The Petra Zone

Let the photos speak for themselves.

RJ, I knew I could count on you for a dissenting response to what is otherwise a positive and truthful depiction of the Iraqi people and their feelings and attitudes towards the US-led coalition.

First, let me point out that these conditions are nothing new. These people had little if any benefit from the corrupted Oil For Food program under Saddam. Malnutrition existed then, and the problem does not go away overnight.

Second, the statistics cited in the article may be correct - who knows for sure - but they might be. One has to remember that it took a war to remove Saddam from power. No doubt that the contributing factors cited in the article are probably correct. There is a lot of rebuilding and reconstruction that has happened and still needs to happen, as well as a thorough removal of terrorists in the Fallujah area and elsewhere before fourishing, stable conditions can be fully attained. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Third, the reason the Iraqi people see the glass half full instead of half empty like the liberal mainstream media is because they know that as they are able take control of their own country, these conditions will soon improve and dissapate as progress is made. They have a hope and a reason to succeed now whereas under Saddam there was no hope of a better life in Iraq. Now there is, and they are giving credit where credit is due.

MathewRJ,

Your info comes from media organizations in Europe, Canada and the UN, and all of these are totally against to what we are doing in Iraq. We take everything they say with a grain of salt.

On a personal note: What has the U.S.A done to you for you to have so much hatred towards them? Everytime some one brings a political situation up you are right their with your negative tone towards the U.S.A.
I think it is time to stand up and say what your problem is with us, and if you don't than I don't think you have a right to speak against us.


John F. Kennedy once said "if you hate war than you are true to your liberalism"

Matthew RJ wrote:I had a prof in a course on American history predict that Bush would win the election (not the last one but his first term) and then take the US to war ASAP.

I wouldn't call my prof a prophet, but I have to find that somewhat amazing.

Did you know that 7 out of 10 college professors are liberal?

Did he also know the US would be attacked?

Did he know that everyone would be in agreement, including US liberal senators like John Kerry, and leaders around the world, that Iraq had WMD?

A liberal prophet is like a snake oil salesman.

Matthew RJ wrote:

Your info comes from media organizations in Europe, Canada and the UN, and all of these are totally against to what we are doing in Iraq. We take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Do you not think the above pictures are part of an American propeganda machine that must ALSO be taken with a grain of salt? It's easy to dismiss those who disagree with you by calling them that dirty "L" word.

Absolutely NOT. Because there are no major media sources that talk about anything good pertaining to Iraq - except for Fox News, where they talk about the bad AND the good.

Fox News just came available to Canada. I suggest you change your news source immediately to FOX so you can start getting a balanced perpective to what's going on throughout the world instead of quoting all that liberal rhetoric you keep coming up with.

The liberal agenda is one that embraces immorality, secularism and pacifism. Look at the examples of those who are liberal in the US: John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, etc. Need I say more? These people are the posterchildren of lies and deceit and all that is immoral. The list could go on and on.

It's really no wonder that the liberal label discredits a liberal's credibility.

Matthew RJ wrote:70% of college profs are liberal? Where does this stat come from?

I can't recall where it came from, but it's one I read just recently.

Matthew RJ wrote:This is an example of adhomenum ...attacking a person's character (which really says more about your own character than theirs).

Then you should examine the behavior of liberal politicians. Liberals are some of the most politically vicious people I have ever seen. Look at how the liberal media has attacked George Bush since he was elected in 2000. They almost always present him in a bad light. Even during the 2004 campaign, Fox News reported just other day that John Kerry got virtually all positive coverage while Bush got nearly all negative coverage from the major news networks.

Liberals operate under the premise that if you repeat a lie often enough, eventually, it becomes the truth.

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. It's not my fault that liberals are the way they are, and THAT says nothing about MY character.

I am in college and I can say from personal experience college campuses are liberal for the most part. It's probably not as quite as prevalent at my particular school as it would be at a bigger school, but it's still there. I have to deal with humanistic, godless crap. Fortunately I don't feel pressured to think I actually have to believe that stuff. I'm a little older too, so I'm probably a bit more conservative and set in my ways than a younger college student would be.

And a lot of what's going on in Iraq was going on before Bush ever become president.

Matthew RJ wrote:Did fox say anything bad about Bush?

They have been very objective. Journalists give the news objectively, and when pundits are on to give discussion on a topic, they always have both sides represented.

This is something I do not see on other networks.

Fox News rules.

The definitive link to prove that progress is being made in Iraq (and after a very good Saturday, all the more apropos): http://home.ccil.org/~ethanm/iraq_progress.jpg.

Can't say it's what I expected when I looked in this thread (it's a nice shock, Lex).

Matthew, your post was inappropiate; all Lexington was trying to do was point out there is some good happening in Iraq. You seem to want to argue with him just for the sake of arguing, and while you have a right to say/think whatever you want, can't you just let it go?

Nice post Winterlens (great pic) - you too Shell.

Okay, I won't speak for Canada, but I live in a liberal area, and the colleges here are liberal. That doesn't mean there aren't conservative professors or that there aren't good things about it. I like school, and I'm enough of a lunatic myself (albeit a conservative one) I can sort of roll with the stuff I don't agree with. Nobody is shot for having an opinion or a point of view that might be different, and I don't feel like anybody is trying to force anything on me. There's a Christian group that gets together for Bible study, it's a smaller school and the professors care about their students. It's about 15 minutes from me and a much cheaper alternative than a private university, which is nice. And I've been pleasantly surprised with how much I like Shakespeare, I thought I would hate him. But it's also liberal, and I'm not afraid to call it that.

It's inappropiate because you can't let it go for just one post. Lexington made this thread because those photos, for better or worse, ARE rarely seen by outsiders. But you seem to have a need to demean and criticize the US and it's President whenever it's presented in a positive light.

BIGD,

Very wisely said.


LEX,

Foxnews does rule, I watch all the time; I can't remember the last time I watched news from somewhere else. I don't even watch local news anymore. It's kind of strange because I work for the biggest media company in the Southern U.S. and I don't even watch them or read their papers anymore.