Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

More democrate bullshit to make Bush look bad.

I don't know if I'd necessarily call it censorship (though I guess it technically fits the definition).

I'd call it 'ratings grubbing whores.' Of course, that's what the country is built on and what made it great. You have to take the good with the bad, though.

The American media just wants Britain's Troops back,and on another note Georgia Is a surprisingly strong nation

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

Better stop reading and watching the news from now on

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

The American media will not cover anything that will make Bush look good, in any way.

Originally posted by Soleran
Better stop reading and watching the news from now on

That'd be an extremely stupid thing to do... Best to keep on reading the news and not stick to any single news outlet, read domestic and foreign news and then come to your own conclusions.

Originally posted by Robtard
That'd be an extremely stupid thing to do... Best to keep on reading the news and not stick to any single news outlet, read domestic and foreign news and then come to your own conclusions.


Yeah, from now on I'll make sure to put a sarcasm smilie on my posts for you though.

I have no problem with it....send all the Republicans you want to fight thier own war...the more Conservatives or potential Conservatives dead, the better.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have no problem with it....send all the Republicans you want to fight thier own war...the more Conservatives or potential Conservatives dead, the better.

A Republic does not mean they are Republican. hysterical

Originally posted by Soleran
Yeah, from now on I'll make sure to put a sarcasm smilie on my posts for you though.

Yeah, best to do that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A Republic does not mean they are Republican. hysterical




The what ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The what ?

Did you know that the USA was a Republic?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you know that the USA was a Republic?





A WHAT ??!?!? WTF !!! GET OUTTA HERE !!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

So England is withdrawing 1600 troops and Georgia is bringing their total to 1700? That would still mean more troops are leaving then coming..

Besides there is a huge difference between a country like Georgia sending troops to Iraq and England withdrawing them. If England would have send more troops they would have made a story about it as well....

England was one of the two country's that started this war, the biggest follower of the United States through the entire war and their most important ally in trying to convince the rest of the world that the war was juts, what is Georgia again?

Originally posted by Fishy
So England is withdrawing 1600 troops and Georgia is bringing their total to 1700? That would still mean more troops are leaving then coming..

Besides there is a huge difference between a country like Georgia sending troops to Iraq and England withdrawing them. If England would have send more troops they would have made a story about it as well....

England was one of the two country's that started this war, the biggest follower of the United States through the entire war and their most important ally in trying to convince the rest of the world that the war was juts, what is Georgia again?

No, Georgia is bringing in 1700 more , bringing their total to a little over 2500.

Is there? People fighting is people fighting, don't downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops. Not so sure about that, it's possible, but since it hasn't happens, we'll never know until.

Actually more countries than just the U.S. and England were at the start. And again, why are you trying to downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, Georgia is bringing in 1700 more , bringing their total to a little over 2500.

Is there? People fighting is people fighting, don't downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops. Not so sure about that, it's possible, but since it hasn't happens, we'll never know until.

Actually more countries than just the U.S. and England were at the start. And again, why are you trying to downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops?

I'm not trying to downplay their troops, I am saying that no matter who they are, they are not America's it's biggest ally and supporter in this war. They are just another country in a long list of them. Fact also remains more country's have withdrawn then added troops and if England would have send more troops it would have been in the news as well.

But the signal of a country like England withdrawing it's troops is just a thousand times more powerful then the signal of a country like Georgia sending more troops.

^^^Yep, it's a signal that the area that those troops were in is more or less secure and Iraqi forces can take over.

This has been stated repeatedly, and no matter your take on the war it shows nothing other than a success in that area that some of the Coalition forces are no longer needed there.

Originally posted by KidRock
More democrate bullshit to make Bush look bad.

While it's somewhat ironic that you can spell Bush and not democrat, it's a mistake that could be easily made by anyone.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^Yep, it's a signal that the area that those troops were in is more or less secure and Iraqi forces can take over.

This has been stated repeatedly, and no matter your take on the war it shows nothing other than a success in that area that some of the Coalition forces are no longer needed there.

Only you could get away with repeating a FOX News soundbite. There have been areas of Iraq that have been pretty much under control since the beginning of the invasion.

having ignored kidrock's usual bullshit, i gotta wonder, why would georgia commit so many troops to iraq when they are in a situation where they may be at war with russia in the next 6 months?

perhaps the bigger irony is that while the UK withdrew 1600 troops from Iraq...3 days after the announcment they further announced that they were sending another 2000 to Afghanistan

I would hardly call Iraq safer with an average of 1047 attacks on Coalition lead forces a week in the previous two months... That is excluding the attacks the Americans didn't report...

