Allah
That and That Alone is what I meant by a non-independent media. I can’t tell you if they are controlled or lazy or just lost the balls to print anything other than the standard AP wire releases.
Regardless, on any given subject, All News Reports Sound The Exact Same. I just dont see/hear any difference between CNN/FOX/NBC/ABC/CBS. Every one of those entities has a different news director, and given the exact same set of facts, everyone has a Slightly (be it microscopically) different perspective or POV. But thats also why I also read the BBC website in the morning.
BTW, just saying they all sound alike (which they do) shouldn’t give you the right to pull out that old saw about “who controls the media”. For all I know the answer to that is Laziness & Stupidity LLC. Remember that before you reach for the race card.
I have a source inquiry out on the published article that Bush planned to invade Iraq just prior to the 2000 election. I’m waiting on a reply to my inquiry on the exact name of the pipeline project, the names of the backers, and the names of the oil companies behind those backers. I’ll see if I can post a more geographically acurate route that the planned pipeline will take as well as links to the published articles regarding same; When the response comes, I will happily post those links.
Lastly, my opinions are mine & mine alone. If you don’t like them, don’t share them. If you don’t think that’s fair, too bad. A world with only One opinion is boring.
quietman1920, you might find this interesting. I don’t see any evidence of a conspiracy there.
The only thing that says to me is that the different news organizations are getting their facts straight,nothing wrong with that JMO
I’ll hold my breath…
WTF?
Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Actually invented by Robert Heinlein, for his story Logic of Empire. I think it generally works in this instance.
I agree that the corporate news networks are all selling the same lines. But there are ways to get news beyond just that. For a few days, try exploring around http://news.google.com/ to get your news. Google News is auto-generated from Google’s own search resources, so it indexes the news from places as far-flung as Gary, Indiana’s local rag to the Arab News and the Straits Times. One story will be covered by as many as a few thousand different outlets, and all of their pieces will be indexed by the engine.
It isn’t a perfect solution, but it is an improvement to just flipping on Headline News or Fox.
Oh d*mn, a little bit too late to reply now, anyway 
Yea right. You can have them and as soon as you use them 1442 should be created.
I can see the slight difference.
@ Derleth & Tristan: The GOD thingy was a joke. I meant nobody has the right to determin … (I don’t believe in god)
Ah sounds interesting. So is the US’ withdrawel of the kyoto protocol a little bit rude? Hmm UN Human Rights & death penalty? And voices are raising to invade without the UN resolution especially now where political dissonances between uk & us come up…
severen, the US isn’t perfect and I won’t defend all of its actions. Thumbing our noses at the Kyoto Protocol probably wasn’t the best thing to do, but I don’t see much of a comparison between our death penalty and the Iraqi practices of torture and extralegal (read: secret and unaccountable) execution. I happen to be pro-death penalty, but that is a different can of worms entirely.
So the US gets to ignore the UN because it’s a Permanent Member of the Security Council? Probably, yeah. Not how it should work, but it isn’t an excuse to trash the part of the system that might prevent war.
WHAT “Iraqi war”? I am not being obtuse here. Blix stated that there needed to be a real threat to get inspections. So far- that’s all there has been a “real threat”. Tell me- if GWB really didn’t want a war, but just wanted to make the threat credible so that SH would comply- how would it appear different?
No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong. I have been listening very intently to the Bush administration’s pronouncements on Iraq, and I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on the justifications for this war. See, it all started back in 1991, right after the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein conspired with Bill Clinton to undermine George Bush Sr.'s re-election campaign. They, along with Tojo and Emperor Hirohito, slipped the President epicac during a state dinner in Tokyo, causing him to vomit on the Prime Minister.
Then, with Bill Clinton safely installed in office, Hussein, Tojo, and a clone made from Adolf Hitler’s stem cells annexed the Sudetenland. Clinton treasonously appeased the dictators, declaring that if we just let them have it, we could all get “a piece in time.” Well, we all know how THAT came out! Clinton got HIS piece all right, the little socialist man-ho. Unfortunately, Hussien and the clone of Hitler came to his rescue and prevented his conviction during the impeachment hearings. But, what most people DON’T know about those shenanigans was that it was all a set up. See, Noam Chompsky put Linda Tripp up to it in order to distract everyone from Hussein, Tojo, Hitler, and Hillary Clinton’s nuclear program. Luckily, the Supreme Court and ordinary citzens in Broward County stood up to them, and Our Fearless Leader, George W. Bush rode in from Texas to set things right. This brings us up to the present day.
