Well, we’ll see. Apparently the Bushiviks have decided to ignore my sage advice (go straight to the UN and kiss as much ass as is necessary to get UN troops in and our guys out.)
But GeeDubya still needs a troop withdrawal. REAL bad. Which cannot be accomplished without replacements. Well,since it aint gonna be the UN, it must be the Coalition of the Willing that is rushing to put thier kids in danger for us.
The Coalition of the Willing is a bit money oriented… which means dishing out some cash. They are all small countries too… so you can only get so many mercs… I mean peacek… I mean targets there.
In the end the Iraqi will just kill eastern europeans instead of americans. Not a solution at all.Just great! You mean there is a list?
In my country Bush approval for the war rate was/is, are you ready? 2% :rolleyes:
Mind you Uruguay is not a beligerant country, we dont have enemies at all, people dont hate the US citizens (many do strongly disagree with US politics thou) We are not reactionary. So, there you have it, in a country without a beef for the US 98% of the populations thinks that things were handled very badly.
There’s a number of reasons, in no particular order.
Firstly, Bush prefers to engage in interviews and public appearances if they are scripted – otherwise his garbled and confused efforts lead more easily to problems.
Secondly, the BBC leads the pack of hounds sniffing at British government claims and ferreting out the facts; there is nothing even remotely comparable in the US, and the deplorable standards of news media in America rule out many serious media efforts to expose and communicate facts.
Thirdly, there may be something rotten in the state of US media – or perhaps (more to the point) with the consumer eyeballs that watch US media. In 2002, FOX News overtook CNN and became the top-rated cable news network in the US, which I consider nothing less than a major tragedy. Of all the big media heads, Murdoch, Bush’s friend and ally, is probably the least reputable and most suspiscious: he is well known for his lack of professional objectivity and his desire to shape the editorial policies of the media he owns; this is most obvious in FOX news, which is a jumble of jingoistic propaganda that no person endowed with basic education could take seriously.
However FOX is certainly not the only offender here, just one of many, and an obvious pattern can be gleaned from Murdoch’s various media where the war in Iraq is concerned. The main exceptions in Murdoch’s stable are the Times and the Sunday Times: when Murdoch acquired these British publications, he was forced to sign agreements that limit his highly unethical and intrusive behaviour (he is not permitted to appoint editors to the papers, and he is barred from dictating editorials and editorial policy, though he has some latitude left to play his dirty tricks).
So Bush is rarely asked hard questions. Besides, a good orator and debater like Blair can usually handle difficult questions even if they are unexpected; Bush … well, you’ve seen him in action. More hard questions for Bush would result in nothing but chaos.
PS: December, thank you for amusing us. Your stubborn arguments and outright lies, particularly on the subject of France, are quite impressive feats of ignorance. How do you screw your eyes that shut against information so that nothing but cheap propaganda ever penetrates??
hehe… at least Radon sees that its a dark alley they are going down… you might arrive in the worse spot… or he hopes a light at the end of tunnel.
Abe, just for your reference, there’s another broadsheet newspaper which falls under the banner of “quality unbiased” editorial integrity - namely The Australian - essentially the Aussie equivalent of the aforementioned “Times”.
For some reason known only to old Rupert himself, “The Australian” (which was founded in 1966 and remains Australia’s only true national newspaper) remains entirely off limits from Murdoch’s editorial control. Indeed, Rupert Murdoch is often openly lambasted in the paper.
I suspect the reasons are historical - “The Australian” is effectively the newspaper which launched Murdoch from Australia in the late 1970’s into Great Britiain - it provided the cachet and cash flow to get started “overseas” as it were - and it seems to be one of Rupert’s proudest flagships. I might be wrong here, but it’s an interesting bit of history regarding Rupert Murdoch. Down here, I’ve met a few people who say that the guy is a true newspaper man, and that printing ink runs in his veins.
I suspect his forays into television in the USA in the mid 1980’s remain purely commercial endeavours with little “old school” resonance for the man.
Maybe americans are more easily suckered in ? 
