The Gaming Den

Look, LL.

It's not that hard to find information on this uproar, though base statistics will be difficult because statistics of troop health in combat zones isn't public data.

http://www.truveo.com/Dirty-water-makes ... 4660463518
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugQYuqPw9uo

C'mon, stop beating on the straw.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote: It's not that hard to find information on this uproar, though base statistics will be difficult because statistics of troop health in combat zones isn't public data.

http://www.truveo.com/Dirty-water-makes ... 4660463518
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugQYuqPw9uo

I wonder how you can site news videos as "proof" when you also hold the view:

Crissa wrote: What news organization which hasn't been banned, dismissed, arrested, blown up and shot by our troops has the means and motive to report Iraqi misfortunes like disease outbreaks?

So which is it? Are troops preventing the flow of the true story? If so, then Keith Oberman (the Bill O Reilly of MSNBC) is making shit up and failing to mention his sources in his reports, which makes your links above complete bullshit. Or maybe it is that American troops are failing to suppress news stories, which just simply makes you wrong about news suppression (and who knows what else....)?

Wait wait, I have my tinfoil hat on and it is all becoming clear. The US soldiers are killing journalists and suppressing the truth, but a few make it out with a good story on troops being poisoned. However, the source of the data can't be provided by the news networks for fear of government reprisals, so all we can get is this brave report from Oberman telling us the real scoop but we only get 10 seconds on it because despite the absolute truth behind it, MSNBC thinks that they fully and properly covered this explosive story. I got it now, thanks for clearing that up. For a second, it wasn't making any sense.

Crissa wrote:C'mon, stop beating on the straw.

I didn't start this poisoning crap, I didn't even know about it until it was thrown up as proof of the eeeeevil that corporations do, so there is no straw beating going on. All I suggest is a basic check against reality before posting crap in the future. Is it so much to ask? Are you really arguing against this position? Really? [Exercise for the reader: Watch the video again, then search on the 4th pathogen the "specialist" mentions. What do you learn about it and its relationship to chlorine? @Crissa, now I am beating the straw; see the difference?]

There are plenty of real reasons to not like the US's policies in various parts of the world and there are plenty of real reasons to not like the way some companies conduct business. You are wasting your time supporting these farcical conspiracy theories when you could actually be focused on real problems. Holding onto this position makes you come across as gullible in the least and paranoid in the extreme view; hardly a flattering impression.

My flat mate had the luxury of driving an ambulance tank, which meant that he got to use he water purifiers on board which were provided by the Royal Scots Guard that he was a member of. He drank from it, because the water he would otherwise get was kind of sketchy.

This seriously isn't contentious or even news. American (and other coalition member) soldiers in Iraq sometimes get substandard food and water. Even in Baghdad. The scandal is that the American government was billed as if this was not the case.

It just comes off as a very weird piece of information to balk at the reliability of, all things considering. Since the profitability of the corporation is simply the amount they bill for minus the cost of whatever service they provide, I would think you would totally be all over this shit happening. After all, you claimed very recently that if profitability went down that people would suffer. So obviously if Haliburton provided every service that they billed the government for, people would suffer, right?

-Username17

LL, I fail to see how coverage of US soldiers has anything to do with coverage of Iraqis, which said news organizations have even less reason to cover?

The point was that their audience doesn't care about the Iraqis - in fact, the ones with audiences that do, have been shots at etc. This is a completely different point than the availability of news about troops. Even so, those that have audiences that care about the troops are embedded and stand to lose that if they report stories about troops' adversities.

-Crissa

[quote="Lich-Loved]
If the best proof you can muster for Haliburton poisoning troops is these types of sites/methods, then I suppose the following are also true:

* There was no moon landing
*...[/quote]

All I'm saying is that I saw the video and that flag FLAP while two Astronauts had to struggle against the wind to erect it, Iwo Jima style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y28DeJFUtmA

Looks to me like they just didn't starch the entire flag stiff. And like they're struggling with the pole and the astronaut gloves. Other than that, with no air resistance, any flapping the flag's doing is going to carry on for a while.

Hicks wrote:All I'm saying is that I saw the video and that flag FLAP while two Astronauts had to struggle against the wind to erect it, Iwo Jima style.

So, they spend a god-awful fortune faking the moon landing but forgot they were filming in a breeze?

My work here is done.

Lich-Loved wrote:

Hicks wrote:All I'm saying is that I saw the video and that flag FLAP while two Astronauts had to struggle against the wind to erect it, Iwo Jima style.

So, they spend a god-awful fortune faking the moon landing but forgot they were filming in a breeze?

My work here is done.

Obvious joke is obvious.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Obvious joke is obvious.

My context-o-meter must be offline. Maybe it was a joke. I dunno, I need sleep.