Everybody with me so far? Good, because this is where it gets complicated.
Osama bin Laden (who, as you are all no doubt aware, is the clone made from Hitler’s stem cells I mentioned earlier!) and Tojo, under the protection of Saddam, launched an attack on Pearl Harbor, with the aid of the anti-war protesters and the French. Here’s the important part: * they used Saddam’s cell phone to order the attack!* Or something like that. Maybe they used Saddam’s model airplanes to spread botulism toxin over Beverly Hills. The specifics are not important. The important part is, it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.
That brings us up to the present day. The Great and Wise Leader, George W. Bush, saw that his moment of history was at hand. He has bravely (and wisely) taken on the one world government partial birth abortionists in the United Nations and their leader Kofi Annan, who I’m pretty sure is the anti-Christ. Naturally the Germans (see the stem cell Hitler connection?) and the Godless, communist French foodies want to thwart Our Leader’s righteous purpose in order to take away our SUVs and make us all listen to gay electronic disco music. So you see, unless we want freedom-hating Muslins to come over here and make us all join unions, we must immediately invade Iraq.
And cut taxes.
50,000 well trained and equiped troops with air support is a threat.
250,000 and with several air wings and war drums beating is more like a promise.
I really, really can’t see a way out of this without Saddam going, and thats not going to happen peacefully, unfortunately.
OK, I take back all that “hegemony pops” and “control of the Persian Gulf region” crap I’ve been saying…
vibrotronica’s on to something, I think.
Hoo boy - the answer to that one is tricky enough in itself. One could argue the collateral damage the Israeli government is taking for granted in their current no tolerance policy towards the Palestinians constitutes a violation of human rights. But let’s not go there, lest we wake up fine debaters like december…
There’s some validity to this. Kuwait was invaded, and it could be argued that the US helped them out. It’s not ALL that happened in the Gulf War, but it certainly a part of it.
No, no, no. Morally, no single nation has the duty to police the world because it thinks it’s right. It’s one thing if the international community, embodied by the UN, decides action against a nation should be taken: the raids on Milosevic and his ilk come to mind. But for one nation to single-handedly decide they should clean up a mess abroad, only to pass it off as political aid or something is just waiting for trouble. It’s bad enough the Middle East disagrees: in this case, a substantial part of the US’ western allies disagrees as well.
FWIW, a large part of my unease with the US trying to tidy up the Middle East unilateraly is that they have done exactly that countless times before. And in doing so, they’ve subsituted one problem with another almost every single time. Saddam himself is the best example of this. I’d feel a whole lot better (or, more informed, really) if the Bush administration gave us somewhat of a clue as to what they intend to do once they overthrow Saddam.
I am afraid I agree with you. It’s a damn shame, but he’s not going to leave just because he’s asked. Still, I feel there’s still room for diplomatic action at this stage, if only for the simple reason that it will bring the UN closer together. The US will cause a HUGE fucking dent in its credibility and that of the UN if it chooses to disregard the Security Council. After the lives of innocent Iraqis I fear for, that’s by far the worst thing that could result from this situation.
Okay, Coldfire, I was wrong when I said that we should have cleaned up Kuwait. From a purely pragmatic point of view, we can barely clean our own house, and we have a terrible record when it comes to installing foreign powers. (No, I don’t need to provide an example. We’re living with most of them right now.)
From a moral view, it’s still hard for me to sit in a country that could, militarily, topple any twenty rogue nations and not help all of those people living under undemocratic, sometimes despotic regimes. America doesn’t know best, but on the other hand I’m living in a country where I can say that without being gagged and disemboweled. Morally, despotism is wrong. Pragmatically, it’s often better than outright chaos.
That is where the UN is supposed to come in. But looking back at Rwanda (where nobody, not even the US, tried to help), one wonders just how morally unambiguous the case must be before everyone will sign on to something.
