[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Really? I remember them all proudly marching behind Ol’ Glory when Bush decided he’d take his chance in Iraq.
You’re thinking of Fox News. Its one of the dog-shit media sources in the States. Its also the most popular. Go figure.[/quote]
Hey, brucey:
Just wanted to tell you it’s ok if you spent more time worrying about your country. In fact, no one would be heartbroken if you decided that this board wasn’t for you.
Oh, if you dislike Fox News, then it must be the finest news source available.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
[/quote]
C’mon people! Focus on substance please.
I quoted a woman who has more insights on the media in America than you can ever dream of. Plus, she must read a couple of dozens newspapers a day. At first, I purposedly let you draw your own conclusions to avoid getting into such arguments.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
C’mon people! Focus on substance please.
I quoted a woman who has more insights on the media in America than you can ever dream of. Plus, she must read a couple of dozens newspapers a day. At first, I purposedly let you draw your own conclusions to avoid getting into such arguments.[/quote]
I guess all of Congress is denouncing their vote for the war in Iraq because they want to go against the mainstream media who is so pro-Bush.
Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true.
You and your “12 newspapers a day” friend don’t know what you are talking about. Bill O’Reilly from Fox labeled NBC News a left wing media outlet. I doubt he did that because they are backing the war and Bush.
The media can’t show enough polls showing Bush’s declining numbers.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
C’mon people! Focus on substance please.
I quoted a woman who has more insights on the media in America than you can ever dream of. Plus, she must read a couple of dozens newspapers a day. At first, I purposedly let you draw your own conclusions to avoid getting into such arguments.[/quote]
You quoted a woman that was discussing a different topic and then you quoted a couple Navy brass hats compleetely not understanding why they were making those statements.
God help anyone that reads a couple dozen newspapers a day. Reading that much misinformation, poor reporting and poor writing would drive anyone batshit crazy. But that does nothing to support whatever point you are trying to make.
[quote]olderguy wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
C’mon people! Focus on substance please.
I quoted a woman who has more insights on the media in America than you can ever dream of. Plus, she must read a couple of dozens newspapers a day. At first, I purposedly let you draw your own conclusions to avoid getting into such arguments.
I guess all of Congress is denouncing their vote for the war in Iraq because they want to go against the mainstream media who is so pro-Bush.
Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true.
You and your “12 newspapers a day” friend don’t know what you are talking about. Bill O’Reilly from Fox labeled NBC News a left wing media outlet. I doubt he did that because they are backing the war and Bush.
The media can’t show enough polls showing Bush’s declining numbers.
[/quote]
His misperceptions of our media would be laughable if so many people didn’t share them. It is just a shame.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
olderguy wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
C’mon people! Focus on substance please.
I quoted a woman who has more insights on the media in America than you can ever dream of. Plus, she must read a couple of dozens newspapers a day. At first, I purposedly let you draw your own conclusions to avoid getting into such arguments.
I guess all of Congress is denouncing their vote for the war in Iraq because they want to go against the mainstream media who is so pro-Bush.
Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true.
You and your “12 newspapers a day” friend don’t know what you are talking about. Bill O’Reilly from Fox labeled NBC News a left wing media outlet. I doubt he did that because they are backing the war and Bush.
The media can’t show enough polls showing Bush’s declining numbers.
His misperceptions of our media would be laughable if so many people didn’t share them. It is just a shame. [/quote]
I thought Lixy said a dozen. Wow, a couple of dozen a day. Impressive. And she had me at 12.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You quoted a woman that was discussing a different topic and then you quoted a couple Navy brass hats compleetely not understanding why they were making those statements.[/quote]
I quoted a woman for whom I have a profound respect. That’s not the average woman mind you.
In 1991, covering the independence movement in East Timor, Goodman and fellow journalist Allan Nairn were badly beaten by Indonesian soldiers after they witnessed a mass killing of Timorese demonstrators in what became known as the Dili Massacre.
She has speculated that the only thing that spared her the fate of Australian journalists who were killed in East Timor in 1975 was an American passport; the United States was providing military support to the Indonesian army at the time. The U.S. did not cut off military aid to Indonesia until 1993.
Might be the case for you. God didn’t distribute brain power in a fair manner
Seriously though, if one is thorough when cross-checking references and has a proper educational background in history, politics and such, you get a broader perspective when reading “a couple of dozens papers a day”.
Agreed. I shouldn’t have assumed that you’d see the link between what we were talking about and the quote.
Let me refresh your memory; You accused somebody’s history of being “revisionist” and I introduced the quote to show that it might be your history that’s revisionist after all. Also, if history taught me anything (besides repeating itself), it’s that the history that reaches us is always seen thru the victor’s lens.
