But does that mean that the news of 10 american soldiers getting killed is less important? I don't see how you can leave it out and not write anything about it.
And the news of US leaving Iraq in 2008 is maybe not directly anti-American, but the media in Sweden are trying to depicture the US and the coalition in very bad light. What I mostly hear in the news are the failors of the US and the Coalition, I rarely get to read positive news about what the Coalition is doing in Iraq.

What do foreigners in Washington DC have to do with this conversation? American or not, there are more people killed in Washington DC than in Iraq. That is the only point being made.

He's making a false comparision between residents of a city, those who live there all the time, and an occupying army.

The murder rate of residents of DC may well be lower than that of US troops in Iraq, but the two situations are poles apart.

More people are killed in Iraq than Washington DC.

What was stated is per-capita of people in each location. A statistical type thing. At any rate, we digress.

The US started this mess and the US needs to clean it up. Unfortunately it will cost lives of soldiers and civilians alike. Furthermore, it was not the Bush administration this should be pinned as the WMD where pointed out in the Clinton administration. Terrorist acts happend long before Bush showed up. Here we digress again.

Anyway, the soldiers deserve a warm welcome when they return home. The news media needs to do less with movie stars and more with world issues. Tom Cruise couch jumping, Angelina and Brads last orgasim together, Britney Speers divorcing a loser is not what I call world news. Unfortuntely this is what fat America focuses on. Lets go watch another round of Deal or no Deal" mentallity has made this country weak.

If that's what you meant, I can't see it in your first post.

And of course it's less important: news is just that - News. Sixteen THOUSAND children die every day from hunger, but that isnt the top story, because we're used to it, just like we're used to soldiers dying in wars. I agree, the most insidious form of censorship is what gets left out, but that only applies to news.

And, given the recent statements by Kofi Annan and Robert Gates, maybe there's a reason other than media bias why you're not reading much good news about the coalition in Iraq.

Tom/Britney/etc stories are news too, just entertainment news, a division that needs to be made, but often is ignored.

Oh yes it does. I am talking about Americans and only Americans. See the big picture yet? Or do I need to spell it out for you?

-S

No, it's a false comparison. You are not comparing like with like. It does not make sense.

DC is an American city, Iraq is a war zone.

^Is that the big picture?^ If it's not, help?

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become: The war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war of the law-abiding vs the homicidal criminals roaming the streets (thanks to our revolving-door prisons).

Yeah, Id think the comparison is pretty fair, otherwise I wouldn't need to have a CWP for self-defense.

That you need a permit to defend yourself is disturbing in itself.

From 2003-2005, 650 people have been killed in Washington DC.

Between March 2003 and October 2006, 30,292 civilians have been killed in Baghdad.

If you want to treat them as similiar situations, fine. Just don't make stupid statements such as

That should tell us something about the Iraqi people. Their gov't has been in place for about six months. Anarchy is what I'd call the current situation. It should also give everyone a reason to suspect Islam as a peacefull religion.

And what statements are those?

If you are implying that the coalition in Iraq is a occupation force and that they are not doing any positive things for Iraq and the people of Iraq, then it is really time for you to stop reading leftwing propaganda that is so popular in today’s left infected Europe.
Friends of mine served and risked their lives in Iraq in the Multinational Division Central-South, the Division is engaged in a extensive rebuilding program of a Democratic Iraq.

Direct quote from their webpage about their mission description:
You never read in the news about any achievements of this division, but they still raise hospitals, schools and provide humanitarian aid daily. Are these news not worth mentioning? It is not only this Division that is rebuilding a better Iraq, but the whole Coalition. In Poland I at least read some positive things from Iraq since my country has been comprehensively participating in the conflict from the beginning. But in Sweden where the media are strongly biased to the left I don’t read anything about this, why is that?
Entertainment news should give away space for news like this. The mass media owe it to my friends, to the soldiers that are in Iraq now, and to the soldiers that have left this world. More and more people are calling Iraq a lost war and they are comparing it to a second Vietnam. I personally think that it is the lack of positive news reported that bring the public to think in these ways.

The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad.

And how exactly in your mind is what I said a stupid statement?

We fight crime here, they fight terror there.
Lots of dead ppl here, lots of dead ppl there.
Criminals do the work here, terrorists do the work there.

Not much difference between the two.

Robert Gates - US is not winning the war in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6209356.stm

Kofi Annan - Iraq "worse than civil war"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6204980.stm

Both in the last week



I'd be grateful if you could point me towards where I made any such implication. The balance of events in Iraq is overwhelmingly negative. That does not mean that coalition forces are not doing some good. Please explain to me how this is "left-wing"



The same reason that I don't read about my friends on peacekeeping duty in Liberia when I'm not in my home country, it's local news. In Poland you will read about Polish soldiers in Iraq.


Are we talking about reputations all of a sudden? I believe your previous statement was this:

Because 30,000 is a larger number than 650. Saying that they are comparable is a stupid statement.

Over 29,000 of a difference.

Sorry about the cut-paste-cut-paste style, couldnt find a way to string them together.

185,000 Kurds killed while Sadam was in power. Not to mention Shia and Iranians during their war. You do the math. How many less have been killed since the US went into Iraq?