Well, fair enough I suppose. The point I was trying to make is that the US has had WMD for 60 years and not used them. Saddam Hussein has used them within the last decade. Two more points: first of all, the US was pretty horrified as the consequences of nuclear weapons (part of the reason we helped survivors) even if we were happy to win the war, and second, we don’t need to use WMD. Our conventional weaponry is of such size and sophistication that our aims can be accomplished without resorting to WMD’s. So the odds of the US using WMD’s is pretty low, short of an overwhelming attack on our own territory, and maybe not even then. Saddam, on the other had, uses them against his own citizens for actions that, in the US, would probably not even result in overtime for the local police.
All possessors of WMD’s are not equal. While I would prefer a world in which no one had a supply of such things, I can also recognize that some holders of WMD’s are more of a danger than others.
Frankly, at this point, I’m a lot more concerned with North Korean and THEIR weapons than Iraq.
yes
I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that in the US the death penalty is a topic of much debate, nor is it universal. Michigan, for instance, has never had the death penalty, Wisconsin does not have it, Illinois has a moratorium on it. It does irk me when the European press makes it sound like the entire US is salivating to kill people. We aren’t. Quite a few of us are opposed to it on moral grounds. Quite a few states don’t use death as a penalty. It’s rather like taking the position Belgium has on an issue and attributing it to all of Europe.
Actually, I heard that the attack on Iraq was scripted yeara ago as well. I have also heard that the plan is to stay in some kind of low-level warfare conflict through 2004 and run on the war, as was done in Vietnam. Be interesting to see if it works.
Lets face it: Saddam is a damn maniacal idiot who should be removed from power. If we disarm him, what’s to stop him from re-arming once the inspectors leave? Disarming would have to be accompanied by continued monitoring (kept up while he does everything in his power to continue developing these weapons) and I just don’t see the UN having the political will for that. If we continue to let him flout UN resolutions, the Security Council will lose what little credibility and/or influence it has left, pretty much removing any checks to the US’ power (not a good thing).
Now, I have to say that I think the Bush/Rumsfeld team have got to be one of the biggest bunch of morons to be sent to DC in recent memory. They have singlehandedly pissed away the moral high ground we had after 9/11 in 1 (ONE!!) year by their arrogant, clumsy policies. The ‘Axis of Evil’ speech has got to rank right up there as one of the most incompetent foreign policy statements of all time. Here’s a thought: instead of trying to fight a 3-front war, how’s about taking these guys on one at a time? Or how about quietly putting together an international coalition BEFORE you open your damn fool mouth! That way we have allies to help us with the fighting AND the monetary part of the war! Wow, how revolutionary…
To be perfectly honest, I think we’re doing the right thing in forcing Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. Unfortunately, because our leaders are incompetent, we’re going about it the wrong way. And its mainly we Americans, not the rest of the world, who are going to pay the price for this piss-poor leadership. We’ll pay in blood and we’ll pay in money and the leaders that got us into this mess will, at best, ‘pay’ by not being re-elected. The rest of the world should be weeping for America–we’re getting the biggest shaft of all here.
With all due respect, it sounds like you’re a hyprocrite. The oil argument is bullshit when applied to the U.S. and it’s bullshit when applied to the Europeans. Go to the Frontline website and watch their documentary on it. Then take time to actually listen to what the French foreign minister has to say at the U.N.
Ok, I’ll admit that I posted up the European Oil sentiment without really researching it.
The problem is, I can’t really think of another reason, other than anti-american backlash and a desire to stick one to the big kid, for France, Germany etc. to act in this way.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that the US is doing all of this for purely financial reasons. I think that’s ludicrious.
A report was just issued that it will cost $20 billion to rebuild Iraq after a still hypothetical war. How that equates to “finanacial gain” for the US, I’m not sure.
11 years of UN inspections, on again off again, still haven’t stopped Saddam Hussein. Why do people think that a little more time will?
They think a little more effort will, Tristan.
France and Germany et al are not anti-American and don’t want to “stick it to the Big Kid”. Whether you like it or not, they believe that diplomacy and UN inspections can lead to a resolution of the Iraqi situation without having to go to war. Of course, the US attitude that they will go to war even if the UN security council disapproves might provoke anti-Americanism, but that’s another debate for another time.
