly underwhelming, matched only by the administration's reporting on it. The ISG's report actually did outline quite a bit of "stuff" they found...but prominently featured in the report was that they did not find actual weapons aimed at us and ready to launch, as the administration was wont to claim. So of course, the MSM reported that little portion of the ISG report, and ignored everything else. That was just bad communication all around. And the only way to know otherwise was to read the actual report...something most people wouldn't bother with, as they define "informed" as "Well, Dan Rather/George W. Bush said so"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Actually, concerning the WMD issue, the media's reporting has been vastly underwhelming, matched only by the administration's reporting on it. The ISG's report actually did outline quite a bit of "stuff" they found...but prominently featured in the report was that they did not find actual weapons aimed at us and ready to launch, as the administration was wont to claim. So of course, the MSM reported that little portion of the ISG report, and ignored everything else. That was just bad communication all around. And the only way to know otherwise was to read the actual report...something most people wouldn't bother with, as they define "informed" as "Well, Dan Rather/George W. Bush said so"... The results of the ISG was sourced by the media, but the use of it was not that surprising. The stuff that was found just didn't measure up to the pre-war rhetoric of a guy like Cheney claiming that we know Saddam has stockpiles and we know where they are. The same medium they used to get that message out in the run up failed to give a nuanced portrait of the findings because the expectations were not that nuanced to begin with. When Powell told the plenary session at the UN that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." The bar was set pretty high, so rather than taking the ISG on its own merits - the standard was really the pre-war hype. Anyone who is interested this is the Brookings Institute Iraq Index report. Pretty centrist in my opinion, but certainly quite left of the Heritage Foundation. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Why don't you fags move to New Jersey. May as well follow Dan Gross. Who's the parade grand marshall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 May as well follow Dan Gross. Who's the parade grand marshall? Oh she's a hottie! I saw her on Smoking Gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The results of the ISG was sourced by the media, but the use of it was not that surprising. The stuff that was found just didn't measure up to the pre-war rhetoric of a guy like Cheney claiming that we know Saddam has stockpiles and we know where they are. The same medium they used to get that message out in the run up failed to give a nuanced portrait of the findings because the expectations were not that nuanced to begin with. When Powell told the plenary session at the UN that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." The bar was set pretty high, so rather than taking the ISG on its own merits - the standard was really the pre-war hype. Anyone who is interested this is the Brookings Institute Iraq Index report. Pretty centrist in my opinion, but certainly quite left of the Heritage Foundation. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf Uhhh....yeah. That's what I said. But not nearly as well. But I still said it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Rush Limbaugh yesterday quoted a DoD document that said 4417 US troops were killed from 1993-1996 (peacetime). That's about 1300 MORE than the 3133 killed in Iraq in a comparable span of time. I found a copy of the data I was looking for. I had seen the original DoD page, but I forgot to downoad it at the time. Someone made an excel spreadsheet of it . US Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2004 This post really makes me angry. I just don't know what to say about something like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 This post really makes me angry. I just don't know what to say about something like this Why? You once said: And I never said "I support the troops" I don't "support" them any more than I support a janitor at the local school. So you're an idiot AND Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. Whoopie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Why? You once said: So you're an idiot AND Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. Whoopie. Being dishonest are we Darin? Why don't you post the rest of what I said? Add yourself to the list and take me off, you and Rush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Does anyone have a decent table of people killed in terrorist attacks vs. recreational boating accidents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Does anyone have a decent table of people killed in terrorist attacks vs. recreational boating accidents? Decent? No...haven't yet figured out which column the USS Cole goes under... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Decent? No...haven't yet figured out which column the USS Cole goes under... That's an excellent point. Maybe a Venn diagram..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 This post really makes me angry. I just don't know what to say about something like this I did it!!! I got him to shut up for a while !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Being dishonest are we Darin? Why don't you post the rest of what I said? Add yourself to the list and take me off, you and Rush Ah, so when I use your EXACT words I'm being dishonest, but when you take something I type and put your retard spin on it (for military cuts under one party, against them under another, for example), that's somehow truthful? Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Ah, so when I use your EXACT words I'm being dishonest, but when you take something I type and put your retard spin on it (for military cuts under one party, against them under another, for example), that's somehow truthful? Gotcha. My 'exact' words were qualified by the next sentence I wrote which you left out. Yes, dishonest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 My 'exact' words were qualified by the next sentence I wrote which you left out. Yes, dishonest Funny. You've done the EXACT SAME THING to me. Why is it suddenly verboten behavior now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 My 'exact' words were qualified by the next sentence I wrote which you left out. Yes, dishonest Sorry, I don't read the post quite that way. Nor do I see what you're accusing me of as being any different than how you generally respond when called out. So we can now add "hypocrite" to your "idiot" status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Funny. You've done the EXACT SAME THING to me. Why is it suddenly verboten behavior now? Don't use the word "verboten" on this site. I can't go into details but I have recently captured and dismantled a Googlebot. Based on patterns I have interpreted, it seems a thread containing the word "verboten" placed anywhere on the internet wakes Kurt Godel from his sleep and usually leads to a discussion of terrorism at Dresden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Don't use the word "verboten" on this site. I can't go into details but I have recently captured and dismantled a Googlebot. Based on patterns I have interpreted, it seems a thread containing the word "verboten" placed anywhere on the internet wakes Kurt Godel from his sleep and usually leads to a discussion of terrorism at Dresden. Actually, just saying Kurt's name usually wakes him. He should be by soon to call me names. I expect Holcomb's Arm and Molson_Goldfish will join him, which should make for an entertaining quorum of stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 How many US troops between 1993-1996 had thier legs blown off, Rush? Probably more than you would think. Do you suppose most of these guys died in accidents learning how to color within the lines? When I was stationed at Ft. Knox (In 1993 so this will acount for at least 2 of those deaths) 2 guys were blown up because they were careless when doing a vehicle refuel and didn't properly attach the ground wire. Just prior to that (I wasn't there that day, thank god!) 7 or 8 guys were blown to bits by some lunkhead who was playing with a "dud" 40mm grenade that was leftover from a Mk19 range. Amazingly no one was killed, but most of them sustained major injuries. (As an aside, what happened was that said moron approached a group of guys lingering around the motor pool with a 'nade he found in the back of one of the hummers. As he was walking toward them he was tossing it into the air and catching it on the way back down. When got got up to them and said "look what I found guys" he muffed the catch, and BLAM!. He is still in Ft. Levenworth with all of his front teeth blown out. Probably fairly popular there. I felt bad for him because he was just some stupid hillbilly, but he also damn near killed a bunch of people I knew which was messed up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Rush Limbaugh yesterday quoted a DoD document that said 4417 US troops were killed from 1993-1996 (peacetime). That's about 1300 MORE than the 3133 killed in Iraq in a comparable span of time. I found a copy of the data I was looking for. I had seen the original DoD page, but I forgot to downoad it at the time. Someone made an excel spreadsheet of it . US Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2004 By the way...completely fallacious logic. You can't just compare gross quantities of casualties. The 4417 killed from '93-96 are deaths in the entire military, averaging about 1.75 million in active service and reserves, for an annual death rate of 0.84 per thousand. The 3133 killed in Iraq are from a much smaller population - namely, the 120k servicemen or so that are in Iraq at any given time. That's 1050 deaths per year per 120k people...or 8.75 deaths per thousand per annum. So the death rate isn't comparable. It's actually TEN TIMES the peacetime rate for a comparable span of time ten years ago. Killed and wounded in Iraq, BTW, amounts to about 22,500 over three years...or about 6% casualties per year (60 per thousand). That's probably historically normal - if not low - for occupation duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts