NationStates Jolt Archive

I am ashamed to say that I doubted that Bush had divine inspiration in conducting the Iraqi war. I certainly trusted that he had supernatural guidance when I saw how quickly Saddam's armies of evil crumbled before the righteous onslaught of our brave troops, and how the madman's statue was toppled by jubilant Iraqis. But then years passed and there was little improvement in the situation, while the security of the state deteriorated. This bleak outlook made me lose faith in our leader, but I have begun to realize that I was wrong to do so. In fact, Iraq's economy is booming!

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media, it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

I was shocked, however, that such excellent improvements in Iraq were not splashed all over American TV screens, and so I decided to investigate. What I uncovered appalled me to a great degree -- the media is conspiring to cover up all the good news coming from Iraq! I could hardly believe it myself at first, but the undeniable truth was right in front of my face. The following web-site changed my mind about there being a "liberal" media; perhaps it will alter your perceptions, too.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp

Yeah, but weighed against the fact that 71 bodies have been found dumped in various locations in Baghdad, economic recovery doesn't seem like much of a reward for enduring the war.

I miss MeanstoanEnds. For real.

I miss MeanstoanEnds. For real.

He was no Jesussaves, but he was good for his time.

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media, it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.

Iraq's economy is booming!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/


http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2006/trall061228.gif

I am ashamed to say that I doubted that Bush had divine inspiration in conducting the Iraqi war.

Why? No one else is.

I certainly trusted that he had supernatural guidance when I saw how quickly Saddam's armies of evil crumbled before the righteous onslaught of our brave troops,

Bloody hell, what era are you living in, the Dark Ages? You're acting like it's a crusade. Well, it's not.

This bleak outlook made me lose faith in our leader,

O Rly?

but I have begun to realize that I was wrong to do so. In fact, Iraq's economy is booming!

Heeeere we go.

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media,

I thought you might bring up "teh ebil l1ber4l m3dia!" here.

it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

Wait, MSNBC is a minor news station? I don't think so. And the reason there isn't much good news being splashed all over the news is that there ISN'T much good news. 'Cos, guess what? We fucked up, majorly.

I was shocked, however, that such excellent improvements in Iraq were not splashed all over American TV screens, and so I decided to investigate. What I uncovered appalled me to a great degree -- the media is conspiring to cover up all the good news coming from Iraq!

The media aren't covering up jack all. Well, in this case, anyway. The "liberal media" isn't conspiring to cover up anything to topple George Bush, they aren't conspiring to demoralize the soldiers or the families back home, they're not conspiring to do anything. You're just spewing it out of your ass. Cite a credible source to back up your moronic claims.

I could hardly believe it myself at first, but the undeniable truth was right in front of my face. The following web-site changed my mind about there being a "liberal" media; perhaps it will alter your perceptions, too.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp

Undeniable? I don't think so. And you didn't need a website to change your perceptions of a "liberal media," you were already ranting on about them anyway. And it did nothing to my perceptions.
Overall, I give a D-.

I miss MeanstoanEnds. For real.

Agreed. Least his posts were well thought out. (But still wrong).

He was no Jesussaves, but he was good for his time.

I never got to read Jessussaves, but at least MTAE evoked the desire to argue. This guy didn't even stir that. It's kinda like seeing someone on the corner of an intersection yelling about Squirrels bringing doom upon us all. Interesting, but I wouldn't go out of my way to argue with him seriously.

I never got to read Jessussaves, but at least MTAE evoked the desire to argue. This guy didn't even stir that. It's kinda like seeing someone on the corner of an intersection yelling about Squirrels bringing doom upon us all. Interesting, but I wouldn't go out of my way to argue with him seriously.

Did you ever see any of U.N. abassadorship? He was this guy, just more of a Bush-sucker.

Overall, I give a D-.

By refusing to refute the points brought up in the article(s) you are implicitly stating that the thesis expounded upon within the article(s) is true. Also, I am afraid that I cannot understand the hypocrisy of issuing me a grade without so much as bothering to acknowledge anything which I brought up in my discourse. Therefore, I have no recourse but to bestow upon you an "F."

By refusing to refute the points brought up in the article(s) you are implicitly stating that the thesis expounded upon within the article(s) is true.

Either that, or he is implying that your hypothesis is so inherently false that to begin to demonstrate this to be so would be a waste of time.

The media aren't covering up jack all. Well, in this case, anyway. The "liberal media" isn't conspiring to cover up anything to topple George Bush, they aren't conspiring to demoralize the soldiers or the families back home, they're not conspiring to do anything. You're just spewing it out of your ass. Cite a credible source to back up your moronic claims.


true, they are not "Covering Up" anything... but you gotta admit, "20 die in car bomb in downtown Baghdad" will bring in more viewers than "20 families move into their first owned home in Baghdad."

I never got to read Jessussaves, but at least MTAE evoked the desire to argue. This guy didn't even stir that. It's kinda like seeing someone on the corner of an intersection yelling about Squirrels bringing doom upon us all. Interesting, but I wouldn't go out of my way to argue with him seriously.

MTAE was a pro. When I read his threads, I was disgusted to share any ancestry with anyone who could even think such things. When I read this, I was disgusted that nationstates trolling and troll intelligence standards have plummeted so dramatically.

D- is generous. He's got a reasonably unreasonable case, but it's all cliche. No effort. F-

Either that, or he is implying that your hypothesis is so inherently false that to begin to demonstrate this to be so would be a waste of time.

Actually, my hypothesis is (and there is no other word for it) true. This optimistic news did not get reported on any of the mainstream news channels, who instead opted to broadcast "doom and gloom" predictions for Iraq. Why?

The mediaresearch.org link you provided is the biggest load of meaningless drivel I have ever seen... It complains that the majority of the news coverage of Iraq has been of bad events, and that there has been proportionally little air time to the good things that have happened in Iraq... If anything, is this not just proof that there are more bad things happening in Iraq then there are good things happening there...

It would not be quite so flawed if it referenced a substantial number of unreported, or unaired, 'good' events, but it doesn't. The only 'good' news it can mention is stuff that was reported/broadcast. It seems to me, then, that the article is insisting that it is the media's place to report only the nice things that happen.

Actually, my hypothesis is (and there is no other word for it) true. This optimistic news did not get reported on any of the mainstream news channels, who instead opted to broadcast "doom and gloom" predictions for Iraq. Why?

because, show something that supports the administration and you get labeled as a NEO CON network. See Foxnews for examples.

The mediaresearch.org link you provided is the biggest load of meaningless drivel I have ever seen... It complains that the majority of the news coverage of Iraq has been of bad events, and that there has been proportionally little air time to the good things that have happened in Iraq... If anything, is this not just proof that there are more bad things happening in Iraq then there are good things happening there...