Yep… mean…
“The Australian” is notable for being the most right-wing biased broadsheet in the country. I think your definition of “unbiased” needs some review, Boo Boo Foo.
It’s an axis, actually.
So why is there less outrage in the US? I lean towards psychology, both mass and personal, as the best answer. Many of those who (1) bought into the series of lies and (2) bought into the bullying approach have so much emotional investment in those decision that it’s just too hard to admit to themselves they might have been wrong on either count, much less both. It’s much more tempting to take the december/Sam Stone approach and insist that “The Truth” will come out sooner or later and vindicate them, or at least the fallback position from that one that the facts aren’t in yet. The desire for basic intellectual honesty is just not as powerful an emotion as the desire to avoid admitting having been (1) fooled easily by lies and (2) convinced to act in their worst, not best, nature against every civilized principle they were raised to believe in.
On the converse, though, it’s easier to accept having been fooled if they know they were presented lies by a leadership they had every reason to believe - that makes it easier to blame the leadership and absolve themselves. That sentiment does seem to be growing and solidifying here, although it’s apparently much more advanced in the UK and even Australia.
On American Media
I often find myself watching the offensively biased FOX News rather than the offensively muddled CNN because FOX does a better job at presenting things.
Another problem is that the alternative, or rather, the alternative bias, is often the offensively biased, paranoid, and disorganized Left. The antiwar movement and its politicians genuinely don’t know what to do but they sure as hell don’t like George W Bush.
Listening to a lot of left speakers or reading indymedia is like watching children hold forth on interest rates — they need a few years of education before they should open their mouths.
The various idiots in the News business never seem to catch on that they aren’t competent to judge the events as they happen. They spend a lot of time in “Bias Management”: trying to cleverly hide their biases or to balance their prejudices to avoid controversy. They should instead try to find out what’s going on, tell us, and shut up.
BBC has decided, for some reason, that Hamas is no longer to be called a Terrorist group, or their bombings acts of Terror. They mutter on about complexities and movements. Okay then, abolish the word entirely (for everybody) and just call the bombers — Bombers. Too complex a thought for them.
More on Media
Yes I know BBC is British, not US.
There’s an interesting article on Murdoch in the current issue of The Atlantic. The gist is that he just wants to profit from the business and completely misses the idea that News is a public service with public responsibilities. The business is more important to him than the right-wing bias, which he apparently doesn’t think about much. I’m sure the whole article is planted by Murdoch. Just enough criticism to sound credible.
Other reasons for the difference between the US and Europe in their view of Bush and Iraq include 1) Cognitive dissonance, some Americans did vote for Bush and would feel odd going against him. 2) The 4-year Presidential election cycle (vs the Parliamentary system) means there’s no point in getting excited until election time. 3) Not worried about being invaded by Bush. 4) Less Arab/Muslim domestic influence, more domestic Jewish and conservative Christian influence. 5) Conspiracy theories generally less beloved on this side of the Atlantic. 6) Weaker influence of Marxism. 7) Politics is more of a circus (Arnold, “The Body” Ventura, Reagan) 8) Vestiges of American Triumphalism (Manifest Destiny, we invented “Everything”)
Do you have a link to a BBC policy statement? In Canada the CBC does not use the term “terrorist” unless they are quoting someone. They have a policy that the word is too politically loaded and don’t want to pick and choose where to apply it. They usually use militant,bomber or guerrila. Seems reasonable to me.
Why not? I already refuted all of them except for the billboard. Apparently you think Bush invaded because of a poster.
Rubbish.
The gas massacres took place 10 years ago. Why did Bush act now?
What ‘aggressiveness’? Name something aggressive Saddam has done in the last 10 years.
Where are the WMD’s? Why didn’t Saddam use them when the US invaded? Why didn’t Bush continue the sanctions and let the UN weapons inspectors do their job?
And you make me laugh by saying Saddam didn’t co-operate with the UN - what did Bush do?!
There was zero urgency to invade.
“So why hasnt the USA ever before stopped dictators from doing massacres?”
