Photos you won't see on NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq_you_wont_see_in_the_news

[ChumpDumper]

I've seen several such pictures there -- but if it bleeds it leads.

Even on Fox.

[SpursWoman]

Every single last one of them was bribed with PopRocks. :spin

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Good pics to see. Always glad to see a reminder that people are inherently good.

[mysterious_elf26]

Yes, those are good pictures to see aren't they? However, I do not think those represent the majority of the Iraqi people's feeling toward U.S. They don't show those on the news because the majority of Iraqis hate us.

If those pictures were so true, there would not be over 1,000s of troops dead and that's not even with the addition of civilian casualties. I'm proud to be an American and it's great they showed soldiers hug children, but did you forget about those prison abuse photos?

The only reason they don't show those is becasue for the majority, they are not true.

:devil Those photos are misleading to the U.S. and the rest of the world. :angel

[SpursWoman]

I am soooo looking for the [/tongue in cheek]. :wtf

[whottt]

Yes, those are good pictures to see aren't they? However, I do not think those represent the majority of the Iraqi people's feeling toward U.S. They don't show those on the news because the majority of Iraqis hate us.

If those pictures were so true, there would not be over 1,000s of troops dead and that's not even with the addition of civilian casualties. I'm proud to be an American and it's great they showed soldiers hug children, but did you forget about those prison abuse photos?

The only reason they don't show those is because for the majority, they are not true.

:devil Those photos are misleading to the U.S. and the rest of the world. :angel


And I'm pretty sure the majority of them over there support us otherwise we'd be fighting 20 million people instead of terrorists who resort to suicide bombings, fear attacks against the Iraquis, and hiding amongst women and children. Our troops would be massacred...1000 deaths is a horrible total but it is a small total compared to our other wars.

You probably think an overwhelming majority of Americans are against the war as well, due to incessant whining and protesting by demonstrators...but those are seldom very large gatherings. And if the majority shared their opinion they wouldn't need to demonstrate.

You probably think an overwhelming majority of our military would hate Bush for sending them into an "Oil War", yet statistics say Bush has a 3-1 advantage over Kerry amongst military...indeed, Kerry is trying to rob them of their right to vote for that reason.

You think these things because the overwhelming majority of journalists and media outlets are liberal biased, because rich liberals(like actors, musicians and pro athletes, are in the majority) have a lot more chances to spew their opinions out into the public domain. That's the only majority we are talking about here.

The baby that cries the loudest usually does get the most attention...

[ChumpDumper]

And I'm pretty sure the majority of them over there support usI'll wait and see how many of them we allow to vote.

[whottt]

You go ahead and do that...but the simple fact is if that country was against us our troops would be routed every time they entered a city, and they would be run out of that country. One homicide bombing would not make the headlines because it would be common place.

[ChumpDumper]

but the simple fact is if that country was against us our troops would be routed every time they entered a city, and they would be run out of that country.If they could blow up all our tanks and planes, maybe. Perhaps you have some Zogby numbers on how many Iraqis like the occupaiton.

[whottt]

I'll wait and see how many of them we allow to vote.


And what would you want if you were in their position? Which would you want? To be ruled eternally by some religious fanatic, one man representing all, or the right to elect your leader and have representative government?

And I wish we were as good at setting up puppet governments as you seem to think we are...if we were France and Germany wouldn't have told us to go screw ourselves and betrayed us(while our troops are stationed on German soil)

[whottt]

If they could blow up all our tanks and planes, maybe. Perhaps you have some Zogby numbers on how many Iraqis like the occupaiton.

I think you underestimate them...there seem to be those who don't care about giving their life if it kills Americans, remember? That's who we are fighting now remember?...Obviously if that was a majority there would be no stopping them....and they have the sheer numbers to overwhelm our military there...bombs and tanks or not.

Hell...I believe in most incursions now the number of trained Iraqis outnumbers the American troops that accompany them.


And perhaps you have some Zogby numbers on how many don't? Remember...they have foreign terrorists helping them. I believe those guys are commiting most of the suicide acts.