It would not be quite so flawed if it referenced a substantial number of unreported, or unaired, 'good' events, but it doesn't. The only 'good' news it can mention is stuff that was reported/broadcast. It seems to me, then, that the article is insisting that it is the media's place to report only the nice things that happen.

are you saying that "If it's not reported, then it didn't happen"?

so days where there are no car bomb, there is nothing going on, no new businesses opening up, noone moving into a new home, no utilites being repaired and restored nada!

It is most likely true that Iraq is booming, though considering we had placed it under international sanctions for 10 years it started from a very low point.

I personally like "Not too shabby, all things considered. Yes, Iraq's problems are daunting, to say the least. Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function."

It seems to hop over those points.

In reflection, the reporters are on the streets of Baghdad and they choose what to write about. We know of the violence and destruction there, which the reporters deal with every day. They are helpless bystanders outside of their role of focusing the public's attention. Yes, it is their responsability to present a balanced picture, but can you blame them for trying to draw attention to one more family that wants their story told over booming economic conditions.

I think less a liberal media than one that has seen the most amount of violence against the media in decades. I am sorry to forget the name of the NBC presenter who was shot, and a cameraman accidently hit by an airstriek. There were many interpreters killed because they worked with the journalist. It is incredibly difficult in that situation to maintain all professional standards.

are you saying that "If it's not reported, then it didn't happen"?

so days where there are no car bomb, there is nothing going on, no new businesses opening up, noone moving into a new home, no utilites being repaired and restored nada!
Oh no, I'm saying that the article has presented no evidence that there were good, unreported, things happening, so cannot say that the media was not broadcasting them.

Oh no, I'm saying that the article has presented no evidence that there were good, unreported, things happening, so cannot say that the media was not broadcasting them.

Exactly, for that report to have any validity at all it would have to show that the number of news stories reporting bad events is higher than the actual balance of bad to good newsworthy events actually occuring in Iraq.

OF course it's booming. When your house is blown up, you tend to buy a new one and also decide that a landline is kind of pointless.

I am ashamed to say that I doubted that Bush had divine inspiration in conducting the Iraqi war. I certainly trusted that he had supernatural guidance when I saw how quickly Saddam's armies of evil crumbled before the righteous onslaught of our brave troops, and how the madman's statue was toppled by jubilant Iraqis. But then years passed and there was little improvement in the situation, while the security of the state deteriorated. This bleak outlook made me lose faith in our leader, but I have begun to realize that I was wrong to do so. In fact, Iraq's economy is booming!

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media, it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

I was shocked, however, that such excellent improvements in Iraq were not splashed all over American TV screens, and so I decided to investigate. What I uncovered appalled me to a great degree -- the media is conspiring to cover up all the good news coming from Iraq! I could hardly believe it myself at first, but the undeniable truth was right in front of my face. The following web-site changed my mind about there being a "liberal" media; perhaps it will alter your perceptions, too.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp

How could he be guided by Jesus to invade Iraq when Muslims there are seriously kicking the ass of the US military there. The whole thing has been a disaster that is probably the the beginning of the end of the US superpower status.

If you have one chicken this year and next year you have two chickens, that's an AMAZING 100% growth in one year!

Still, it's just two chickens.

Oh no, I'm saying that the article has presented no evidence that there were good, unreported, things happening, so cannot say that the media was not broadcasting them.

how about things that would normally happen... such as restoring of Utilites in the various towns.

why is there no other reports from other cities other than baghdad? did they just fall off the map?

those that had heavy fighting in the onset of the war must have some repairs by now? schools open and even new businesses... those things would be expected given that not everywhere has carbombs going off.

so far, it does seem that while it's not being covered up, the reporters are not looking for positive news, but just pessimistic ones. (after all, those stories are the ones that bring in the viewers.)

I am ashamed to say that I doubted that Bush had divine inspiration in conducting the Iraqi war. I certainly trusted that he had supernatural guidance when I saw how quickly Saddam's armies of evil crumbled before the righteous onslaught of our brave troops, and how the madman's statue was toppled by jubilant Iraqis. But then years passed and there was little improvement in the situation, while the security of the state deteriorated. This bleak outlook made me lose faith in our leader, but I have begun to realize that I was wrong to do so. In fact, Iraq's economy is booming!
Yup, the economy is just booming along. The boom you hear is another bomb dropping somewhere in Iraq. :rolleyes:

From the article you posted:

Yes, Iraq's problems are daunting, to say the least. Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function. As for all that money flowing in, much of it has gone to things that do little to advance the country's future. Security, for instance, gobbles up as much as a third of most companies' operating budgets, whereas what Iraq really needs are hospitals, highways and power-generating plants.

Yeah, but weighed against the fact that 71 bodies have been found dumped in various locations in Baghdad, economic recovery doesn't seem like much of a reward for enduring the war.

How many people are muredered in the United States every day?

If you have one chicken this year and next year you have two chickens, that's an AMAZING 100% growth in one year!

Still, it's just two chickens.
Hah, two cows, surely? Heheh... Yeah, that's very true.

how about things that would normally happen... such as restoring of Utilites in the various towns.
The article provides no reference to such happening at all. It cannot rely on a supposition that it did.

why is there no other reports from other cities other than baghdad? did they just fall off the map?

... o_O. I don't know what news you read.

those that had heavy fighting in the onset of the war must have some repairs by now? schools open and even new businesses... those things would be expected given that not everywhere has carbombs going off.

The article provides no reference to such happening at all. It cannot rely on a supposition that it did.

so far, it does seem that while it's not being covered up, the reporters are not looking for positive news, but just pessimistic ones. (after all, those stories are the ones that bring in the viewers.)

No evidence was presented that there was any good news that went unreported other than that information that was reported.

Lots of jobs for Americans (http://www.jobline.net/jobiraq1.htm):

The elections and the political shift in Washington will, for the foreseable future, not change much in Iraq. There is still a need for large numbers of support personnel, either for contractors working for the armed forces or for private contractors undertaking project in Iraq.
There are ongoing opportunities in thousands of support jobs with hundreds of large US companies involved in a range of security, logistics and non military operations.

The main types of jobs available are shown on the left. But if your speciality is not on there, don't worry, it is difficult to find a skill that is not being used in this operation.

All the jobs are outstandingly well paid with salaries ranging from $ 60,000 to $ 175,000 a year, depending on age, qualifications and experience. in addition there are costs of living allowances and free transport from the USA, there and back. Former Armed Forces service personnel is especially welcome.

....

Remember, if you stay 330 out of 365 days than your Foreign Earned Income is free of Taxes in the USA

How many people are muredered in the United States every day?
About 40, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The whole thing has been a disaster that is probably the the beginning of the end of the US superpower status.

