Re: September 11, 2006- American media bias

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4505E48F.2A5F4982@sympatico.ca...
> Original Gashauler wrote:


> Our troops are leading an
> major offensive against the Taliban. If you check international media
> sources
> you will see that it is a Canadian led attack. The exception is the
> American
> media, which says that it is a NATO operation.

Well it -is- a NATO operation, and a careful comparison of news stories
shows you to be full of shit, as usual.

It would be a -Canadian- operation if you sent your own airforce that you
don't have, and conducted it without the support of several other countries.

But since you clearly state it's a Canadian operation, get off your ass
and send more troops, since you only have 2200 there.

Your American press bias allegation is bullshit as well, see below.



NATO Tries to Persuade Allies on Troops

By PAUL AMES
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; 10:28 AM

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- NATO generals struggled Wednesday to persuade allies to
provide an extra 2,000 troops urgently sought by commanders because of the
ferocity of Taliban resistance to the alliance push into southern
Afghanistan.

The alliance, created to defend Europe against Soviet attack, has been
forced into the first major land battle in its 57-year history as Taliban
insurgents defy a drive by 8,000 British-led NATO troops into the southern
heartland of Afghanistan's Islamist former rulers.

NATO commanders acknowledged being surprised by the level of resistance and
called a force generation conference at the alliance's military headquarters
in southern Belgium to muster reinforcements and extra air cover to try to
crush the Taliban before they slip back to mountain hideaways for the
winter.

However, European allies, with thousands of troops already committed
elsewhere in Afghanistan or in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Congo and most recently
Lebanon, are wary of sending more to the battlefields of Kandahar and
Helmand, where recent fighting has killed more than 30 NATO troops and
hundreds of militants.

NATO's top operational commander, U.S. Gen. James L. Jones, launched the
appeal for more troops last week, saying the force is about 15 percent short
of full strength.

He said Taliban forces had switched tactics and were launching conventional
battles against NATO's troops and their Afghan army allies in the south,
rather than relying on hit and run attacks. In response, NATO has gone on
the offense with campaign dubbed Operation Medusa, that began Sept. 2, to
drive into Taliban strongholds.

Jones said the extra troops could help deliver a decisive blow to the
Taliban in the region.

The NATO force in the south is led by Britain, which has about 4,500 troops
in Afghanistan. It is backed by about 2,000 each from Canada, the
Netherlands and United States and smaller contingents from Romania, Denmark
and others.

Pressure has been mounting on other major allies to do more.

However, France and Italy have recently committed to taking leading roles in
the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon; Germany is already playing a leading
peacekeeping role in northern Afghanistan with 2,600 troops and does not
want them drawn into the southern fighting; and Turkey's Chief of Staff,
Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, last week ruled out sending any combat troops to
supplement the around 900 Turkish soldiers helping with reconstruction in
Kabul.

Military analysts say the increasing international commitments on
overstretched European forces mean NATO will find it hard to raise more
troops.

"The signs are not particularly good for a rapid response," said Lord
Timothy Garden, of London's Chatham House think tank. "This has been going
on in different theaters for years and years now, really since 1999 in
Kosovo, and all our militaries are getting pretty threadbare."

NATO has about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, but most are committed to
peacekeeping and reconstruction operations in Kabul and the relatively
peaceful northern and western regions. NATO commanders are frustrated that
some governments won't allow those troops to be moved into the southern
combat zones. They have taken heart from a strong performance from Afghan
army troops and have expressed confidence that the Taliban will be unable to
sustain such high casualty figures for long.

Garden, a former assistant chief of Britain's defense staff, said killing
more Taliban is not the way to stabilize Afghanistan.

"Saying we're doing well in the south because we've killed 200 or 250 gives
me a real sinking feeling. I know it sort of echoes Vietnam, but it's also
not what we're there to do," he said by telephone. "You won't win hearts and
minds by doing body counts."
================================================== =======

> Our troops are leading an
> major offensive against the Taliban. If you check international media
> sources
> you will see that it is a Canadian led attack. The exception is the
> American
> media, which says that it is a NATO operation. -Dave Smith

Per your usual jingoistic pejorative, reading these stories will show
that -Canadian- media sources are more biased than anyone else, and that
American media sources are as balances as any (including one Canadian
source).

Also, only ONE of all these sources lists the attack as Canadian led (the
most biased source, comparatively).

Just goes to show that you people are as bias as you accuse others of
being.

Or you can't read.



http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ghanistan.html

Canada - NATO

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...a.html?ref=rss

Canada - NATO

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/04/uafg.xml

British refer to NATO

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=operation+medusa

Fox refers to NATO

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213201,00.html

Fox refers NATO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060904/...an_violence_dc

Reuters is NATO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/ts_nm/afghan_dc

Reuters again NATO

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...8-61203dde5df9

Ottawa Citizen- most biased - NATO, but stressed Canadian participation
and doesn't mention anyone else.

http://english.people.com.cn/200609/...05_299675.html

People's Daily- NATO

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...CIV08/TPStory/

Globe and Mail- "Canadian-led" NATO op

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=42350

Ottawa -NATO

Popeye wrote:

> > Our troops are leading an
> > major offensive against the Taliban. If you check international media
> > sources
> > you will see that it is a Canadian led attack. The exception is the
> > American
> > media, which says that it is a NATO operation.
>
> Well it -is- a NATO operation, and a careful comparison of news stories
> shows you to be full of shit, as usual.
>
> It would be a -Canadian- operation if you sent your own airforce that you
> don't have, and conducted it without the support of several other countries.
>
> But since you clearly state it's a Canadian operation, get off your ass
> and send more troops, since you only have 2200 there.