The only people that might be a majority against us over there are the Baathists and that's because they don't want the Shias to control their country. Sucks to be them...but there is no way for a minority to rule a majority humanely...history shows this to be true 100% of the time. That's why we need to stay there until we have hammered into them that they have to have somewhat of a secular government that is not based totally on religion.

[ChumpDumper]

And what would you want if you were in their position? Which would you want? To be ruled eternally by some religious fanatic, one man representing all, or the right to elect your leader and have representative government?You're acting like they are all American christians with a tradition of democracy. Mostly I would imagine I'd want the Americans out.
And I wish we were as good at setting up puppet governments as you seem to think we are...if we were France and Germany wouldn't have told us to go screw ourselves and betrayed us(while our troops are stationed on German soil)lol 60 years later? Let me know how many Iraqis get to vote, skippy.

[ChumpDumper]

I think you underestimate them...there seem to be those who don't care about giving their life if it kills Americans, remember? That's who we are fighting now remember?...Obviously if that was a majority there would be no stopping them....and they have the sheer numbers to overwhelm our military there...bombs and tanks or not.Or, they could just wait until the US leaves like they say they are. This isn't a sprint.
they have foreign terrorists helping them. I believe those guys are commiting most of the suicide acts.You have their passports?

[whottt]

You're acting like they are all American christians with a tradition of democracy.Mostly I would imagine I'd want the Americans out.lol

They invented democracy...not to mention christianity.

The first form of Democracy was right there between the Tigress and the Euphrates...what arrogance...we aren't imposing our type of government on them...they invented it...not to mention, language, mathematics, libraries educational systems and so on and so forth.




60 years later? Let me know how many Iraqis get to vote, skippy.

I guess you're right Chump we really fucked up in WWII. We should have used instant solution.

[ChumpDumper]

The first form of Democracy was right there between the Tigress and the Euphrates...what arrogance...we aren't imposing our type of government on them...they invented it...not to mention, language, mathematics, libraries educational systems and so on and so forth.Yeah, when was the last democracy there?
I guess you're right Chump we really fucked up in WWII. We should have used instant solution.What's your point? Independent countries are just that -- independent.

[whottt]

Or, they could just wait until the US leaves like they say they are. This isn't a sprint.

Then why are they fighting us now? Obviously it only keeps us there longer.



You have their passports?

Oh so you mean the terrorists were already there which means W was right to take us to war...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I do not think those represent the majority of the Iraqi people's feeling toward U.S. They don't show those on the news because the majority of Iraqis hate us.


I don't think, I know that's not true.



If those pictures were so true, there would not be over 1,000s of troops dead and that's not even with the addition of civilian casualties.

If the majority of Iraqis hated us, we'd have 150K dead troops, not 1000. There's 25 million people in Iraq, if the majority hated us it'd be over very quickly.

[whottt]

Yeah, when was the last democracy there?

When was the last Democracy in America before us? Japan? ETC.

How's Karl Malone's knee?



What's your point? Independent countries are just that -- independent.

What's your point with worrying about the elections...you have nothing to base your allegations on other than Michael Moore's fat twisted belly.

[ChumpDumper]

Then why are they fighting us now? Obviously it only keeps us there longer.It's gotten other countries out of there fairly quickly, so who knows?
Oh so you mean the terrorists were already there which means W was right to take us to war.Or they could've just been radicalized by the invasion and occupation. Who knows?

[ChumpDumper]

When was the last Democracy in America before us? Japan? ETC.

How's Karl Malone's knee? If you can't answer just say so, skippy.
What's your point with worrying about the elections...you have nothing to base your allegations on other than Michael Moore's fat twisted belly.You really try to change the subject mightily when you can't answer. Everyone knows these aren't going to be fully open elections -- I figured you in your infinite wisdom knew already who was to be excluded.

[whottt]

It's gotten other countries out of there fairly quickly, so who knows?

WTF are you talking about? Would you mind elaborating rather that uttering monsyllabic grunts?