We can only hope... How is it said on 7th century gen. forum? Inshalah? God willing, right?

Well, God willing the US loses its superpower status in the near future.

The article provides no reference to such happening at all. It cannot rely on a supposition that it did.er... that's "If it's not reported it didn't happen" if people are left in the dark, no infrastructure, no clean water, no improvements on daily life, you bet your biddy that it would be plastered as more of "US Failure in Iraq"


... o_O. I don't know what news you read. what's the latest news from Diwaniyah?


The article provides no reference to such happening at all. It cannot rely on a supposition that it did.again that's "If it's not reported it didn't happen"



NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED THAT THERE WAS ANY GOOD NEWS THAT WENT UNREPORTED OTHER THAN THAT INFORMATION THAT WAS REPORTED.that's like saying, "Anyone NOT here raise their hand... see no one's hands are raised so that means that everyone is here."

OF course it's booming. When your house is blown up, you tend to buy a new one and also decide that a landline is kind of pointless.
Well, it is not just the homes that are disappearing, so is the infastructure. You need a cell phone because the telephone lines are down.

Besides, cell phones are necessary to detonate certain roadside bombs.

OF course it's booming. When your house is blown up, you tend to buy a new one and also decide that a landline is kind of pointless.

... so that's what they mean by a Booming Economy! :D

About 40, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, with less people in America every day, that means the tea sellers in China will have to raise prices to make up the fall in demand from the loss of people.:cool:

About 40, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Yeah, plus the fact that the United States of America has a considerably larger population than Iraq's capital... The US have an estimated population of 300,917,060 this year, and Baghdad had a population last year of 7,000,000 (not ideal figures as they are not of the same point in time, but good enough for an estimation, I suppose).

I surely do not need to illustrate any further that the number of people murdered per head in Baghdad is far in excess of the number of people murdered by head in the US...?

er... that's "If it's not reported it didn't happen" if people are left in the dark, no infrastructure, no clean water, no improvements on daily life, you bet your biddy that it would be plastered as more of "US Failure in Iraq"

Let me put it this way, OK? If you have no evidence to support that Coca Cola turns you into an almond slice, you agree that you cannot argue it does without some evidence of it?

Right. So you cannot argue that good news is not being reported by the media if there is not evidence of this good news happening to begin with that has not been reported. If I'm losing you here, please, speak up.

So if the article wishes to claim that good news is not being reported by the media, they have to have stories of good news that did not come from the media they are criticising.

It is not, "if it is not reported, it did not happen". It is, in fact, "if it is reported by a news agency, then it was not not reported by them", which is an axiom.

Well, with less people in America every day, that means the tea sellers in China will have to raise prices to make up the fall in demand from the loss of people.:cool:

That's 'fewer' people.

*ducks*

I surely do not need to illustrate any further that the number of people murdered per head in Baghdad is far in excess of the number of people murdered by head in the US...?

That made me laugh for macabre reasons. :)

Yeah, plus the fact that the United States of America has a considerably larger population than Iraq's capital... The US have an estimated population of 300,917,060 this year, and Baghdad had a population last year of 7,000,000 (not ideal figures as they are not of the same point in time, but good enough for an estimation, I suppose).

I surely do not need to illustrate any further that the number of people murdered per head in Baghdad is far in excess of the number of people murdered by head in the US...?
Apparently some posters do need reinforcement because of their limited ability to do the math. :eek:

That made me laugh for macabre reasons.
Well, someone noticed. Heh, I only did after I'd posted it. ;).
Apparently some posters do need reinforcement because of their limited ability to do the math.
Or their limited compulsion to do so...

Or their limited compulsion to do so...
Which weakens their original debating point, which was not really significant in the first place.

Which weakens their original debating point, which was not really significant in the first place.
Quite so.

How could he be guided by Jesus to invade Iraq when Muslims there are seriously kicking the ass of the US military there.

That is a false statement. Our soldiers are inflicting much greater losses upon the enemy than the infidels are upon us. We have killed approximately 600,000 Muslims, and they have only managed to kill a few thousand Christians. We are winning the war.

That is a false statement. Our soldiers are inflicting much greater losses upon the enemy than the infidels are upon us. We have killed approximately 600,000 Muslims, and they have only managed to kill a few thousand Christians. We are winning the war.
Winning the war is just about killing more of their people then they kill of yours? Put the calculator away and re-examine the cause and the results.

By my calculations, you are losing the war .....badly!!

I sincerely doubt all the Iraqi soldiers killed were Muslims. I totally disbelieve all the invaders were Christian.

I sincerely doubt "[you] are winning", considering "[you]" declared the war over some time ago.

Let me put it this way, OK? If you have no evidence to support that Coca Cola turns you into an almond slice, you agree that you cannot argue it does without some evidence of it? agreed.

Right. So you cannot argue that good news is not being reported by the media if there is not evidence of this good news happening to begin with that has not been reported. If I'm losing you here, please, speak up. actually here you're wrong. because where would this evidence be located? by people who are there. now who is there. Military personell, contract workers as well as news media. here on the board, you search for past threads in General and you will find reports and blogs of people who are there who say that the news media makes what's happening there blown out of porportion. the usual replies? "well, it's a blog, not from a reputable new service." So where would you accept evidence of "Good things" happening there that's not reported? the news isn't reporting it, but blogs of people there are.

all it shows is that Good news isn't being reported as much as bad news, not that there is a lack of good news to be reported on.

It's like GOD. A lack of evidence does not mean GOD does not exist. it just means there is a lack of evidence.

So if the article wishes to claim that good news is not being reported by the media, they have to have stories of good news that did not come from the media they are criticising. and you can find that in blogs of soliders there. check past threads... several have popped up.

It is not, "if it is not reported, it did not happen". It is, in fact, "if it is reported by a news agency, then it was not not reported by them", which is an axiom.and I said it's not that it's a cover up, but that bad news is more exciting and thus better for ratings. with that in mind, would you, a reporter waste time interviewing a new shopowner, or make a report when a new section of town gets repaired infrastructure or a new hospital is opened? no because that is a waste of time for a puff piece that may never be shown. Time better spent getting the news stories that is more likely to give you air time and thus more bargining power when your contract is up for re-negotiations.

that's business.

Winning the war is just about killing more of their people then they kill of yours? Put the calculator away and re-examine the cause and the results.

By my calculations, you are losing the war .....badly!!
Good point...

That is a false statement. Our soldiers are inflicting much greater losses upon the enemy than the infidels are upon us. We have killed approximately 600,000 Muslims, and they have only managed to kill a few thousand Christians. We are winning the war.