I can.
France, for instance, may have dirty hands in this matter. I mean, who has been selling weapons and/or technology to Iraq? Sure, the Iraqis are pretty smart - cripes, they’ve had writing longer than anyone else than maybe the Chinese, that part of the world isn’t called the “cradle of civilization” for nothing - but after the Gulf War their infrastructure was blown up and in order to re-arm, much less develop new weapons, they would require materials from outside at the very least. Who sold the goods to Saddam, hmmm? North Korea? China? Myamar? the Taliban? France?..
Why do I say France? They do have business interests in Iraq. The Iraqi air force (what there is of it) uses French jets. And there’s nothing wrong with that - the planes were bought above-board and all legal prior to that business with Kuwait. But clearly there is a connection between France and Iraq’s military hardware.
If I wanted to be a real asshole I could mention that, just as there are rumors of a Jewish “cabal” or group pushing US foreign policy, one could note the sizable Muslim minority of France and its territories and insinuate that there is a Muslim “cabal” driving French foreign policy… but I don’t honestly believe that. Nope. It might influence foreign policy but it doesn’t determine it. I mean, it might put France in a position to mediate between Iraq and the US/UK, which could be a good thing. IF the French wanted to actually mediate as opposed to stubbornly boss the rest of the world around and dictate terms to other countries. Which is definitely how the French are perceived on this side of the Atlantic.
Germany… well, after WWII we made Germany promise not to make war anymore. A lot of Germans might feel that opposing this war fulfills that promise.
Well, it’s because we’re all so filthy stinking rich :rolleyes: we can pave the streets with gold.
Seriously, some other countries seem to think the US is made of money. I’ve seen tourists aghast at seeing that there are poor people living in American cities. Sorry, we aren’t all Bill Gates.
I don’t think that they think inspections will work so much as they don’t want to go to war.
And, in my view, a reluctance to go to war isn’t all bad. War is hell. It’s when you kill people and break things. It’s the very definition of destruction. It’s nasty. It’s painful. People not only die, they frequently die in hideous, painful, agonizing, and perhaps even degrading ways.
There are plenty of people in Europe who remember direct personal experience of WWII and not only don’t care to re-experience anything like it, they don’t want it inflicted on other people, either. Which isn’t a bad sentiment.
I remember way back during the First Gulf War some young and naive types who were all for kicking Saddam’s ass out of Kuwait. They were all incensed at the debate in Congress on whether or not to go to war, and the “wishy washy” talk, etc. Then the pictures started coming back of dead bodies, like that “Highway of Death” picture with the carbonized remains of truck drivers grinning their toothy, skeletal grins in the burned out hulks of their vehicles, and the reports of Iraqi soldiers buried alives when US tanks rolled over their trenches… and they got all upset. Well, I’m sorry, you little ignorant fucktards, but what they hell did you think war was all about? THAT is what war is about: people shot, people buried alive, people burned alive. It’s “toys” like fuel-air bombs that ignite the local atmophere so you breathe fire while your skin bubbles and burns off your bones. It’s “bunker-buster” bombs that burst your eardrums, crack your ribs, and damage your internal organs causing agonizing death. Or even the old and mundane favorite - shot through the legs so you can’t walk or run, lying out in the open for days slowly bleeding to death, or coming down with a raging infection, while the bodies of your dead comrades are eaten by nature’s scavengers all around you. If you can’t fend them off, the scavengers might not wait for your death to start in on the next meal. And it’s not just soldiers suffering these sorts of fates, but old men and young women and children and teeny-tiny babies.
Are we all clear what we are talking about here? Good.
That said - there is a truly horrible sad fact about war. And that’s the nasty little fact that sometimes we have to wage war. That doesn’t mean all wars are justified, certainly not, but sometimes there either isn’t an alternative, or the alternative is worse (like a much nastier future war with even more horrible weapons).
Actually, I’m glad people are divided about this, and arguing about it. War should NOT be entered into lightly. I think the arguing and hot air is a GOOD thing at this point, and maybe, just maybe, someone will have an idea that could work. Or maybe not. But it sure as hell beats everyone meekly taking their place in line and marching in step.