Which could be a lot.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

To be fair the media didn't really make a lot of noise as various members of the coalition of the willing pulled out.

The small nations that were there only to make up numbers politically, not troop wise. If I am not mistaken there is/was like 49 members of the coalition - only 25 of which have troops actively in Iraq, with something like 17 having withdrawn what they had sent since the mission was "accomplished."

The media, here at least, hasn't exactly spent pages reporting the Tonga or Portugal withdrawal. Now for that matter that Romania I believe wants to withdraw. Nor that the Australian government has considered sending more troops to aid in training. Nor for that matter when the war first began did many media outlets put a great deal of coverage on the types of nations beyond the US and Britain that were supporting the war. Not that I'm not saying Slovakia isn't worth considering a major ally or anything of course.

I think we should just face the fact the media has veered from one stance (never questioning of coalition policy) to another (constantly questioning coalition policy) over the course of the war.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think we should just face the fact the media has veered from one stance (never questioning of coalition policy) to another (constantly questioning coalition policy) over the course of the war.

I agree and I thinks that's crap... The media should be neutral, just report what's there and let the viewer decide for him or her self.

Where did you get the figure of 1,700? Most media outlets I've seen in a quick google search (Reuters, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, BBC, FOXnews ) that have reported the Georgian troop increase have only gone so far as to say "more than 2000" from the current 850.

As for the surprise as to why it's not big news everywhere, that's probably because it's not big news anywhere. I doubt anyone could find Georgia on a map without a reference, I know I can't. I'm sure some people didn't even know it was the name of an Eastern European country as well as a U.S. state. I briefly thought this was about the U.S. state when I read the thread title. If Georgia had withdrew it's troops I of great doubt it would have been big news either. I can't name its head of State, and just learned the capital is called Tbilisi. The most recent news I recall about it was the 2003 'Rose Revolution' stuff, and reference to that during the "Orange Revolution' in Ukraine.

If South Korea, having the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq, changed it's troop numbers in either direction it might make a bit more of a splash - at least most people know it exists; but I doubt it.

I'd expect coverage of any major increase or decrease in Australian troops, mainly because I live in Australasia; and John Howard has been relatively overt in his support of the U.S.

But not as much as any change in British troop numbers. And that's not to be misconstrued as any slight on the quality of any of the armed forces of any of the above mentioned.

It has to do with the fact that Britain was the United States' primary ally in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It has to do with that it's the U.K., it's Tony Blair. The fact that it's a withdrawal may boost the coverage, but if it had been an increase in British troop numbers it would have most definitely been reported (and Blair's dwindling stock at home would fall even further I'd imagine).

As for why a country like Georgia, with around 10% of the U.K.'s GDP per capita (PPP), is committing such a large contingent of troop numbers; the keywords are NATO (OTAN if you live in France), oil, Train and Equip, and Russia.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Where did you get the figure of 1,700? Most media outlets I've seen in a quick google search (Reuters, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, BBC, FOXnews ) that have reported the Georgian troop increase have only gone so far as to say "more than 2000" from the current 850.

As for the surprise as to why it's not big news everywhere, that's probably because it's not big news anywhere. I doubt anyone could find Georgia on a map without a reference, I know I can't. I'm sure some people didn't even know it was the name of an Eastern European country as well as a U.S. state. I briefly thought this was about the U.S. state when I read the thread title. If Georgia had withdrew it's troops I of great doubt it would have been big news either. I can't name its head of State, and just learned the capital is called Tbilisi. The most recent news I recall about it was the 2003 'Rose Revolution' stuff, and reference to that during the "Orange Revolution' in Ukraine.

If South Korea, having the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq, changed it's troop numbers in either direction it might make a bit more of a splash - at least most people know it exists; but I doubt it.

I'd expect coverage of any major increase or decrease in Australian troops, mainly because I live in Australasia; and John Howard has been relatively overt in his support of the U.S.

But not as much as any change in British troop numbers. And that's not to be misconstrued as any slight on the quality of any of the armed forces of any of the above mentioned.