Exactly, just look at Vietnam. You manages to kill 1.5m NVA there for a loss of on 58,226 of your own troops and you won that one hands down. :rolleyes:

I am ashamed to say that I doubted that Bush had divine inspiration in conducting the Iraqi war.
There is redemption for you, RuleCaucasia. Just send $500 to the Republican National Committee (https://www.gop.com/Contribute) to save your soul.

I certainly trusted that he had supernatural guidance when I saw how quickly Saddam's armies of evil crumbled before the righteous onslaught of our brave troops, and how the madman's statue was toppled by jubilant Iraqis. But then years passed and there was little improvement in the situation, while the security of the state deteriorated. This bleak outlook made me lose faith in our leader, but I have begun to realize that I was wrong to do so.
Yes, you were wrong to question our Master, young padawan. Luckily for you, his compassion is as great as his conservatism.

In fact, Iraq's economy is booming!
You are correct, and we are making butt-loads of moo-lah from Iraq. (To find out why, read Bremer's Orders 12, 37, 39, 40.)

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media, it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.
Native Iraqi business effectively do not exist, but who cares? The Lord's good work is being done!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/
Microsoft's NBC unit is definitely a source of information for people who do not want any liberal media bias.

I was shocked, however, that such excellent improvements in Iraq were not splashed all over American TV screens, and so I decided to investigate. What I uncovered appalled me to a great degree -- the media is conspiring to cover up all the good news coming from Iraq! I could hardly believe it myself at first, but the undeniable truth was right in front of my face. The following web-site changed my mind about there being a "liberal" media; perhaps it will alter your perceptions, too.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp
God Bless L. Brent Bozell III. The Leader will surely reward him handsomely for his many years of service to the Reic- uh, Republic!

Oh one more thing, RuleCaucasia. If you want a few laughs read Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Madhouse-Afraid-Floats-Dispatches/dp/0525949682). The lies in this book are laughable to enlightened people such as yourself, but they are taken as holy writ by sheeple! If you want to arm yourself with the knowledge of what the enemies of Bush and God are planning, this is the book to read.

There is redemption for you, RuleCaucasia. Just send $500 to the Republican National Committee (https://www.gop.com/Contribute) to save your soul.


Yes, you were wrong to question our Master, young padawan. Luckily for you, his compassion is as great as his conservatism.


You are correct, and we are making butt-loads of moo-lah from Iraq. (To find out why, read Bremer's Orders 12, 37, 39, 40.)


Native Iraqi business effectively do not exist, but who cares? The Lord's good work is being done!


Microsoft's NBC unit is definitely a source of information for people who do not want any liberal media bias.


God Bless L. Brent Bozell III. The Leader will surely reward him handsomely for his many years of service to the Reic- uh, Republic!

Oh one more thing, RuleCaucasia. If you want a few laughs read Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Madhouse-Afraid-Floats-Dispatches/dp/0525949682). The lies in this book are laughable to enlightened people such as yourself, but they are taken as holy writ by sheeple! If you want to arm yourself with the knowledge of what the enemies of Bush and God are planning, this is the book to read.

This is either deeply ironic, or a lamentable reflection upon the USA.....

I am ashamed to say that

*snips mercifully*



So lemme get this straight - you're all fired-up amazed and thrilled to discover some right-wing wheezebags who link to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others assorted cretins through their lick-spittle, trumped-up little website?

You should be ashamed.

This is either deeply ironic, or a lamentable reflection upon the USA.....

If you thought your sarcasm senses were tingling, you thought correct :D

Exactly, just look at Vietnam. You manages to kill 1.5m NVA there for a loss of on 58,226 of your own troops and you won that one hands down. :rolleyes:

We did not emerge so victorious from that particular engagement. True, we won, but it was such a narrow triumph that we were forced to re-examine our technique. We have become much more adept at widening the "casualty chasm."

In Vietnam, we only killed about 26 of the enemy for every one of our soldiers that fell. Currently, in Iraq, we have killed 216 combatants for every one of our fallen soldiers. Yes, the margin of victory has been significantly widened because of skilled military planning and execution in the upper echelons of government.

If you thought your sarcasm senses were tingling, you thought correct :D

You never know on NSG though.....

You never know on NSG though.....
What, the Reich reference wasn't enough to tag it as irony?

Wait... we had a war in Iraq?

Why didn't anyone tell me?!

Right. So you cannot argue that good news is not being reported by the media if there is not evidence of this good news happening to begin with that has not been reported. If I'm losing you here, please, speak up.

actually here you're wrong. because where would this evidence be located? by people who are there. now who is there. Military personell, contract workers as well as news media. here on the board, you search for past threads in General and you will find reports and blogs of people who are there who say that the news media makes what's happening there blown out of porportion. the usual replies? "well, it's a blog, not from a reputable new service." So where would you accept evidence of "Good things" happening there that's not reported? the news isn't reporting it, but blogs of people there are.
I think I see where abouts you are missing the plot completely.

Firstly, that was a hypothetical comment, so your explanation of how I am wrong actually is in completely the wrong place.

Secondly, I am not saying that the evidence does not exist.

I am only saying that the article does not cite that evidence, but cites evidence coming from where it says it is not coming from enough.

Do you follow me now?

all it shows is that Good news isn't being reported as much as bad news, not that there is a lack of good news to be reported on..

Yes, that's the point. But they expect the media to report BOTH the good and the bad news. So if they do not raise evidence of good news that the media is reporting, they cannot say they are not reporting it.

This evidence does not have to come from the TV networks and whoever they are condemning. But it has to be there for them to argue that it is not being broadcast by the TV networks. Because if it is not there to begin with, they cannot expect the TV networks to report it.

Therefore, for that article to say that TV networks are not reporting good news, they must site good news that the TV networks did not report.

I am not saying that they do not necessarily have a good point. Frankly, it is far too far below me for me to care. I am saying that their argument is not based on the correct evidence. I am not saying that their argument must not have some basis, only they have not provided this basis, therefore their argument falls apart.

If I say that the Vatican supports strip clubs and I cite a survey about, for example, the number of people murdered in Iraq per day, the evidence does not support the conclusion. This is a logical fallacy.

The Vatican may support strip clubs, but I would not have done anything but claim this. I will not have backed it up with anything.

Microsoft's NBC unit is definitely a source of information for people who do not want any liberal media bias.

Actually, I learned of the existence of this morsel of inspirational news from the following topic, which presents the reader with some useful information and various users have shared their views upon it.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=634492

We did not emerge so victorious from that particular engagement. True, we won, but it was such a narrow triumph that we were forced to re-examine our technique. We have become much more adept at widening the "casualty chasm."

In Vietnam, we only killed about 26 of the enemy for every one of our soldiers that fell. Currently, in Iraq, we have killed 216 combatants for every one of our fallen soldiers. Yes, the margin of victory has been significantly widened because of skilled military planning and execution in the upper echelons of government.

