AstroProdigy Posted August 8, 2005 Report Posted August 8, 2005 Here let me start it off. I accidently wrote a lot. Bear with me. It really burns me that people call the media "left wing". If you have watched the television stations since September 11 the media is anything but "left wing". Of course I am only discussing the television media, but this is what grabs the majority of people's attention the most. When the Bush administration was calling for war with Iraq on the grounds of weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and ties with alquita, the television media embraced these ideas. Even though the evidence for this was obviously very weak. The television stations chose to parrot what the government was saying rather than question it. Isn't that what the media is meant for? Isn't it supposed to keep the government in line. I think its better that the media question the government critically on every issue rather than parrot the government. If there was no media, the government would inevitably become corrupt and undemocratic and no one would know about it. That may be why people call the media "left wing", because of its former tendencies to question what the government is doing. After all, right wing has always been pro rich and left wing has always been pro poor, even from before the civil war. Frankly, the only channel that questioned the validity of the government's claims is CBS because it is not controlled as much by the thirst for ratings. Other stations chose to show what was popular among the people because that would provide for greater ratings. After September 11, everyone in America has seen the real threat of terrorism and could be played on that fear for a profit. It sounds bad, but that is the rules of business. Its also startling that local reporting has dramatically gone down. The reporting has turned to the giant stations. These stations need to make a profit just like any other business or corporation. There should be more local reporting so there will be a greater diversity of opinions so that the American public can have a diverse library of information to process. If everyone agrees theyre either all right or all wrong. If theres a diversity of opinions, the opinion closest to the truth should naturally end up the widely accepted opinion. I'm not being ignorant about terrorism either. I have lived in New York City my whole life and have seen what terrorism can do. I've also seen how well people can come together to help each other. When I watched the television broadcasts about the "proof" of the weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and the ties to alquita that Saddam Hussein "had", I thought this is quite a stretch and i noticed how the administration used the fear of terrorism to fool the masses. The television stations even parroted the sound bytes that the government put forward for the people to remember such as what they called the war; Operation Iraqi Freedom. President George Walker Bush even said years after the war in Iraq had started that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction but claimed "intent" to make them. Yet a large percentage of Americans STILL believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. Why is that? Is it stupidity? No, i don't believe Americans are as stupid as other countries make them out to be. I think that after all the television coverage stating that Saddam Hussein had weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, that is what people naturally believed. Briefly mentioning that they didn't have weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction was not enough to change the public's minds back to the truth. It also might be that people don't want to believe that the reasons why the United States went to war with Iraq was false. That doesn't sit well with us. There are much similarities with the media coverage with the Vietnam War. Maybe the Iraq War is another Vietnam War. There is no sign that the bloodshed in Iraq is diminishing. If anything its staying strong while the will of the American public continues to drop. Maybe after the American public already opposes the war in a large majority, then the media will become "left wing". Maybe there's a new generation of hippies to come. By the way, i think the way MonteZuma presents his opinions is very elequent and even though i don't agree with all of his opinions, he's a pretty convincing character if you keep an open mind.
MonteZuma Posted August 8, 2005 Report Posted August 8, 2005 I agree. And not just with the last line It concerns me too that most of the media outlets are just cutting and pasting stuff that comes in off the wire from Reuters or wherever. A diverse, independant and inquiring media industry is one of the things that sets us apart from undemocratic and less progressive nations.
white_0men Posted August 8, 2005 Report Posted August 8, 2005 I'd !@#$%^&*osciate the way the media is presenting the war with the cold war a lot more than I would with the Vietnam war. Subs!@#$%^&*ute terror and communism and it's the same thing rehashed and reshaped, and the American public still fell for it. Read 1984.