Thank you for ignoring the role of the British Empire, plus the Soviet Union (who alone suffered around 15 million total casualties). Your grasp of history is on par with your debating skills.
In case you don’t know, the US entered WW2 two years after it started. Yet you claim the US ‘stopped Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.’
Anyway at the time the US had statesmen in charge, not oilmen.
There was a World-wide alliance, and a genuine threat. None of this applies to Bush, and you are reduced to saying the US invaded Iraq because of a billboard.
My point is why didn’t the US act when Saddam gassed his people?
Why didn’t Bush ‘the humanitarian’ act in Rwanda, when there was genocide taking place?
Funny, that was exactly the argument Saddam used to invade Kuwait.
Are you absolutely sure that justifies the US invasion?
Or are you a fanatic who will use any argument to support Bush?
Ah, so Bush was ‘making he world better off’ when he invaded. Thanks for clearing that up.
Funny how the world (represented by the UN) didn’t understand how wonderful Bush was.
Strange how none of Saddam’s neighbours asked the US to invade.
Obviously these countries don’t have your grasp of the situation…
Why not? I already refuted all of them except for the billboard. Apparently you think Bush invaded because of a poster.
Rubbish.
The gas massacres took place 10 years ago. Why did Bush act now?
What ‘aggressiveness’? Name something aggressive Saddam has done in the last 10 years.
Where are the WMD’s? Why didn’t Saddam use them when the US invaded? Why didn’t Bush continue the sanctions and let the UN weapons inspectors do their job?
And you make me laugh by saying Saddam didn’t co-operate with the UN - what did Bush do?!
There was zero urgency to invade.
“So why hasnt the USA ever before stopped dictators from doing massacres?”
Thank you for ignoring the role of the British Empire, plus the Soviet Union (who alone suffered around 15 million total casualties). Your grasp of history is on par with your debating skills.
In case you don’t know, the US entered WW2 two years after it started. Yet you claim the US ‘stopped Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.’
Anyway at the time the US had statesmen in charge, not oilmen.
There was a World-wide alliance, and a genuine threat. None of this applies to Bush, and you are reduced to saying the US invaded Iraq because of a billboard.
My point is why didn’t the US act when Saddam gassed his people?
Why didn’t Bush ‘the humanitarian’ act in Rwanda, when there was genocide taking place?
Funny, that was exactly the argument Saddam used to invade Kuwait.
Are you absolutely sure that justifies the US invasion?
Or are you a fanatic who will use any argument to support Bush?
Ah, so Bush was ‘making he world better off’ when he invaded. Thanks for clearing that up.
Funny how the world (represented by the UN) didn’t understand how wonderful Bush was.
Strange how none of Saddam’s neighbours asked the US to invade.
Obviously these countries don’t have your grasp of the situation…
Sorry - the hamsters made me double post…
CarnalK:
See This analysis
The BBC says it isn’t an outright ban but depends on “circumstances” that wind up meaning it thinks that Hamas is a great bunch of guys. Fascinating report.
By the way, the definition of Terrorism that I like is “Acts of war by NGOs”. Where NGO means Non-Governmental Organization.
Because we’re dealing with international security against potential future military threats, not legalistic punishments for past crimes. If we were concerned about an individual criminal, a court could deal with his crimes one-at-a-time. Even in a court, punishment would be considerably harsher for someone with a past criminal record.
However, when dealing with the risk that Saddam might threaten us or our allies with WMDs, it’s prudent and sensible to take into account all that we know about him and his regime.
Still More on Media and Beliefs
According to Nicholas Kristof’s Aug 15 column in the New York Times, three times as many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth of Mary than believe in evolution! This is quite a surprise to me and I’m not yet sure I believe it. There is a link to some citations.
And this is quite different than the range of beliefs in Europe.
Gimme a break. From your link(at the bottom, extract from BBC response):
Which sounds a lot like the CBC policy. I’m not sure I would trust BBCWatch too much. This and other BBCWatch claims have been discussed in another thread:
What will the British government do about the BBC?