It's very rare that a post on NSG makes me break up in a full-on shit eating grin that won't die down.

I thank you for that sir.

We did not emerge so victorious from that particular engagement. True, we won, but it was such a narrow triumph that we were forced to re-examine our technique. We have become much more adept at widening the "casualty chasm."

In Vietnam, we only killed about 26 of the enemy for every one of our soldiers that fell. Currently, in Iraq, we have killed 216 combatants for every one of our fallen soldiers. Yes, the margin of victory has been significantly widened because of skilled military planning and execution in the upper echelons of government.

The United States was victorious in Vietnam?

Axiomatic to this proposition is the suggestion that casualty incurrence is the sole decider of "victory" in war. Inspired history really....:rolleyes:

Actually, I learned of the existence of this morsel of inspirational news from the following topic, which presents the reader with some useful information and various users have shared their views upon it.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=634492

Good Lord! A level 16 user from Newgrounds endorses it too! This is proof of our leader's mandate from heaven!

God Bless L. Brent Bozell III. The Leader will surely reward him handsomely for his many years of service to the Reic- uh, Republic!
Ha, "Seig Heil".

The United States was victorious in Vietnam?

Axiomatic to this proposition is the suggestion that casualty incurrence is the sole decider of "victory" in war. Inspired history really....:rolleyes:

It's true, and it helps us understand the little known fact that Germany actually won the second world war by killing way more of the allies than we did of them *nods*.

We did not emerge so victorious from that particular engagement. True, we won, but it was such a narrow triumph that we were forced to re-examine our technique. We have become much more adept at widening the "casualty chasm."

In Vietnam, we only killed about 26 of the enemy for every one of our soldiers that fell. Currently, in Iraq, we have killed 216 combatants for every one of our fallen soldiers. Yes, the margin of victory has been significantly widened because of skilled military planning and execution in the upper echelons of government.
MeansToAnEnd......is back?

It's true, and it helps us understand the little known fact that Germany actually won the second world war by killing way more of the allies than we did of them *nods*.

Oh yeah......

How remiss of me to forget.....
:rolleyes:

*snip drivel*

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media, it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/
Actually, it's so underreported that you've managed to miss at least one previous thread here on the issue - on that exact article too. I suggest you look up that thread. Lot of good arguements there.

And when the hell did MSNBC and Newsweek stop being "mainstream news channels"? Please!

The following web-site changed my mind about there being a "liberal" media; perhaps it will alter your perceptions, too.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp
:confused:
What so now you no longer believe there to be a liberal bias in the media?

Yes, we all know what you've used to believe. :rolleyes:
That is a false statement. Our soldiers are inflicting much greater losses upon the enemy than the infidels are upon us. We have killed approximately 600,000 Muslims, and they have only managed to kill a few thousand Christians. We are winning the war.

You seriously need this:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4572/smileytroutsmack22lw.gif

MeansToAnEnd......is back?

Nah. This guys arguments aren't thought out at all. MTAE's were.

Nah. This guys arguments aren't thought out at all. MTAE's were.

I agree. MTAE would never have left a thread of his this quickly, he used to fight his corner with real tenacity.

We did not emerge so victorious from that particular engagement. True, we won, but it was such a narrow triumph that we were forced to re-examine our technique. We have become much more adept at widening the "casualty chasm."

In Vietnam, we only killed about 26 of the enemy for every one of our soldiers that fell. Currently, in Iraq, we have killed 216 combatants for every one of our fallen soldiers. Yes, the margin of victory has been significantly widened because of skilled military planning and execution in the upper echelons of government.

Waaaait, wait wait wait wait wait.
You.....WON.....Vietnam?
No, you troll, you didn't. You went in there to prevent communism spreading, and you failed. Communism spread to South Vietnam and it was united.You lost. Badly.
And since when did killing more people=/=winning? You're meant to achieve your objectives. Right now, most of the Middle Eastern region hates you, and your men are dying every day in a pointless and nearly unwinnable conflict.

I agree. MTAE would never have left a thread of his this quickly, he used to fight his corner with real tenacity.

Yeah. And he wasn't under the impression they won Vietnam. Least he wasn't that deluded.

It's true, and it helps us understand the little known fact that Germany actually won the second world war by killing way more of the allies than we did of them *nods*.

No, there must be a balance struck between the casualty gap and strategic goals. We won in Vietnam because we did not cede any territory, nor was any of our territory invaded, but we nonetheless were able to kill more of the enemy than he did of us. That principle does not hold true when dealing with WWII.

I agree. MTAE would never have left a thread of his this quickly, he used to fight his corner with real tenacity.

That arrogant, nihilistic madman seems to have a real cult following here. Good thing he was deleted and his views forever barred from this forum.

We won in Vietnam because we did not cede any territory,
You lost. Badly.
Er...yes you did, you lost the entirety of South Vietnam to the VC.

nor was any of our territory invaded,

Again, South Vietnam...do you know anything of this war? Have you done ANY history?

but we nonetheless were able to kill more of the enemy than he did of us. That principle does not hold true when dealing with WWII.

Enemy killed does not matter. At all. The fact is, the VC achieved their objectives, the Americans did not, by any means.
And your prinicples cannot hold true to whatever war you like, they apply to all conflicts, whether you won them or not-or whether you can't admit you lost them or not.

That arrogant, nihilistic madman seems to have a real cult following here. Good thing he was deleted and his views forever barred from this forum.

You claimed that children should be killed, based on dreams that are apparently from God. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but you bring shame to our religion. It's people like you that make Christians look bad, to be honest.
And yes, it is a good thing he was deleted. However, some people on NSG observe a little something called respect. His views were utter tripe, but he constructed them far far better than you could ever do. He structured his arguments and provided sources that were, occasionally, credible. You cited Newgrounds.

No, there must be a balance struck between the casualty gap and strategic goals. We won in Vietnam because we did not cede any territory, nor was any of our territory invaded, but we nonetheless were able to kill more of the enemy than he did of us. That principle does not hold true when dealing with WWII.
Funny, what did we win from "winning" the war in Vietnam? I mean our "strategic withdrawl" sure stopped the North Vietnamese from overtaking our allies in South Vietnam, obviously due to the fact we left and then our ally was invaded means we won the war. freaking retard

South Vietnam

I don't really know what you mean by South Vietnam. I looked at my globe of the world, and I could not find such a nation. I also investigated the matter by searching for maps of South-East Asia on Google Images, but could find no such country. Here's a representative map of my query.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/90/750x750_vietnam_m.gif

As you can see, no "South Vietnam" is indicated. Are you perhaps referring to the southern section of Vietnam?

That arrogant, nihilistic madman seems to have a real cult following here. Good thing he was deleted and his views forever barred from this forum.
Since your join date is Dec. 2006, and since you seem to know so much about MTAE, what is your previous Nation State Nation?