Or they could've just been radicalized by the invasion and occupation. Who knows?
Obviously the majority weren't...back to square 1.

[whottt]

If you can't answer just say so, skippy.You really try to change the subject mightily when you can't answer. Everyone knows these aren't going to be fully open elections -- I figured you in your infinite wisdom knew already who was to be excluded.

Me change the subject? This is totally about if the majority there hate us or support us and you have not made a single point, even using common sense, to back your position, without contradicting yourself...


LMAO, you are getting ass kicked so badly on this you don't even see how many times you have contradicted yourself...Kerry.

And since you speak for everyone and know what type of elections they will have, why don't you tell me what it is...and then tell me what your problem with it is.

[whottt]

Waiting on predictable Chump no answer where he tells me I am too stupid to figure it out...

[ChumpDumper]

WTF are you talking about? The other countries who have or are pulling troops out of Iraq, you idiot.
Indelible Ink to Be Used in Iraq Election

HAMZA HENDAWI

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Voters in Iraq's January elections will have their thumbs marked with indelible ink to prevent them casting ballots more than once, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq announced Wednesday.

The use of indelible ink sparked controversy in Afghanistan's presidential elections last weekend and an independent panel of experts is looking into opposition complaints that the ink used in some polling stations could be rubbed off.

Farid Ayar, who sits on the Iraqi commission's board, said the ink to be used in Iraq's elections could not be removed for at least 48 hours. Asked whether chemicals could be used to remove it, he said: "Yes, but it will burn."

The electoral commission also said the registration of parties and independent candidates wishing to participate in the election will begin Nov. 1 and continue until mid-December. Verification of voter rolls, based on a Saddam Hussein-era database for food rationing, will take place over the same period.

The announcements came as the commission published rules governing the eligibility of candidates for the election to choose a 275-seat assembly whose main task will be to draft a permanent constitution for Iraq. If adopted, the document will be the basis for a second general election by Dec. 15, 2005.

Senior members of Saddam's Baath party will not be allowed to run, unless they have been exempted from laws barring them from public office, the commission said. Iraqis who were once "full members" of the party that ruled Iraq for 35 years will be required to sign a document renouncing their membership in order to participate.

Former members of Saddam's security agencies, which terrorized Iraqis throughout his 23-year rule, also were barred from running, as were Iraqis found to have taken part in the persecution of fellow citizens or to have illegally amassed wealth.

Foreign and local experts will be allowed to monitor the January vote, said Safwat Rasheed, another board member. However, they must belong to recognized non-governmental organizations.

Election staff in Afghanistan were supposed to mark voters' left thumbs with indelible ink, but some apparently used pens meant for marking the ballots or ink meant for stamping them instead. The wrong ink was easily washed off, opening the way to claims of multiple voting.

Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government is determined to hold elections throughout Iraq by the U.N.-determined Jan. 31 deadline despite a mounting insurgency that has made parts of the country no-go zones for U.S. and Iraqi troops. Some U.S. commanders have expressed doubt that voting will be possible in all areas.http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/9909662.htm?1c

[ChumpDumper]

"Let's say you tried to have an election," mused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "and you could have it in three quarters or four fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. So be it. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

The problem is this: under current rules, eligible voters will cast ballots as though Iraq is a single national constituency. The system is designed to encourage national parties and to reduce ethnic tensions. But if Sunni areas are excluded, the Sunnis will be disenfranchised, and they're already the most alienated group in the country.

Rumsfeld's blunt remarks drew quick retorts—from within the U.S. government. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage publicly contradicted Rumsfeld by reaffirming the administration's policy of wanting to hold elections "in all parts of Iraq." State Department officials, who did not want to be named, were flabbergasted. They fear that elections that exclude the Sunni heartland are a formula for civil war. Iraq's most prominent (and moderate) Sunni, President Ghazi al-Yawar, lashed out at the proposal: "It is very appalling, and if somebody tries to shove it down our throats, we'll throw it out," he told CNN.http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161104/site/newsweek/

[whottt]

If you can't answer just say so, skippy.