AstroProdigy Posted August 8, 2005 Author Report Posted August 8, 2005 Actually, white_Omen, the Vietnam War was part of the Cold War. What i wanted to show is that before the Vietnam War, Americans had the fear of Communism and that was used to start the Vietnam War. Unfortunately for the government, the people of Vietnam did not support the American military and this caused the war to drag on for years. Guerrilla warfare was used to ware down American resolve. The media before the war supported the War, but eventually reporters in Vietnam showed that the war was not as simple and just as Americans had thought. I fear that the media now simply parrots the government. People are being killed in Iraq every day and yet reporters are always trying to show their support for the troops and are not criticially inquiring what is actually happening or why this is happening. The fact is, we will be fighting in Iraq for years to come. The violence seems to be as much as ever. Eventually the media might come to their senses and actually report on the truth. Unfortunately, we cannot just pull our troops out of Iraq because that will result in chaos. I believe that not electing John Kerry and electing George W. Bush instead means that it will continue to be an American effort with token support from other countries. The violence will not end and we will be trapped in this situation and be unable to defend ourselves from other countries because most of our troops are in Iraq. Now I am not criticizing other policies of the government as i do not wish to insult some people here, but I believe this administration's handling of the war has been catastrophic and the media is not telling the people of this. I fear that the media will stay simply as a parrot for the government and that can be the end of our democracy. Luckily, the Cold War ended, and Communism can no longer be used to strike fear into the hearts of the American public, but the War on Terror is not simply a war on one nation and its allies; it is a war against an entire religious group and this group happens to be the second largest religion in the world. You cannot defeat Islam; it is a religion and it is like saying you try to defeat Christianity. If anything, the actions this administration is taking is only making things worse and making Islamic nations more and more fundamentalist. If the media never changes, then there are dire consequences ahead.
AstroProdigy Posted August 8, 2005 Author Report Posted August 8, 2005 Let's get back on the topic of the post and not just talk about the Iraq War.
LearJett+ Posted August 9, 2005 Report Posted August 9, 2005 It's hard to post on here when you're a conservative in a sea of liberals. I won't even try Edit: ^That burns me
AstroProdigy Posted August 9, 2005 Author Report Posted August 9, 2005 Aw cmon. You can post here. Just make sure what you are saying is not just ridiculous.
AstroProdigy Posted August 9, 2005 Author Report Posted August 9, 2005 Ok I will tell you another misconception that burns me. Most Americans believe that the Bush administration has been strong against terrorism. One huge contradiction to this is Osama bin Laden. The president sent troops into Afghanistan to get rid of Alqueda and yet Osama bin Laden slipped through them. In fact, there was a point where troops knew where he was and could have gone and killed him. Yet they did not get an order to do so and instead let him slip through. Why was bin Laden let slip through? If he was let through then he would provide for a constant fear in Americans that his followers could strike again. If they were afraid of this then they would support what the administration does in the name of stopping bin Laden. Saddam Hussein was linked to Osama bin Laden as a reason for the Iraq War. Yet there was no real evidence of this. Osama bin Laden was also used for an excuse for the Patriot Acts. We have yet to know the effects of this act or how it limits individual rights. I am not saying that this is only something the Bush administration would do. In fact, I believe any administration would do the same. It has been done throughout American history. The government created a fear of Spain as an excuse for the Spanish-American War. In case you did not know what that was; the Spanish-American War occured at the end of the 19th Century. It resulted in the United States gaining Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain. Fear of the Mexicans was used to take the northern provinces of Mexico in the Mexican-American War. Fear of Native Americans was used to continually force tribes out of their homelands and eventually into reservations. Fear of Communism was used to extend American influence into the world. The list goes on. What burns me is that people think that the government is taking a righteous fight to end terrorism. There are other reasons why the government does what it does. The people thought the Holocaust was one of the reasons we went to war with Germany. Yet destroying the concentration camps was not a priority until the very end of the war. If it had been, millions of lives would have been saved. Maybe that is what is wrong with our government. It is too good at fooling the American public. Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with our system. Maybe its human nature that causes this to happen over and over again. This is NOT in opposition of either the Democratic or the Republican Party. This issue is much more fundamental than simply partisan politics. If there is any way to get rid of this issue, it would require Republicans and Democrats to band together and figure out a solution. Of course, there may not be a solution.