[quote]olderguy wrote:
Why doesn’t the OP say what wonderful country he is from? It isn’t the good old US of A. I’ve never heard a yank use “spot on” to discribe anything. I talk to Brits every working day for 30 years and heard “spot on” a thousand times. I haven’t heard it in the US in my life. You wouldn’t have the balls to say you are from the UK. They have a great history. Maybe Aussie…[/quote]
It is irrelevant as to which country I am from. For whether I am from the US of A, the UK, or that small island off the coast of New Zealand it does not change the “spot on” ness of the original post. And it certainly does not change the fact that mass murder is mass murder regardless of how many lives are saved by mass murder.
Defending oneself (or one’s nation) against an attack is lawful. What America did to Japan was so clearly and so obviously murder.
Also, what America did with regard to Iraq (i.e., preemptive attack)is wholesale murder. Suppose there’s a pregnant woman, and the doctor says that there is a 95% chance that keeping the child to term would kill the woman. Would you advocate killing the child to save the mother’s life? What is the basis for your answer? By the way, this is preemption at its most basic.
With that said, there are definitely good things that come about from the immoral actions of America. God uses wickedness for the good of His people (i.e., ONLY those for whom Christ died). Yet this IN NO WAY justifies the “liberation” of Iraq. Let’s go “liberate” everyone in the world who is under an oppressive government (Cuba for instance). America should do it NOW! And if America does not do it NOW, then the government is a hypocrite.
Do I believe that America is better off because of the war? Yes. Do I believe that Americans are safer now because of the war? Yes. Does America being better off and Americans being safer justify going over to another country and kill people? No. Just think about it: Would Americans be better off and safer if we killed all the illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users in this country? Yes! But would you advocate for killing all the drug dealers and drug users in this country? I sure hope not! And why not?
Why would it be immoral to kill all the illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users in this country? They are most definitely a threat to Americans. They are even more than a “gathering threat.” They are much more a threat to America than Iraq ever was. So why would it not be moral to kill them all? And there are many other examples that could be used about other threats to Americans. Why not kill all threats to Americans? What would be wrong with that?
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
olderguy wrote:
Why doesn’t the OP say what wonderful country he is from? It isn’t the good old US of A. I’ve never heard a yank use “spot on” to discribe anything. I talk to Brits every working day for 30 years and heard “spot on” a thousand times. I haven’t heard it in the US in my life. You wouldn’t have the balls to say you are from the UK. They have a great history. Maybe Aussie…
It is irrelevant as to which country I am from. For whether I am from the US of A, the UK, or that small island off the coast of New Zealand it does not change the “spot on” ness of the original post. And it certainly does not change the fact that mass murder is mass murder regardless of how many lives are saved by mass murder.
Defending oneself (or one’s nation) against an attack is lawful. What America did to Japan was so clearly and so obviously murder.
Also, what America did with regard to Iraq (i.e., preemptive attack)is wholesale murder. Suppose there’s a pregnant woman, and the doctor says that there is a 95% chance that keeping the child to term would kill the woman. Would you advocate killing the child to save the mother’s life? What is the basis for your answer? By the way, this is preemption at its most basic.
With that said, there are definitely good things that come about from the immoral actions of America. God uses wickedness for the good of His people (i.e., ONLY those for whom Christ died). Yet this IN NO WAY justifies the “liberation” of Iraq. Let’s go “liberate” everyone in the world who is under an oppressive government (Cuba for instance). America should do it NOW! And if America does not do it NOW, then the government is a hypocrite.
Do I believe that America is better off because of the war? Yes. Do I believe that Americans are safer now because of the war? Yes. Does America being better off and Americans being safer justify going over to another country and kill people? No. Just think about it: Would Americans be better off and safer if we killed all the illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users in this country? Yes! But would you advocate for killing all the drug dealers and drug users in this country? I sure hope not! And why not?
Why would it be immoral to kill all the illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users in this country? They are most definitely a threat to Americans. They are even more than a “gathering threat.” They are much more a threat to America than Iraq ever was. So why would it not be moral to kill them all? And there are many other examples that could be used about other threats to Americans. Why not kill all threats to Americans? What would be wrong with that?
[/quote]
Killing all threats to Americans would be a good start. As to liberation for the oppressed, one at a time.
Also, if history taught me anything (besides repeating itself), it’s that the history that reaches us is always seen thru the victor’s lens.[/quote]
You win, you’ve convinced me that the US must always strive to be victorious so that we can continue to “write” people like you and Amy out of history. We should’ve taken cues from the Nazis rounded all of the people like you up and gassed you, or the Soviets and let you starve in the Gulags.
Funny how we annihilated Saddam and are unable to “write” WMDs into Iraq. Maybe I need to read another couple dozen newspapers to find out where the weapons actually are or how we were greeted as liberators or how the oil a free Iraq would produce would fund its own reconstruction. Funny how all of this revisionist history is going unwritten by the domineering right-wing media and the gloriously victorious Imperial Bush Administration. Moron.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Do I believe that Americans are safer now because of the war? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t know which planet you live on, but down here on Earth, actions have consequences.