I'm not trying to change the subject...your point was irrelevant, and I showed why...I also pointed out how that line of thinking has fucked you in an argument previously.


I know the answer...if you read this forum you will see I have answered that question before..but for a change I figured it'd be better if you backed your position up for once rather than just asking circular quesions. Cunt.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not trying to change the subject.Bullshit. Not letting you get away with it.
I know the answer.Then fucking answer it without trying to change the subject, weasel.

[whottt]

The other countries who have or are pulling troops out of Iraq, you idiot.http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/9909662.htm?1c


Barely over 50% of Americans vote. I guess that means we hate Americans as well.

We aren't going to hold elections in areas we don't control...voter turn out will not be an indicator of Antiamerican sentiment. I gurantee you more people will vote than are actively resisting.

[ididnotnothat]

I'm not trying to change the subject...your point was irrelevant, and I showed why...I also pointed out how that line of thinking has fucked you in an argument previously.


I know the answer...if you read this forum you will see I have answered that question before..but for a change I figured it'd be better if you backed your position up for once rather than just asking circular quesions. Cunt.

Your use of profanity is another sign of your deep anger.
Please find another release and don't take it out on innocent posters in this forum.

[ChumpDumper]

Barely over 50% of Americans vote. I guess that means we hate Americans as well.No one is preventing them from voting.
We aren't going to hold elections in areas we don't control.So we'll just disenfranchise ALL the people living in those areas and give them NO say in the new constitution? I'd rather control the entire country first. If that is inevitable, why the rush?

[whottt]

Your use of profanity is another sign of your deep anger.
Please find another release and don't take it out on innocent posters in this forum.


Please stop making personal attacks on me...dickhead...we are here to talk politics.

I use profanity because it is allowed here and it gets a rise out stupid judgemental people. I enjoy it because it's a luxury offered here offered at no other board.

So fuck you.

[whottt]

No one is preventing them from voting.So we'll just disenfranchise ALL the people living in those areas and give them NO say in the new constitution?

WTF is your solution? We are already encouraging them to join the political process...The terrorists don't want a political process.



I'd rather control the entire country first. If that is inevitable, why the rush?

Then we would be occupiers...America has never done that. And the rush is to shut up the antiwar protestors.

[ChumpDumper]

WTF is your solution?I just said bring the entire country under control.
Then we would be occupiers.We ARE occupiers, skippy.
America has never done that.That's a load of shit. We occupied Japan for six years and WROTE their constitution.
And the rush is to shut up the antiwar protestors.That's a pussy stance. Whoever says that lacks a spine.

We're there, so finish the job. Do it right.

[whottt]

I just said bring the entire country under control.

May not be entirely possible...and the best way to do it is to establish rule of law in the parts of the country that aren't resisting. Improved quality of life is the #1 weapon of America against terrorism.




We ARE occupiers,

One mans occupier is another man's liberator.


We occupied Japan for six years and WROTE their constitution.

The Japanese were a real bitch. We also encouraged their return to self rule and even self defense. During that so called occupation we had to rebuild their country and economic system. I'd call it a success.


Whoever says that lacks a spine.

We're there, so finish the job. Do it right.

Then shut the fuck up, vote for Bush, support the war effort and stop being critical of what we are doing over there after a year and a half. Cynicism isn't the answer.

[ChumpDumper]

May not be entirely possible.Then why are we there? You're saying we can't win?
One mans occupier is another man's liberator. Spin it any way you like, the US is occupying Iraq.
The Japanese were a real bitch. We also encouraged their return to self rule and even self defense.After occupying them for six years, writing their constitution, dismantling their army and executing their war criminals.
Then shut the fuck up, vote for Bush, support the war effort and stop being critical of what we are doing over there after a year and a half.Not if he's going to fuck up the peace after getting all those people killed.
Cynicism isn't the answer.Neither is disenfranchising a sizeable amount of the population merely to meet an arbitrary deadline. I hope they'd prove me wrong, but it's not looking that way at all.

