Bear with me as I'm not sure how to accomplish the whole "so and so wrote blah blah blah" in italics to make things look pretty.

Ok.MINK and MG this is for both of you. Mink I have to start with you first, only because you were ranting about the legality of the Constitution and what it grants people.

- MINK, you said "
Law is an argument, it is in a state of constant flux. If you oppose the opposition, you're basically in line with Hitler and Stalin, telling everyone to STFU. That's not constitutional"

What I gather from telling people to STFU. My question for you is, do you mean the Government? Or people? because if it is the latter of the two, thats exactly what the constitution is for. I may not like what you have to say, but i will to the death, defend your right to say it. (yes i jacked that from somewhere, but it is how i feel) Now I, as a person, not a soldier, wish this guy would just STFU, but that is my given right as an American.

Now this next part is for the both of you. You are talking about WMDs. I'm going to choose my words carefully here... WMDs..... hmm. Well, before this shit kicked off, there was a report and inventory of these WMDs... (which was a term coined for the media. WMDs also included conventional ordnance. ) by the UN. The same UN everyone here seem to be talking about the US not having the sanction of to enter Iraq. So unless the is a different UN I'm not familiar with, we can all safely assume that this is the same UN. Well so theres this 500 page report from the UN that this shit was there. Now, the UN did send Hans Blix over with US troops to do inspections, and was repeatedly denied access to certain areas. Well after a while, ,these "WMDs" could not be found. People then took this into a new light and said "hey, bush was wrong! theres no WMDs!" What they forgot was "OH SHIT! What happened to these WMDs?" Hmmm. They were there, now there not.

Ok.. So now onto the oil thing. As much as i don't believe it was about oil, heres why some people (who think things through instead of just trying to come up with something) might say. Well, Bush has Oil interests in the States. Ok, but some of the oil we use if from the middle east. So if we invade the middle east, then that will cause the price of oil to go up, because rigs are shut down over there, embargoes tariffs and what have you are imposed, so more domestic oil will be sold. Therefore Bush make money. Like i said, i don't think that is a reason at all. Maybe its because Bush might not be 'edumacated' enough to scheme something like this up on his own, or maybe its because he might have had a difficult time trying to convince congress "Hey, would you mind sending us to war and spending billions overseas, so i can make a couple Gs?" Yeah I don't think that happened.

Ok so last part is for MINK. (I'm sorry MINK, but you try to justify your points and back them up, so it makes for a good intellectual conversation, unlike most people who just say what comes to mind)

MINK said - "The war is over who sets the price and takes the profit."
Well, i don't think war is necessary to raise the price of a gallon of gas. Seems like the Government is doing a fine job of that already - http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html
Yeah most of it goes to fees and taxes. And then on top of that, I haven't seen any oil rigs with "PROPERTY OF U.S." stamped on the side. EXXON, MOBILE, CHEVRON maybe, so it looks like the oil company's are setting the price. And i can pretty much guarantee you that Saddam was going to take what he could from anything anyway. So to say this war is about who sets the price, then yeah its a pointless war. because if the us wanted to set a low price they failed. If they wanted to set a high price, they would have anyway, so i fail to see your point. And fact is, the majority of oil rigs over there were civilian owned anyway. Even if Saddam wanted get money from it, he would have, and I'm sure he did.

Oh yeah, Up vote only for the Michal Moore-esque talents in creating such a fine piece of propaganda.

As soon as I start sifting up stuff on a more frequent/consistent basis, fer sure!

In reply to this comment by raven:
yeah? Will you do me the honor of sifting some to my channel?

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
The waronterror channel creation activites have made me realize how many such videos I had bookmarked!

In reply to this comment by raven:
*waronterror

yeah? Will you do me the honor of sifting some to my channel?

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
The waronterror channel creation activites have made me realize how many such videos I had bookmarked!

In reply to this comment by raven:
*waronterror

The waronterror channel creation activites have made me realize how many such videos I had bookmarked!

