Comments on: Brookings scholars: A war we just might win

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:01:33 +0000

Matthias the woman was deliberately skewing her facts by claiming an apple was an orange. The US military issued two weapons designated M1 during WWII. A 9+ lb Garand and a roughly 6 1/2 lb carbine which was available with a folding stock and later made commercially as a pistol. The carbine used detachable box magazines holding either 15 or 30 rounds. Now if you had a choice of a rifle that was too long to conceal, weighed a ton, only held 8 shots, and kicked like a mule would you choose it over a smaller, lighter one with light recoil and a higher magazine capacity? I would hope you are smart enough to answer “no” to that question. The woman was taking stats for the Carbine and using them to describe the Garand in order to justify the antigun slant of her article despite them being wholly inaccurate. It’s like saying that an SL 550′s acceleration stats are applicable to a Unimog because they’re both built by Mercedes. They aren’t the same thing, so the stats aren’t applicable between them.

By: PCD

PCD — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:49:06 +0000

9, Mattias, you are an idiot and proved it once again. The point wasn’t about the recoil, you dolt! The point was that this reporter was told that the gun was unsuitable for crimes, yet she publish a statement taht the gun was the second most popular gun used in crimes. That is demonstratably false. BUT idiots like you eat up such lies and drivel and repeat it endlessly.

By: Matthias Roggenbuck

Matthias Roggenbuck — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:33:57 +0000

7- As I said, I don’t deny that the NYT is probably rather left… (actually I wonder, A) why Al Quaeda attacked on 9/11 the most liberal city in the states instead of sth. in Texas and B) I wonder why the US conservatives were such upset about it)

Regarding your example: I am no gun expert (nor even a rookie), but if somebody pointed a gun at me for criminal reasons I would give quite a shit about its recoil. Did the article mention, where writer had this “statistical” kind of statement from?

By: Peejz

Peejz — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:20:56 +0000

Looks like Hosten spoke too soon )

On Iraq, Mr Brown said any recommendation on the future role of the UK’s 5,500 troops in Iraq could be put to parliament after British MPs return to work in October after a summer break.

That would leave any decision on UK troop levels until after a final report on the US “surge” in Iraq by Mr Bush’s commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

Current UK policy in Iraq is to hand over power in Basra province to local Iraqi authorities, following successful handovers in three other southern provinces.

“Our aim, like the United States is, step-by-step, to move control to the Iraqi authorities,” Mr Brown said.

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:19:02 +0000

Matthias, the NYT has been actively undermining this administration while covering up illegal activities by Democratic politicians. They’ve been putting out inaccurate, misleading or completely false information for years to promote Democratic politicians. They couch their words very carefully to present “an honest” depiction but with a decidedly skewed appearance. It’s not a matter of what the truth is as long as the perception meets their desired outcome. Much of the press in this country actively writes stories with predrawn conclusions and then tweak or ignore the facts to reach those conclusions. I once saw a reporter write a scathing story about the US Civilian Markmanship Program selling WWII surplus rifles to people to people for use in target competitions. Despite the fact that the hard recoiling, 9+ lb, 8 shot M1 Garands are highly unsuitable for any kind of criminal activity, a fact she had been told by a gun club president, she insisted that it was the “second most popular rifle used in the commission of crimes in the US.” She was going to write an anti gun article no matter what the facts might be.

By: Blue Dog

Blue Dog — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:41:20 +0000

It is good news from these two pundits regarding the military objectives. But we know from Palestine and Lebanon that we must also achieve the political objectives. Those objectives will be on hold through August as the Iraqi Congress takes its summer break with September around the corner.

By: Hosten

Hosten — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:36:36 +0000

It looks like the British have some sense. They are outta there!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2819582.ece

By: TedintheShed

TedintheShed — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:09:49 +0000

They are! But they are not a kind of “propaganda organ”with the mission to promote any stupid idea just because an elected government proposed it:”

Wrong- they DO promote the agenda of elected governement officials: they are called Democrats.

How do you see otherwise?

By: Matthias Roggenbuck

Matthias Roggenbuck — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:46:30 +0000

2- “The NYT’s is the ultimate propaganda machine for the Democratic party!”

Is absolutely possible (right as Fox used to be for the Republican party), but I guess you won’t deny your fellow countrymen as much consciousness and intelligence to not make up their mind on more than just one or two newspapers, do you?

And besides I think, that there is a correlation between the popularity of this war when it was still looking victorious (without many victims) and now with all the now measurable failures (bodycount, expenses, etc.).
People don’t need somebody to “interpret” to them that a four-digit figures of dead GIs is a bad thing.

By: Peejz

Peejz — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:30:29 +0000

1-Wrong…see, the Democrats that are running in the election need this. This is their opportunity to change their tune and come out and say that the surge is bringing positive results…The NYT’s is the ultimate propaganda machine for the Democratic party!

Shocking â€˜Chris Matthews’ Discussion: Maybe We Shouldn’t Leave Iraq