[ididnotnothat]

Please stop making personal attacks on me...dickhead...we are here to talk politics.

I use profanity because it is allowed here and it gets a rise out stupid judgemental people. I enjoy it because it's a luxury offered here offered at no other board.

So fuck you.

I am not making personal attack on you, just making an honest observation and from your response, I must have hit close to home.

It is sad that you have to use profanity to get a rise out of people and your views cannot stand on their own.

Now STFU!!!!

[SpursWoman]

Please find another release and don't take it out on innocent posters in this forum.


Innocent? In this forum?!? :lmao




your views cannot stand on their own.

Huh? Whether you agree with him or not, whottt does a great job backing up his point of view. What forum have you been reading?

:wtf

[mysterious_elf26]

I'm not even just talking about the war. It pisses me off that Bush continues to blind his own country from the truth. He attacks Iraq, insisting he went after the people that attacked our country. Wake up, it was Osama!!!

He said the did it because of WMD. OK, I could live with that. But, wait. There was NONE!! And it pisses me off that he continues to say that U.S. is not going to be in Iraq for the long-term. What is he going to do, leave the country in complete chaos just like he did to Afghanastan?

He never thinks ahead. He does not realize the growing problem in Korea, Iran, or Pakistan. He does not realize that there will actually be a war between China and Taiwan in a few years. Wake up people. Bush says things that the majority wants to hear, just to get another term.

He opposes gay marriage and stem cell research to please religion. Since when could you do away with giving someone another chance in life for religion? He opposes the gun ban to gain the support of the NRA. Guess what? He succeeded. The only real thing he did was lower taxes. But hey, have you noticed that we have been giving those savings back through the higher prices of everything? Oh, and a real break for students by increasing tuition each year making U.S. #1 at having the most unaffordable education to its citizens, I should know, I'm in college. He widens ethnic and gender income margin, increases our already record breaking deficit, and is continuing to deal with unemployment by outsourcing jobs. Oh and so called employment increase. Did you realize those are minimum wage jobs that people do not deserve. My friend for example. He spent 5 yrs of his life in college to become and Electrical Engineer only to find himself driving taxis for a living as he waits for an employer to offer him a job.

Can someone please tell me why so many still love Bush? Besides that he speaks well because he got his ass beat in the debate.

:elephant **What's going on in Bush's head most of the time** :elephant

[Useruser666]

He said the did it because of WMD. OK, I could live with that. But, wait. There was

Was there evidence to support the notion that there were WMD in Iraq? Yes there was. That's hind sight now.


And it pisses me off that he continues to say that U.S. is not going to be in Iraq for the long-term.

I have no idea where you got this from. I watched the debates and saw exactly where Bush said we need to stick this out in Iraq. I have never ever seen Bush say we were going to leave Iraq in chaos.


leave the country in complete chaos just like he did to Afghanastan?

Maybe you just don't know this, but there are thousands upon thousands of US troops in Afghanistan right now keeping the peace. The US has not left Afghanistan in chaos at all. Sure there are still scurmishes on a daily basis with what's left of terrorist sympathizers, but that is to be expected under such a fledgling goverment.

[Useruser666]

He opposes gay marriage and stem cell research to please religion.

I do not believe Bush has banned stem cell research. He simply cut goverment funding for it.


He opposes the gun ban to gain the support of the NRA.

Have you really read the gun bill that was dropped? It was ridiculous. It really banned nothing when it comes down to it. If a new bill that made sense and actually did something about gun crime in the US came along I would support it.


My friend for example. He spent 5 yrs of his life in college to become and Electrical Engineer only to find himself driving taxis for a living as he waits for an employer to offer him a job.

Your friend could easily find a job as Elictrical Engineer. He probabaly doesn't want to relocate and that may sevearly limit his opportunities. Has your friend taken his EIT exam? He still needs 4-5 years to apply for his PE. Just because you get a degree in something doesn't mean instant big bucks. If your friend is a capable person then he should put his resume on Monster.com or Hotjobs.com. Electrical Engineers are in high demand so it shouldn't take long to get a hit.