Repeat after me: “No country in the world is a threat to the US”!
The ones they portray as a threat have simply shown that they won’t comply with whatever the US is imposing on them thru coercion. It’s what the US administration’s internal records refer to as “successful defiance”. It has nothing to do with physical threats. No country is stupid enough to even begin considering thoughts about attacking the US.
But back on topic; Since the war in Iraq began, it’s easier than ever for Al-Qaeda & co to recruit people. That’s the only threat, and it’s called the human bomb. Of course, the only way to deal with those wackos would be to act on the origin of the problem; Any expert on terrorism worth his/her salt would tell you that. But that’s not something Bush would want to do, since he’s very well protected and couldn’t care less about ordinary Americans security. Trust me, he’s got other priorities in mind.
And one more thing. Just because the “bearded-guys” were the most successful in their terrorist plots doesn’t mean it’s the only terrorist threat America’s faced with. Every single country where the US has a military base - and that’s well over a hundred - has grassroots movements opposing their presence. A few days ago, the Japanese blew a couple of bombs around a US military base in protest.
Also, if history taught me anything (besides repeating itself), it’s that the history that reaches us is always seen thru the victor’s lens.
You win, you’ve convinced me that the US must always strive to be victorious so that we can continue to “write” people like you and Amy out of history. We should’ve taken cues from the Nazis rounded all of the people like you up and gassed you, or the Soviets and let you starve in the Gulags.
Funny how we annihilated Saddam and are unable to “write” WMDs into Iraq. …[/quote]
It is amazing people don’t see that our government could have easily planted WMDs.
If our media wanted to play along we would have been none the wiser, yet it didn’t happen.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
You win, you’ve convinced me that the US must always strive to be victorious so that we can continue to “write” people like you and Amy out of history. We should’ve taken cues from the Nazis rounded all of the people like you up and gassed you, or the Soviets and let you starve in the Gulags.[/quote]
The difference between you and me is that, though I might be willing to die for my cause, I could never even contemplate killing for it.
I don’t why anyone would bother “writing” WMDs into Iraq. The WMD story was fabricated to provide an excuse for the attack. It worked beyond their wildest dreams and has brilliantly accomplished the job. What good is it afterwards?
[quote]Funny how all of this revisionist history is going unwritten by the domineering right-wing media and the gloriously victorious Imperial Bush Administration.
Moron.[/quote]
You’re making it really hard for me to remain civil. That said, moron yourself!
Revisionist history is just that: History! Here’s a hint. You look for history in history books not in newspapers. I could speculate that in a century, the 2nd Iraq war will be portrayed in US history books as a noble cause and that America helped overthrow a bloody genocidal dictator. There’s no need even mentioning the WMD parentheses. But again, it’s just speculation…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is amazing people don’t see that our government could have easily planted WMDs.[/quote]
It’s not as easy as you make it sound. Even supposing that the US was on the terrain alone (no coalition forces), it would have required some people to pull this off; WMDs being pretty sensitive to handle and all. The risk of the story leaking would have therefore been substantial and the opportunity/cost bleak.
And there was no incentive for them to do so. They were already there and the WMD story had achieved whatever it was supposed to.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is amazing people don’t see that our government could have easily planted WMDs.
It’s not as easy as you make it sound. Even supposing that the US was on the terrain alone (no coalition forces), it would have required some people to pull this off; WMDs being pretty sensitive to handle and all. The risk of the story leaking would have therefore been substantial and the opportunity/cost bleak.
And there was no incentive for them to do so. They were already there and the WMD story had achieved whatever it was supposed to.[/quote]
And had they found WMDs, people would have lined up to say we planted them and how easy it would have been to do so. I’m sure your theory on the matter would have been the latter.
This is a new type of war. It has not yet trully begun in my opinion. The deaths of 9/11, in absolute terms, are minute compared to what was faced in the last 2 great conflicts, WW2 and the Cold War. Just as the Cold War was a new type of war (due to nuclear weapons), it required new ways of fighting. Cool-headed statesmen like Harry Truman understood this. The Soviets could not be beaten by a Hot War, even though that had worked against the Nazis, and even though many Americans were eager to challenge the Soviet Empire.
The War on Terror is also a new type of war. We can win it in two ways, we can either kill every muslim on earth, or we can westernize them. The middle east is a religious version of sub-saharan africa. The solution is the same as the one used against the Germans : make them rich.
We can still do this in Iraq, despite the instability. For the war in Iraq to have any meaning, the place needs a Marshall Plan, it needs to have money pumped into. As was done in South Korea. Only then can there be democracy.
If we create democratic institutions and leave, Iraq will be poor and just like Weimar Germany, Democratic Japan or Italy it will flounder.
The same holds true in Palestine, the Israelis won 4 wars against the Arab States. And yet there is no peace. We could win a thousand more and there will be no peace, if the arab nations do not know security, freedom and wealth.