MonteZuma Posted August 9, 2005 Report Posted August 9, 2005 It's hard to post on here when you're a conservative in a sea of liberals. I won't even try Actually, its easy. Click "ADDREPLY" and go for your life.
Manus Celer Dei Posted August 9, 2005 Report Posted August 9, 2005 What burns me is how many people assume that the definitions of left and right wing as applied to US politics (or, for that matter, the politics of any country) are universal in all countries. If I yelled my political beliefs from the rooftops (ie, in this forum), I would almost certainly be seen as left wing, yet in my own country I'll be voting for what is considered to be the most right wing party of them all in our upcoming elections. I also get irritated with people that assume there is a universal morality while at the same time holding that morality is a learned feature of our society. Yes, a person is en!@#$%^&*led to hold that belief, but it strikes me as a complete disservice to their ability to reason.
AstroProdigy Posted August 9, 2005 Author Report Posted August 9, 2005 What burns me is how many people assume that the definitions of left and right wing as applied to US politics (or, for that matter, the politics of any country) are universal in all countries. I agree with you. Different countries have developed differently and exist under a different set of conditions. It is natural that they would think differently from a country like the United States. George W. Bush would be considered an extreme liberal if he had the same opinions living in Saudi Arabia.
LearJett+ Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Actually, its easy. Click "ADDREPLY" and go for your life. Right, here I go :-) Ok I will tell you another misconception that burns me. Most Americans believe that the Bush administration has been strong against terrorism. One huge contradiction to this is Osama bin Laden. The president sent troops into Afghanistan to get rid of Alqueda and yet Osama bin Laden slipped through them. In fact, there was a point where troops knew where he was and could have gone and killed him. Yet they did not get an order to do so and instead let him slip through The war is on terror - not Bin Laden. The troops knew where he was (a bunch of caves), but could not get to him for the fact that he was in a bunch of caves. Do you honestly think that if our military was able to get/kill Bin Laden, they wouldn't? The government created a fear of Spain as an excuse for the Spanish-American War. Actually, it was the media that did this. The government felt pressure from the people because the media made the people think that the Spanish were evil. (Ever learn about yellow journalism?) It burns me that the average person in the US thinks that the average person in the Middle East hates us. It burns me that we think they don't want us there. There are many, many polls out there that will show you otherwise. In fact, my father is in the Marine Corps and was over there and tells me that they LOVE us. People ignore the fact that countries over there are feeling the pressure because their young population likes democracy and likes freedom. They see us liberating Iraq on tv and it insights them to question their own government. People ignore the fact that some middle eastern countries are having free elections for the first time, or that extremist governments are beginning to step down/compromise for once. The majority of people in oppressed countries want to be free and have rights. The problem is, there are minorities (not in the racial sense) that use violence and threats to keep that majority in check. Do you anti-war people out there really believe that one day Saddam would have just woken up and decided to not be an !@#$%^&*? I'm ready to be flamed on this God-forsaken forum
AstroProdigy Posted August 10, 2005 Author Report Posted August 10, 2005 The war is on terror - not Bin Laden. The troops knew where he was (a bunch of caves), but could not get to him for the fact that he was in a bunch of caves. Do you honestly think that if our military was able to get/kill Bin Laden, they wouldn't? Yes the war is on terror and Bin Laden is an important figurehead for the terrorists. Also, taking him out would have meant that the one name of a terrorist that most Americans know would have been gone and when there was talk of going to war on Iraq on the grounds of links to terrorism people would have thought "But wait didn't we already get rid of Osama Bin Laden"? At one point the troops knew exactly where Osama Bin Laden was. It's called the Battle of Tora Bora. Our troops knew he was there, but we left the biggest escape routes open. Hmm.... "Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them". ->Link<- Do not be naive thinking it cannot happen. I am not saying only Republicans do it. This is not a partisan argument. As for saying that they love us, that is quite a statement to make. The majority of Iraqi's was glad that we toppled Saddam Hussein. They are attacking us more and more now not because we toppled their dictator; they are attacking us because the administration have planned the aftermath of the Iraq War very poorly. Also, people from other countries admire the opportunity and luxury we have here in the United States, but most of them do not really like us. A lot of people from European countries do not even like us. It's not that we are oppressing them, they just do not like us. Maybe they are jealous or maybe they do not like our policies, but to think everyone likes us is pretty !