If I had my way we wouldn't have any. It is not our war. The people of Afghanistan did nothing
to us. They offended Bush by refusing to hand over bin Laden and al Queda. We moved more
troops in so that you could take some of yours out. AFAIAC, you guys are partly responsible
for the mess over there and we should not be expected to clean it up for you.

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:45095237.C3719142@sympatico.ca...

> If I had my way we wouldn't have any. It is not our war. The people of
Afghanistan did nothing
> to us. They offended Bush by refusing to hand over bin Laden and al
Queda. We moved more
> troops in so that you could take some of yours out. AFAIAC, you guys are
partly responsible
> for the mess over there and we should not be expected to clean it up for
you.

Typical.

And you wonder why many Americans have no respect for you, and no desire to
continue to provide your military, and take care of you and yours as we do.

Scott wrote:

> "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:45095237.C3719142@sympatico.ca...
>
> > If I had my way we wouldn't have any. It is not our war. The people of
> Afghanistan did nothing
> > to us. They offended Bush by refusing to hand over bin Laden and al
> Queda. We moved more
> > troops in so that you could take some of yours out. AFAIAC, you guys are
> partly responsible
> > for the mess over there and we should not be expected to clean it up for
> you.
>
> Typical.
>
> And you wonder why many Americans have no respect for you, and no desire to
> continue to provide your military, and take care of you and yours as we do.

Wow. That was well thought out. You failed to make a convincing argument that
you didn't have a lot to do with the mess there. When the soviets came in to
bolster a communist regime you thought it would be a great idea to fund the
mujadeen and train them in insurgency tactics. You gave them money to buy
Russian arms and ammunition and even provided them with Stinger missiles. You
managed to screw the soviets with that deal but as soon as they were gone you
packed up and left a huge power vacuum that led to another ten years of civil
war. It was only after the Taliban started getting really nasty that you
stopped praising their anti drug activity.

So please explain how it is that Canada, or the rest of NATO have an obligation
to be fighting in Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack the US. It is
alleged that bin Laden and al Queda did that. You went in and gave them a good
licking for harbouring terrorists, but now what? You want to pull out and
leave Canada and Britain to clean up the mess so that you can redeploy your
troops to Iraq because there is huge mess there that was started in that search
for non-existent WMDs. Bush couldn't wait long enough to invade Iraq that he
would wait until he finished what he started in Afghanistan. His father was
much more effective at dealing with Iraq, so much so that it gave Bush the
Lesser that US forces were invincible.

"Popeye" <popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
news:12gisgemfrpq165@news.supernews.com...

> Notice how he sort of snipped his bullshit about the American media.

I am not going to engage the douchebag.

He has it all figured out, and arguing with another Canadian rocket surgeon
is simply a waste of time.

How do you find them so easily? <rhetorical>

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lpidnYtb6KDm65TYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@wavecable.co m...
> "Popeye" <popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
> news:12gisgemfrpq165@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Notice how he sort of snipped his bullshit about the American media.
>
> I am not going to engage the douchebag.
>
> He has it all figured out, and arguing with another Canadian rocket
> surgeon
> is simply a waste of time.
>
> How do you find them so easily? <rhetorical>

Maybe it's my aftershave.

That was a pretty good burn, wasn't it?

Scott wrote:

> "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:450964D3.ECFB7C37@sympatico.ca...
>
> > Wow. That was well thought out.
>
> <chop the typical leftists bullshit>
>
> As well as it needs to be for an idiot like you.

I see. Lacking facts and logic to contradict you find it
easier to insult.

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:45099BC0.510CAA5C@sympatico.ca...
> Scott wrote:
>
> > "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:450964D3.ECFB7C37@sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > Wow. That was well thought out.
> >
> > <chop the typical leftists bullshit>
> >
> > As well as it needs to be for an idiot like you.
>
> I see. Lacking facts and logic to contradict you find it
> easier to insult.

Oh, and welcome to the dungeon.

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:45095237.C3719142@sympatico.ca...
> Popeye wrote:
>
> > > Our troops are leading an
> > > major offensive against the Taliban. If you check international media
> > > sources
> > > you will see that it is a Canadian led attack. The exception is the
> > > American
> > > media, which says that it is a NATO operation.
> >
> > Well it -is- a NATO operation, and a careful comparison of news
stories
> > shows you to be full of shit, as usual.
> >
> > It would be a -Canadian- operation if you sent your own airforce that
you
> > don't have, and conducted it without the support of several other
countries.
> >
> > But since you clearly state it's a Canadian operation, get off your
ass
> > and send more troops, since you only have 2200 there.
>
> If I had my way we wouldn't have any. It is not our war. The people of
Afghanistan did nothing
> to us. They offended Bush by refusing to hand over bin Laden and al
Queda. We moved more
> troops in so that you could take some of yours out. AFAIAC, you guys are
partly responsible
> for the mess over there and we should not be expected to clean it up for
you.
>
>

Gosh, and yet you fault US for staying out of WW II's European theatre until
Hitler declared war on the US.


Dennis

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:45099BC0.510CAA5C@sympatico.ca...
> Scott wrote:
>
>> "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:450964D3.ECFB7C37@sympatico.ca...
>>
>> > Wow. That was well thought out.
>>
>> <chop the typical leftists bullshit>
>>
>> As well as it needs to be for an idiot like you.
>
> I see. Lacking facts and logic to contradict you find it
> easier to insult.

It's not like he corrected your spelling.