You cited Newgrounds.

I cited NewGrounds as a forum in which various users expressed their views upon the issue. I never claimed that their views were correct.

Did you ever see any of U.N. abassadorship? He was this guy, just more of a Bush-sucker.
No he wasn't.

UN Ambassadorship was an absolutely genius. I reckon he was leftist playing devil's advocate. It worked. So very, very well.

He posted not long ago in a Taliban thingy after someone said (quite rightly) "If we keep on killing people, it'll just make more terrorists", to which he excellently replied "but if we kill them, there won't be any more terrorists..."

Comic. Gold.

And the other person got pretty wound up, too, because I don't think that they knew who UN Ambassidorship really was.

Sadly, I never saw Jesussaves. I'm sure they were fantastic, in a terrible way, from the reports I've heard.

I am ashamed to say that I doubted that Bush had divine inspiration in conducting the Iraqi war. I certainly trusted that he had supernatural guidance when I saw how quickly Saddam's armies of evil crumbled before the righteous onslaught of our brave troops, and how the madman's statue was toppled by jubilant Iraqis. But then years passed and there was little improvement in the situation, while the security of the state deteriorated. This bleak outlook made me lose faith in our leader, but I have begun to realize that I was wrong to do so. In fact, Iraq's economy is booming!

After seeing the barrage of pessimistic news from the liberal media, it seemed as if Iraq was a devastated country with no functioning economy whatsoever. However, it turns out that it was simply extreme bias showing. The media only reported the bad news, but never the good news. This new-found prosperity in Iraq went unreported by the mainstream news channels, but illustrates that Iraq is certainly not as bad as it is made out to be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

I was shocked, however, that such excellent improvements in Iraq were not splashed all over American TV screens, and so I decided to investigate. What I uncovered appalled me to a great degree -- the media is conspiring to cover up all the good news coming from Iraq! I could hardly believe it myself at first, but the undeniable truth was right in front of my face. The following web-site changed my mind about there being a "liberal" media; perhaps it will alter your perceptions, too.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp
By investigate you mean surf the web? you make it sound like you actualy did original work

Since your join date is Dec. 2006, and since you seem to know so much about MTAE, what is your previous Nation State Nation?

I had several conversations with MeansToAnEnd prior to his deletion. Those were sufficient to gauge his utter lack of moral fiber. This is my first NationStates account, however.

I don't really know what you mean by South Vietnam. I looked at my globe of the world, and I could not find such a nation. I also investigated the matter by searching for maps of South-East Asia on Google Images, but could find no such country. Here's a representative map of my query.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/90/750x750_vietnam_m.gif

As you can see, no "South Vietnam" is indicated. Are you perhaps referring to the southern section of Vietnam?
Perhaps this will help:

South Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam)

I don't really know what you mean by South Vietnam. I looked at my globe of the world, and I could not find such a nation. I also investigated the matter by searching for maps of South-East Asia on Google Images, but could find no such country. Here's a representative map of my query.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/90/750x750_vietnam_m.gif

As you can see, no "South Vietnam" is indicated. Are you perhaps referring to the southern section of Vietnam?
Uh, North Vietnam is where our enemy the Viet cong was located. The South were the non-communists hence our ally. Also, after our "win" the North took over the South and then restored the country became just "Vietnam". I'm calling trolling here on RuleCaucasia or this guy is a retard.

Perhaps this will help:

South Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam)

Wikipedia? Do you consider that to be a credible source? Any idiot can edit it, provided he knows the mechanisms by which it operates. I don't trust Wikipedia, and what it says is contrary to what I learned in school regarding the nature of the war in Vietnam.

I don't really know what you mean by South Vietnam. I looked at my globe of the world, and I could not find such a nation. I also investigated the matter by searching for maps of South-East Asia on Google Images, but could find no such country. Here's a representative map of my query.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/90/750x750_vietnam_m.gif

As you can see, no "South Vietnam" is indicated. Are you perhaps referring to the southern section of Vietnam?

Oh...oh God. You know nothing.
You do know North Vietnam and South Vietnam, at the time of the Vietnam War, were two different countries? One was the communist controlled north, one was the capitalist controlled south. Because of the whole domino theory at the time-the theory that if one country fell to communism, like South Vietnam, other countries around it would fall-like dominoes, and the entire region would become communist.
To stop this, South Vietnam and America attempted to topple the communist leader-Ho Chi Minh-but it failed. South Vietnam was invaded and taken by the northern communists, and united under one flag. That country you see on the map is the result of that war. The fact is, you lost. Badly. And you were arguing a point that you knew nothing about.
Remember-research is your friend.

Wikipedia? Do you consider that to be a credible source? Any idiot can edit it, provided he knows the mechanisms by which it operates. I don't trust Wikipedia, and what it says is contrary to what I learned in school regarding the nature of the war in Vietnam.
Do you accept info from the CIA's website? https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html

Wikipedia? Do you consider that to be a credible source? Any idiot can edit it, provided he knows the mechanisms by which it operates. I don't trust Wikipedia, and what it says is contrary to what I learned in school regarding the nature of the war in Vietnam.

Right now, anything-including Wikipedia, or even the NewGrounds forum, which YOU cited as a source-could forward your knowledge of this subject, which is appalling.

Wikipedia? Do you consider that to be a credible source? Any idiot can edit it, provided he knows the mechanisms by which it operates. I don't trust Wikipedia, and what it says is contrary to what I learned in school regarding the nature of the war in Vietnam.
Hey pal, it is you that denies the existence of South Vietnam, which existed long before Wikipedia. Now either you are trolling or you are just a noob sans facts?

I don't really know what you mean by South Vietnam. I looked at my globe of the world, and I could not find such a nation. I also investigated the matter by searching for maps of South-East Asia on Google Images, but could find no such country. Here's a representative map of my query.

Oh, funny story about South Vietnam... you are gonna' laugh when you realize why you can't find such a country in a current map... remind me to tell it to you one of these days.

To stop this, South Vietnam and America attempted to topple the communist leader-Ho Chi Minh-but it failed. South Vietnam was invaded and taken by the northern communists, and united under one flag. That country you see on the map is the result of that war. The fact is, you lost. Badly. And you were arguing a point that you knew nothing about.
Remember-research is your friend.

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.

Hey pal, it is you that denies the existence of South Vietnam, which existed long before Wikipedia.

Then why isn't it on any maps? Why isn't it on my globe of the world?

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.

I love it. I think you're starting to convince me.

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam.

I didn't know Pat Robertson had a school.

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.

What you say is complete and utter tripe. The VC were not 'butchering Christians,' nor were there 'minimal casualties' on your part. You lost a hell of a lot of men-but I can't remember the figure off the top of my head. There was never 'completion of the mission.' The USA went in to stop communism, and they ballsed it up. Your school, seemingly, is an awful one.