@#$%^&* naive. As for Saddam Hussein waking up one day and not being an !@#$%^&*, do you believe that Kim Jong II of North Korea is going to wake up one day and decide to not be an !@#$%^&*? Look what he is doing starving his own people and he is even researching nuclear weapons. That is a very big threat to our national security too. That is a much better reason to go to war. Do you think the monarchy of Saudi Arabia is gonna wake up one day and stop being !@#$%^&*es? they have created a system of the very rich and the very poor and only keep their power with American support. Shouldn't we liberate the people of Saudi Arabia? There are real ties to Osama Bin Laden there. Yet these two countries do not offer us what certain members of the administration want. Oil! North Korea does not have oil and Saudi Arabia is already selling us oil in large quan!@#$%^&*ies. Iraq was not selling us any oil at all since we had an embargo on them. Have you ever seen the do!@#$%^&*entary Farenheight 9/11? You should watch it and see what is really going on. Do not say that I am weak on terror either. I have been a proud resident of New York City my whole life. I was affected by 9/11 much more than someone from Arkansas or Montana. Yet the people who support what the President is doing are mostly the people from areas of low risk. Why are the people in the highest risk areas mostly in opposition of what the President is doing? It is because they know what his administration is doing is only putting us more at risk. Us in New York are being put at risk because of this administration's actions not the people of low population areas. Why would terrorists attack areas with the lowest human life loss? It's just not smart to do that. I heard from the 2004 campaign George Bush constantly questioning the strength of John Kerry on the war on terror, but here is a question. Is it better to think twice about what you are doing or to rush in and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq because there was a small chance of a link to terrorism and create scores of new terrorists. Is the President trying to liberate the people of Iraq or protect American lives, because in this case it is one or the other. I'm sorry i got a little excited here, but I find these issues very important to me. I do believe letting Osama Bin Laden go free is something most administrations, Democrat or Republican would have done, but i believe the Iraq War is something not any Republican Administration would have done, just the Bush Administration.
LearJett+ Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 They are attacking us more and more now not because we toppled their dictator; they are attacking us because the administration have planned the aftermath of the Iraq War very poorly.The majority of Iraq, the average Joes, like us. The people attacking us are the extremists. Have you ever seen the do!@#$%^&*entary Farenheight 9/11? You should watch it and see what is really going on. Lmfao... you mean Michael Moores' take on what's really going on? There is too much I can say, I'll just link you>Link< >Link<>Link<I can get you more, if you want. Do you think the monarchy of Saudi Arabia is gonna wake up one day and stop being !@#$%^&*es? they have created a system of the very rich and the very poor and only keep their power with American support. Shouldn't we liberate the people of Saudi Arabia?Do you think GW would get the vote or support if we went to war with Saudi Arabia and our gas prices sky rocketed? No! I do admit that in some aspects George Bush is being a politician, but that's what he is - a politician. do you believe that Kim Jong II of North Korea is going to wake up one day and decide to not be an !@#$%^&*? There has been talk of taking action against North Korea. Saddam may have been tyrannical, but Kim is totally insane. He killed a man once for pushing the wrong button on the elevator - and he has nukes. Saddam wasn't crazy enough to use anything like that (if he had it) whereas Kim is. This topic is dear to me too. People think they are being educated by 'do!@#$%^&*entaries' such as Fahrenheit 9/11 - I think it's a good laugh to watch. My father got his Master's Degree in Middle Eastern relations to become a colonel - and if I could remember to tell you the facts that he's told me - you would support the same ideals that I do. Let the flaming continue !