It has to do with the fact that Britain was the United States' primary ally in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It has to do with that it's the U.K., it's Tony Blair. The fact that it's a withdrawal may boost the coverage, but if it had been an increase in British troop numbers it would have most definitely been reported (and Blair's dwindling stock at home would fall even further I'd imagine).

As for why a country like Georgia, with around 10% of the U.K.'s GDP per capita (PPP), is committing such a large contingent of troop numbers; the keywords are NATO (OTAN if you live in France), oil, Train and Equip, and Russia.

It was an article from Beijing; they said an increase of 1700... If it's only 1200 now or only was 1200 to begin with, it doesn't take away from the fact that Georgia is committing more troops.

You can argue that it wasn't covered because Georgia is an unknown county, that it is small or even that it's troops are sub-par, but that fact that such a small country has committed so many resources (comparatively speaking) should be positive news, if Britain withdrawing 1500 troops was BIG news and generally reported as negative news.

Hell, Britney Spears getting a stupid haircut received coverage...

BTW... As posted previously by 'jaden101', Britain did commit 2000 more troops to Afghanistan; but that wasn't largely covered either.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was an article from Beijing; they said an increase of 1700... If it's only 1200 now or only was 1200 to begin with, it doesn't take away from the fact that Georgia is committing more troops.

You can argue that it wasn't covered because Georgia is an unknown county, that it is small or even that it's troops are sub-par, but that fact that such a small country has committed so many resources (comparatively speaking) should be news, (even minor coverage in the U.S.) if Britain withdrawing 1500 troops was BIG news.

Hell, Britney Spears getting a stupid haircut received coverage... News is a business. Your last statement pretty adequately illustrates that point. Britney Spears gets about 8x the hits in a google search than Tbilisi. If it's not going to be a sell, it's not going to be front page.

If Georgia reduced its troop numbers by half it still wouldn't have been major news. The ability of Georgia to commit such resources to the Iraq war is likely due to the GTEP.

One should ask Mr Blair why he felt the need to let the Defence Secretary announce the deployment to Afghanistan instead of including some mention of it in the announcement about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However Afghanistan hasn't really been a major news sell for a while now that I can recall.

You really think "Blair sends more British soldiers into Iraq." wouldn't make headlines?

(I'm of course referring to World media as opposed to the more America-centric U.S. media.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
News is a business. Your last statement pretty adequately illustrates that point. Britney Spears gets about 8x the hits in a google search than Tbilisi. If it's not going to be a sell, it's not going to be front page.

If Georgia reduced its troop numbers by half it still wouldn't have been major news. The ability of Georgia to commit such resources to the Iraq war is likely due to the GTEP.

One should ask Mr Blair why he felt the need to let the Defence Secretary announce the deployment to Afghanistan instead of including some mention of it in the announcement about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However Afghanistan hasn't really been a major news sell for a while now that I can recall.

You really think "Blair sends more British soldiers into Iraq." wouldn't make headlines?

(I'm of course referring to World media as opposed to the more America-centric U.S. media.

I was referring to the American new outlets and their bias... Tis the reason I watch the BBC and other world news more than I do my own country's news outlets. That was my original point.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was referring to the American new outlets and their bias... Tis the reason I watch the BBC and other world news more than I do my own country's news outlets. That was my original point. The World media part was about Blair. I don't really expect any media to provide extensive coverage about Tblisi. I don't attribute that to any major bias, just that the news business must cater to demand. There are probably far better examples of media bias than this.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
John Howard has been relatively overt in his support of the U.S.


Whats his incentive?

AUSFTA.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hell, Britney Spears getting a stupid haircut received coverage...

Strange you should mention that kind of thing...

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/14/nq070314.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/15/nq070315.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/16/nq070316.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2007/nq070317.gif



Of course it hasn't happened yet, and probably wont since this is an election year and things are going bad for him. However his support of the war hasn't wavered. In fact it was kind of funny when Cheney visited.

Prior to this Kevin Rudd and Labor had been talking about withdrawals and how they could happen, to which Howard responded how "abandoning" the US now could damage US/Australian relations... then a reporter asked Cheney during his visit and Cheney said if Australia withdrew their troops relations wouldn't be damaged. Which seemed to suggest he doesn't pay much attention to what Howard says in terms of Australian politics. Anywho Howard spun it as Cheney just being diplomatic.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion. Because all Americans would think that they were talking about the state