An aside to the gathered masses:

FYI: MeansToAnEnd Last Activity: Today 3:17 PM

I guess he wasn't deated after all?

An aside to the gathered masses:

FYI: MeansToAnEnd Last Activity: Today 3:17 PM

I guess he wasn't deated after all?

I think he just retired from the forums. He probably still uses his nation.

I don't really know what you mean by South Vietnam. I looked at my globe of the world, and I could not find such a nation. I also investigated the matter by searching for maps of South-East Asia on Google Images, but could find no such country. Here's a representative map of my query.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/90/750x750_vietnam_m.gif

As you can see, no "South Vietnam" is indicated. Are you perhaps referring to the southern section of Vietnam?
Truly you are an utterly epic dumbarse.

The Vietnamese, after being taken away from Japan after world war two, then launched a war on their new foes, the French, for becoming their new imperial masters.

Eventually, the Viet Minh managed to beat the French, the real turning point of which was the battle of Dhien Bhien Phu - like the Tet Offensive, this didn't actually acheive that much militarily, but crushed the morale of the French.

After their involvement in World War 2, then the Korean war, the French were extremely war-weary and wanted their troops home.

The Vietnamese were split into two different sectors - the communist north and the capitalist south. Elections were to be held in 1962 which would bring the nation under one banner with one economic system, but the US didn't want the communists, who would probably have won, to take control, so they made the south declare war with US backing on the north.

Anyway, lots of war ensued, and eventually the north won out. They took the whole country by 1975. This is why there is now one Vietnam, rather than two.

South Vietnam only existed until 1975, which is why you won't have heard about it, because you're ignorant and, to be frank, a moron.

Wikipedia? Do you consider that to be a credible source? Any idiot can edit it, provided he knows the mechanisms by which it operates. I don't trust Wikipedia, and what it says is contrary to what I learned in school regarding the nature of the war in Vietnam.
I consider it a better source than the rubbish you are spouting.

I think we are aware what that what you "learned" in school is evidentially tripe, therefore the fact that Wikipedia contradicts it is a great comfort.

You are right not to necessarily believe everything you read on it is true. That is why it cites sources. Follow the citations, follow up the references, for anything you don't believe.

Oh, and you should perhaps start looking at the world without the view that America must be inherently right.

Your school, seemingly, is an awful one.

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.
That's because you went to 'special school' and were taught rhetoric over fact, it seems.

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.
Was she ever a member of that crappy fascist band, whatever they are called?

(they play shitty guitars, and sing about Aryans)

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.

I suggest a change of mother. Smunkee is a good option.

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.

I think I want your man babies.

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.

Look! Look! It's RuleCaucasia's argument, burning to the ground.
You're home taught?
You're taught rubbish. I'm sorry, but your mum is wrong. The Americans went in to stop the spread of communism, not to stop the murder of Christians.

Was she ever a member of that crappy fascist band, whatever they are called?

(they play shitty guitars, and sing about Aryans)

Prussian Blue?

Prussian Blue?
That'd be it!

They're like the Olsen Twins, only even more horrible!

That'd be it!

They're like the Olsen Twins, only even more horrible!

:eek: Flee!

:eek: Flee!
Nah, the best form of defense is often attack. Let's brick 'em!

Nah, the best form of defense is often attack. Let's brick 'em!

Your logic is undeniable!
*throws televisions and cricket balls*

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.
Well, that does explain a lot.

You consider the teaching of your mother to be considerably more reliable than an encyclopaedia maintained by thousands, well cited and referenced.

Your mother must be so proud.

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.

How long have you been taught by your mother for?


BOLLOCKS
^ That's to stop the post getting drowned out by the way.

We did not emerge so victorious from that particular engagement. True, we won, but it was such a narrow triumph that we were forced to re-examine our technique. We have become much more adept at widening the "casualty chasm."

In Vietnam, we only killed about 26 of the enemy for every one of our soldiers that fell. Currently, in Iraq, we have killed 216 combatants for every one of our fallen soldiers. Yes, the margin of victory has been significantly widened because of skilled military planning and execution in the upper echelons of government.

MeansToAnEnd......is back?

That arrogant, nihilistic madman seems to have a real cult following here. Good thing he was deleted and his views forever barred from this forum.

Since your join date is Dec. 2006, and since you seem to know so much about MTAE, what is your previous Nation State Nation?

I had several conversations with MeansToAnEnd prior to his deletion. Those were sufficient to gauge his utter lack of moral fiber. This is my first NationStates account, however.
Ummmm, I really don't like accussing you of being dishonest, but the facts do not seem to coincide with what you have posted here:

RuleCaucasia: Join Date: 07-12-2006

MeansToAnEnd (last post): 03-12-2006, 11:35 AM

As you can see, MTAE's last post was before your join date. How would it have been possible for you to make these statements:

I had several conversations with MeansToAnEnd prior to his deletion

This is my first NationStates account, however.
Something isn't quite right. :eek:

Ummmm, I really don't like accussing you of being dishonest, but the facts do not seem to coincide with what you have posted here:

RuleCaucasia: Join Date: 07-12-2006

MeansToAnEnd (last post): 03-12-2006, 11:35 AM

As you can see, MTAE's last post was before your join date. How would it have been possible for you to make these statements:




Something isn't quite right. :eek:

HE isn't quite right. Most of his points are utter crap. He thinks America won 'Nam.

http://home.netcom.com/~jonplus/Please_Do_Not_Feed_The_Troll.jpg

HE isn't quite right. Most of his points are utter crap. He thinks America won 'Nam.

Militarily, He's absolutely right. The US won every major engagement, eliminated the VC as a functional organisation, and obliterated almost half of the North Vietnamese Army.

We lost beacause A) The South Vietnamese government was a bunch of incompetent, corrupt morons we should have been JAILING not protecting and B) we lost the will to fight on the home front.

In Vietnam, that loss of will is not only understandable, it was probably right. We were fighting for the wrong side, we'd been fighting for too long, and our incompetent chief executives and even more incompetent congress had foisted a set of ROEs that made it impossible to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.

In Iraq, none of those are true. The current Iraqi government, after an admittedly rocky start, have got their feet under them and seem to be doing an adequate job. The economy is picking up - and that will begin to impact the insurgents, because a strong economy is always harder to undermine and destroy than a weak one. The Northern half of Iraq is a no-go zone for the INSURGENTS - the Kurds are doing very well indeed. And we're obliterating insurgent operations every day. Plus, we have been fighting for a time, yes, but hardly "too long".

The loss of will for this war can be placed solely on the media. They have decided to make the US lose this war, by undermining any confidence we have in our government, troops or capacities.