MonteZuma Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Actually, its easy. Click "ADDREPLY" and go for your life. Right, here I go :-) Ok I will tell you another misconception that burns me. Most Americans believe that the Bush administration has been strong against terrorism. One huge contradiction to this is Osama bin Laden. The president sent troops into Afghanistan to get rid of Alqueda and yet Osama bin Laden slipped through them. In fact, there was a point where troops knew where he was and could have gone and killed him. Yet they did not get an order to do so and instead let him slip throughThe war is on terror - not Bin Laden. The troops knew where he was (a bunch of caves), but could not get to him for the fact that he was in a bunch of caves. Do you honestly think that if our military was able to get/kill Bin Laden, they wouldn't? The government created a fear of Spain as an excuse for the Spanish-American War. Actually, it was the media that did this. The government felt pressure from the people because the media made the people think that the Spanish were evil. (Ever learn about yellow journalism?) It burns me that the average person in the US thinks that the average person in the Middle East hates us. It burns me that we think they don't want us there. There are many, many polls out there that will show you otherwise. In fact, my father is in the Marine Corps and was over there and tells me that they LOVE us. People ignore the fact that countries over there are feeling the pressure because their young population likes democracy and likes freedom. They see us liberating Iraq on tv and it insights them to question their own government. People ignore the fact that some middle eastern countries are having free elections for the first time, or that extremist governments are beginning to step down/compromise for once. The majority of people in oppressed countries want to be free and have rights. The problem is, there are minorities (not in the racial sense) that use violence and threats to keep that majority in check. Do you anti-war people out there really believe that one day Saddam would have just woken up and decided to not be an !@#$%^&*? I'm ready to be flamed on this God-forsaken forum <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Although I'm anti-war, I agree with everything you wrote. :-) I'll reserve judgment on the war with Spain since I know nothing about it. Nice post.
MonteZuma Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Also, people from other countries admire the opportunity and luxury we have here in the United States, but most of them do not really like us. A lot of people from European countries do not even like us. It's not that we are oppressing them, they just do not like us. Maybe they are jealous or maybe they do not like our policies, but to think everyone likes us is pretty !@#$%^&* naive. I think Americans need to get away from this idea that those who don't like 'America' are jealous. This just isn't the case. For some I think it is a case of not approving of the 'decadant' way of life. For others (eg Europe) it is a case of annoyance re US foreign policy. There are other issues, such as treatment of the environment that also come to play from time to time.
MonteZuma Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 ...but Kim is totally insane. He killed a man once for pushing the wrong button on the elevator -Maybe. But I doubt it. It makes a great propaganda story though.
LearJett+ Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Although I'm anti-war, I agree with everything you wrote. :-) I'll reserve judgment on the war with Spain since I know nothing about it. Nice post. Wow that made me feel surprisingly good lol. QUOTE(LearJett+ @ Aug 10 2005, 01:54 PM)...but Kim is totally insane. He killed a man once for pushing the wrong button on the elevator - Maybe. But I doubt it. It makes a great propaganda story though. Probably is propaganda. I read it in a biography once... a shady one though, heh.