In reply to this comment by raven:
*waronterror

I just wanted to raise this point with you Jonny, the war is covered in drastically different ways between American and European media. This was especially prevalent during the start of the war, 'Shock And Awe' on CNN was basically the Al Jazeera feed, they allowed the American people to see US warplanes decimate Baghdad but didn't follow it up with Al Jazeera's coverage of numerous civilians killed as part of 'collateral' damage.

The media as a whole rallied around the Bush administration, even publications such as the Washington Post, New York Times and many others justified the invasion of Iraq initially. Even with world protests, dissent from major European powers like France and Germany.

Embedded reporters were with the US forces offered a slanted view of the war, because the other side was never given a voice, and am not talking about insurgents or anything like that but the civilian population who ultimately bares the brunt of the casualities in the war. Criticism of any sort was avoided at all costs because somehow that would mean undermining the mission or the troops, not even thinking about how such a preception would be taken by the rest of the world.

Was it swelled patriotism, revenge reportage or an inablilty to critique a war seemingly everyone supported - I don't know but it was very clear for me to see just by switching between Fox, CNN, EuroNews, BBC and Al Jazeera.

The US Military believed that it lost the war in Vietnam not in Vietnam but in the way the war was presented to the American people back home. The same situation is being replayed now in Iraq, only this time the media was fully with the US military. Only now the news does not show combat, does not show US troop losses but mentions them in passing, does not show civilian costs of the war and most of all doesn't ever mention the vets coming back from the war injured and or disabled.

Ultimately my arguement is that I believe VS as I stated can be a venue for informed views with regards to current affairs in the world. The most important right now being the war on terror, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and many others that take place around the world.

We in less then 2 years have seen the rise of YouTube and citizen journalism as a whole, videos of the political repression in Burma flooded the internet almost as soon as the event occured, would that have happened before? Videosift is one of the few sites that actually has a politics section, a topic that is usually avoided like plague by other video hosts. I believe the userbase in the site as a whole is more then capable of policing itself, especially with long term users.

Likewise I do not believe we should avoid addressing important issues like the war. Everytime I think about this issue I recall this:

"I think the human race needs to think about killing. How much evil must we do in order to do good. "
- Robert McNamara

With regards to rubberneckers and drivebys, there is already a website far more catered to their interests called LiveLeak, I believe that VS as a community would provide the need framing and context not to create sensationalism for the posts that could arise, drive bys here don't last long at all. The reason people keep coming back is because the core userbase is exactly the opposite of the YouTube fanbase.

I do agree though that we shouldn't rush to finalize the issue.

Here are some examples of videos that demonstrate what our soldiers are going through without the thrilling fun of showing them get killed to pieces or that are more documentary/reporting/informative style and less "hey, watch these guys get blown to shit!" style:
http://www.videosift.com/video/US-Army-fight-with-insurgents-in-Fallujah-from-War-Tapes
http://www.videosift.com/video/Weapons-of-US-soldiers-in-Iraq-plagued-with-problems
http://www.videosift.com/video/IED-blows-up-road-in-middle-of-convoy-no-injuries
http://www.videosift.com/video/Jubilation-as-IED-misses-target-completely
http://www.videosift.com/video/I-get-blown-up-US-troops-and-their-up-armoured-Humvee-get-hit-by-IED-and-everyone-survives-nsfw-language
Etc, etc.

BTW, if you disagree with this vid sitting in your channel I'll take it out, but I figured that it shows the human side of the US troops/families, so although it's not explicitly anti-war, by embracing the fact that they're risking their lives, that makes it effectively more anti-war than a run of the mill anti-war protest.

That's my logic - if you see grave flaws in it let me know!
http://www.videosift.com/video/If-I-Die-Before-You-Wake-Dustin-Evans

I wonder sometimes if she wasn't accidentally shot down by some nervous US troops, and the military covered it up.

The terrorists attacked on 9/11 for the following reasons.