[mysterious_elf26]

I have no idea where you got this from. I watched the debates and saw exactly where Bush said we need to stick this out in Iraq. I have never ever seen Bush say we were going to leave Iraq in chaos.

Read this: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ats-ap_politics14oct19,0,4255524.story?coll=ny-prezelection-headlines

I mean how could he see the things happening in Iraq and say we're not going to be there for these people we're supposedly trying to help for the long haul??

And as for evidence there was none. Well, where the evidence there was some. In fact if lacked so much evidence, that the WMD inspectors reached a conclusion that Saddam didn't have such intention since the ending of the Gulf War.

[Useruser666]

Read this: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ats-ap_politics14oct19,0,4255524.story?coll=ny-prezelection-headlines

I mean how could he see the things happening in Iraq and say we're not going to be there for these people we're supposedly trying to help for the long haul??

And as for evidence there was none. Well, where the evidence there was some. In fact if lacked so much evidence, that the WMD inspectors reached a conclusion that Saddam didn't have such intention since the ending of the Gulf War.

Please read the first paragraph of the article you linked. Here it is.....



ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE -- President Bush says he doesn't envision a longtime presence of U.S. troops in Iraq similar to post-World War II deployments in Europe and South Korea that continue today.

I think that may be a safe assumption. I think you are taking that article to mean we are going to leave Iraq well before it's goverment and people are able to stand on their own two feet. I don't believe that's what Bush's plan is, nor does the article state that intention. The situation in Iraq is much different than either the occupation of Europe, and Japan after WWII or the continued support of South Korea. The European occupation was just after a world war and had many complexities not present with the Iraqi situation. The continued presence in South Korea is due to there being a large volitile force of opposition to the north. I don't believe long term occupation in Iraq is necessary as was needed in the quoted instances. I believe the US needs to stay involved militarily until Iraq is stable enough to handle it's own internal disputes by itself. Other aid may be given after that, but not nearly as much as so as it is now.

[whottt]

I am not making personal attack on you, just making an honest observation and from your response, I must have hit close to home.

It is sad that you have to use profanity to get a rise out of people and your views cannot stand on their own.

Now STFU!!!!


Fuck you.

[whottt]

Innocent? In this forum?!? :lmao





Huh? Whether you agree with him or not, whottt does a great job backing up his point of view. What forum have you been reading?

:wtf

LOL thanks SW, whew ! I was afraid I might have to start adding more words to my posts to make sure I am backing up my position :).

[whottt]

Then why are we there? You're saying we can't win?

No but honestly you got to do more than just bomb the living shit out of them if you want to win the war. Bombing is a weapon but so is raising the living conditions and encouraging them to take a stake in the future of their country. Surely you know this. For this to work they have to embrace the movement themselves...and they are. If they weren't the terrorists wouldn't be targeting Iraqis.


Spin it any way you like, the US is occupying Iraq.

Spin it anyway you like, the US liberated them from a dictator and now they are fighting an Islamic based insurgency not embraced by the majority of the people. I don't know why you think those people are stupid.



After occupying them for six years, writing their constitution, dismantling their army and executing their war criminals.

Geez you say those things like they were bad.



Not if he's going to fuck up the peace after getting all those people killed.
He's not...what's going to extend this thing is Americans that give the terrorists hope they can win...like those who focus on the negative aspects of this war, and claim it's a wrong war that wee are losing, when in fact we are winning it and the Iraqi people are going to be better off than they have been in decades.



Neither is disenfranchising a sizeable amount of the population merely to meet an arbitrary deadline. I hope they'd prove me wrong, but it's not looking that way at all.

The object is to make sure the Iraqi people know we are trying to expedite the war recovery. Why drag it out? The longer we are there trying to maintain marshall law the more Americans will die. The Iraqis have to be given a chance to do this themselves....I don't think they're idiots incapable of doing it...but then what do I know...I'm a racist Bush supporter.