The worst of it is, you're all licking it up like candy. Your oh-so-fashionably-cynical minds absorb the message without even considering it's truthfulness - and this from the fucking popular media!

Hell, a week or so ago our British allies rescued seventy-something kidnapped people, and what did I see here? Insults and thinly veiled insinuations that the Brit soldiers were a bunch of murdering psychos.

Wake up and smell the roses, people. You're being played.

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.

Oh

my

God http://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/smilies/hammer.gif

http://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/smilies/schaf.gif
Remember: Education is your friend. Get some.

*pointing, laughing, laughing more*

Aw... somebody's either gonna take their baseball glove home or soon come out fightin'. Anybody makin' popcorn?

Ummmm, I really don't like accussing you of being dishonest

Then don't. To perpetuate a deceitful notion is immoral and against the word of God, to which I closely adhere. Although the last this forum saw of MeansToAnEnd was 4 days prior to the completion of my subscription to this forum, I created my nation (and, subsequently, browsed the forums as an anonymous user) while he was still here and trolling. This afforded me a glimpse into his nihilistic psyche. I tried to bring the Lord into his life via his AIM account, but I was ridiculed and all of my religious precepts were flaunted. Yes, that was sufficient to reveal his entire arrogant and nihilistic nature to me.

*pointing, laughing, laughing more*

Aw... somebody's either gonna take their baseball glove home or soon come out fightin'. Anybody makin' popcorn?

If we can't ignore the Troll, then can we at least just spam him out of existance instead of feeding him? Please?

Sweet or Salted?

<snip>

If I say that the Vatican supports strip clubs and I cite a survey about, for example, the number of people murdered in Iraq per day, the evidence does not support the conclusion. This is a logical fallacy.

The Vatican may support strip clubs, but I would not have done anything but claim this. I will not have backed it up with anything.

It's a non sequitur actually, or fallacy of consequence.
"The Vatican is a Church. Churches oppose strip clubs. Therefore the Vatican supports strip clubs" would be a logical fallacy.
:tips nazi hat:

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.

How disappointing. Groucho's scene is over and now it's Harpo doing trouser jokes. Hope this thread doesn't have a harp interlude in it ... :rolleyes:

My mother teaches me perfectly well, thank you very much.

I won't laugh. I won't. It is not nice to make fun of people's mothers.
I won't laugh. I ... 'scuse me--

Militarily, He's absolutely right. <snip>

RuleCaucasia, read this post. "The US was winning but gave up because the liberal media sabotaged public opinion in the US" is the closest defensible position to what you seem to believe. I don't agree with Dodo, just you need to start somewhere.

That "seem to" delivered with irony and skepticism on afterburners, btw.

Ugh. Lawyers. Spoiling our fun with the widdle twoll. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12180018&postcount=112)

To perpetuate a deceitful notion is immoral and against the word of God, to which I closely adhere.
That also explains a lot... ¬.¬

It would appear you have been force-fed nonsense masquerading as history for a considerable time now. Remember, mother isn't always right...

I never got to read Jessussaves, but at least MTAE evoked the desire to argue. This guy didn't even stir that. It's kinda like seeing someone on the corner of an intersection yelling about Squirrels bringing doom upon us all. Interesting, but I wouldn't go out of my way to argue with him seriously.Quite so. Reminds me of the little black woman who stands on the street corner weekends with the big "Repent- You will burn in hell" signs.

Quite so. Reminds me of the little black woman who stands on the street corner weekends with the big "Repent- You will burn in hell" signs.

Did you ever see the video of the 'UNGODLY!' woman? From some reality show. Its the same morbid fascination, really.

Wow. Turns out someone on the planet is worse at teaching history than the Japanese school system.

It's a non sequitur actually, or fallacy of consequence.
"The Vatican is a Church. Churches oppose strip clubs. Therefore the Vatican supports strip clubs" would be a logical fallacy.
:tips nazi hat:
Indeed. I always understood a logical fallacy to be an encompassing term for a range of invalid arguments... Well, rather, that logical fallacies are invalid because to some extent they are non sequiturs... If you see what I mean...

*returns hat-tippage*

Then don't. To perpetuate a deceitful notion is immoral and against the word of God, to which I closely adhere.
On the other hand, some of us don't, which means that we don't have to play by your rules.
Although the last this forum saw of MeansToAnEnd was 4 days prior to the completion of my subscription to this forum, I created my nation (and, subsequently, browsed the forums as an anonymous user) while he was still here and trolling. This afforded me a glimpse into his nihilistic psyche.
Didn't you think he was an absolute scream, though?

"Let's make children into sex slaves"
"Let's annihilate the poor, so we can all be happy"

etc. etc.

Pure genius for encouraging debate, if nothing else.
I tried to bring the Lord into his life via his AIM account, but I was ridiculed and all of my religious precepts were flaunted. Yes, that was sufficient to reveal his entire arrogant and nihilistic nature to me.
Well it seems he did have a couple of redeeming points then :

1) Encouraged debate by posting well thought-out, if moral-free ideas
2) Gave an easy target to argue with, and utterly thrash, releasing anger
3) Possibly came from Kazakhstan
3) Didn't take kindly to being force-fed religion against his will

According to what I learned in school, a communist group of criminals started to persecute Christians in Vietnam. As a result, the US intervened in the conflict to aid the embattled Christians. They were able to successfully extract the Christians with minimal casualties while killing over a million of the bigoted Vietnamese butchers. However, because the US had a very dovish foreign policy at the time, they withdraw upon the completion of the mission. What you say contradicts that.

And that's when they called Jesus Christ Superstar to come save them and Vietnam was turned into a nice Christian nation as Jesus flew to Poland to become their next dictator.

...as Jesus flew to Poland to become their next dictator.

Is that a reference to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6200539.stm) by any chance? :p

Then don't. To perpetuate a deceitful notion is immoral and against the word of God, to which I closely adhere. Although the last this forum saw of MeansToAnEnd was 4 days prior to the completion of my subscription to this forum, I created my nation (and, subsequently, browsed the forums as an anonymous user) while he was still here and trolling. This afforded me a glimpse into his nihilistic psyche. I tried to bring the Lord into his life via his AIM account, but I was ridiculed and all of my religious precepts were flaunted. Yes, that was sufficient to reveal his entire arrogant and nihilistic nature to me.
So your story is that at least 4 days before you joined NS, you "browsed the forums as an anonymous user" and "tried to bring the Lord into his life via his AIM account"?

I believe you but millions wouldn't. :p

BTW, you have tried to perpetuate several "deceitful notions" right in this thread.

Ugh. Lawyers. Spoiling our fun with the widdle twoll. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12180018&postcount=112)
Ummmm. Lawyers?