1. US-backed coups in Iran and many other countries, and other uncouth CIA meddling.
2. US troops in Saudi Arabia, as if ready to make another coup d'etat.
3. US support of Israel
4. Frequent U.S. bombing of Iraq during peacetime.
5. Religious insanity (especially the delusion that there exists an afterlife in which suicide bombers are rewarded, and that sharia law is very opposed to the social liberalism present in all civilized countries.

>Or Clinton's administration with information on Al-Qaeda.
You mean the way they told Bush to keep an eye out for them, which Bush proceeded to NOT do?

Yeah...

>Especially Kennedy and that darn Bay of Pigs.
Um, that was set up by the previous administration - it was the last time Kennedy trusted his generals to run one of their plans to completion. They thought he would cave and send in US troops to support the invasion. They lied to him and said no more troops would be needed, while secretly hoping he would then send some anyway. His actions may have prevented World War III.

Try better examples.

You're the one insinuating that there was some ulterior purpose to the crash in the Pentagon, with no evidence (other than conjecture and supposition) that there even was one.

As to the comments on hurting families; the political spin used to state that war dissenters hurt US troop's families, is an entirely different subject to those of the 9/11 victims...

Those killed on 9/11 were slain in a surprise attack by a terrorist organisation. They were on the planes when they took off that morning and they never came home. By saying that they possibly weren't and that they are now being hidden from their families means that they have a harder time grieving for their lost. Especially in cases where bodies were not able to be recovered.

Whereas, the soldiers in Iraq are fighting a war that was a decision of the administration to pursue. The plight here is to have them brought home because of an increasingly difficult and futile conflict. A plea which is interpereted as being in opposition to the Rights desire to pursue the conflict against "Terror" further.

It is unfair to measure the two with the same yard-stick.

The severed head I was speaking of is at 30 seconds into the video. The issue I have is the only place US troops are currently fighting is Iraq and Afghanistan. While there may be Jihadist there, the vast majority of the people fighting our troops are not foreign fighters. They are the indigenous people pissed the hell off that we invaded their country, dramatically lowered their standard of life, and havn't left once we did what we claimed we invaded to do. What would American Citizens do if the United Nations decided that we needed a regime change. I doubt very many Americans would passively sit by and let it happen. We expect to determine our own destiny as a nation. Why do we think that Iraq or Afghanistan citizens would want any different. We are fighting what for all intents and purposes are people just like ourselves. Leaving all that behind, I am going to again state that if someone posted a video showing these exact same clips even as still frames, it would likely be discarded on the spot.

This was made to be humerous but it's not a funny subject. Sorry my objections stand.

I saw at least three major Objections

US Troops shooting man.
Dead body of man laying on the ground
Islamic man holding severed head

If we had a video showing these things they would be removed from the sift without question.

At least two sift posting guide policies are violated by this video.

We do not want pornography or "snuff" films (in which people die). There are plenty of other sites that have these markets covered, but it's not for us.

Please do not post videos that make fun of other races. Because of the high volume of traffic on the site, it would be very easy to offend a good deal of people with material like this. If you think the material is questionable, it's probably not going to pass our standards.

That is why I blogged it. If it's ok all Dag, Lucky, or any of the diamonds have to do is return it.

I asked dotdude to take a look and return this if it's ok.

Johnald128... I take it from your comment that you haven't served. Speaking as an OIF vet I can tell you that getting an Arabic translator in there would do absolutely no good. These people have no interest in negotiating or surrendering. They fight to the death. Did you hear them chanting in the video? These "normal people" also hold neighborhoods hostage and threaten to murder the families of anyone who speaks to US troops. I've seen these "normal people" slaughter innocent children with VBIED's and suicide bombers to kill soldiers handing out toys and school supplies. Now I've barely ever posted here since I started checking the Sift a year ago, but ignorant comments like yours make me too angry to sit silent. I've got friends in what's now their third rotation to that damned place, and your implication that we're all mindless enough to kill surrendering combatants makes me sick.

As someone living in Australia can you explain PM John Howard's remarks?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6352785.stm
Australian PM John Howard has criticised the US presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, for saying US troops should withdraw from Iraq next year.