AstroProdigy Posted August 10, 2005 Author Report Posted August 10, 2005 Well as for your first link to your source discrediting Fahrenheit 9/11, here is a link discrediting the writer of that article. :-P Not only is the writer a conservative, but he writes some crazy stuff like writing a book insulting Mother Teresa as a "self serving-egotist". With regards to your second link, the writer, David T. Hardy happens to also be a conservate and a gun supporter. linkmetoyomomma Your last link is basically only some guy who made a website taking exerpts from conservatives' opinions. If you are going to get sources against Michael Moore, make sure to not get them from conservatives unless they can back up their opinions the way Michael Moore backed his opinions with VIDEO FOOTAGE. As for Montezuma saying that we should get off thinking the people of other countries are jealous of us, a lot of them really are jealous of us. I was on vacation in Cyprus, which is an island country in the Mediterranean Sea and a part of the Europian Union. You would not believe how they talk about the United States. They constantly insult us and then want to come to the United States for vacation to do their shopping because it is better than their stuff. As for talk of taking out Kim Jong, that is all it is, talk. The administration has shown no sign they would be willing to do this, whereas they were staunchly supporting the invasion of Iraq and not even considering peaceful methods. With North Korea that is all they are talking about actually doing; looking for peaceful ways to solve some of the problems but are not trying to overthrow Kim JongII. Yes, Michael Moore is definetely a liberal and he definetely wants to put his own spin on the facts, but it is hard to argue against video footage. Now I ask you again, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Yes, learjett, only extremist Iraqis are attacking our troops, but the ranks of them is constantly increasing. Why do you think so many of them are suicide bombers and yet theres attacks every day. Where do you think these people come from. Eventually they would all be gone if there was not more of them being created all the time by this administration's actions.
Manus Celer Dei Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 As for Montezuma saying that we should get off thinking the people of other countries are jealous of us, a lot of them really are jealous of us. I was on vacation in Cyprus, which is an island country in the Mediterranean Sea and a part of the Europian Union. You would not believe how they talk about the United States. They constantly insult us and then want to come to the United States for vacation to do their shopping because it is better than their stuff.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> While this may certainly have been the case in your experience, it does not necessarily hold true that the opinions that were presented to you are indicative of a general worldview of the US. shortly after the terrorist bombings in Bali and just before the invasion of Iraq I took a vacation there and at no time did I ever hear mentioned any opinion that even hinted at a jealousy of the US or their lifestyle, rather, the opinions of the people were supportive of the United States' at!@#$%^&*ude towards terrorism. (Bali is incidentally a part of Indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world.) As for talk of taking out Kim Jong, that is all it is, talk. The administration has shown no sign they would be willing to do this, whereas they were staunchly supporting the invasion of Iraq and not even considering peaceful methods. With North Korea that is all they are talking about actually doing; looking for peaceful ways to solve some of the problems but are not trying to overthrow Kim JongII.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course not, noone would be willing to attack a country that actually HAS weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. (it can also be argued that the US couldn't afford to do so while it has so much of its military resources invested in Iraq)
MonteZuma Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 ...he writes some crazy stuff like writing a book insulting Mother Teresa as a "self serving-egotist". lol ...As for Montezuma saying that we should get off thinking the people of other countries are jealous of us, a lot of them really are jealous of us. I was on vacation in Cyprus, which is an island country in the Mediterranean Sea and a part of the Europian Union. You would not believe how they talk about the United States. They constantly insult us and then want to come to the United States for vacation to do their shopping because it is better than their stuff.The fact that Cypriots like American consumer goods doesn't mean that they are jealous. I'd love to visit the US and see and do things that I can't do here too (and no, that doesn't included shopping ), but I'm not jealous of you or your way of life - in fact there are many aspects of American that I disagree with. You visited Cyprus. Did you do that because you were jealous of Cyprus? Did you go there because you liked Cypriots? As for talk of taking out Kim Jong, that is all it is, talk. The administration has shown no sign they would be willing to do this, whereas they were staunchly supporting the invasion of Iraq and not even considering peaceful methods. With North Korea that is all they are talking about actually doing; looking for peaceful ways to solve some of the problems but are not trying to overthrow Kim JongII.I agree in principle, but in relation to Korea, the US has little choice. If you screw around with N. Korea you are screwing around with China, S. Korea, Japan and probably other places like Taiwan and Vietnam. It is something of a powder keg. Iraq is/was too, but in a different way. Yes, learjett, only extremist Iraqis are attacking our troops, but the ranks of them is constantly increasing. Why do you think so many of them are suicide bombers and yet theres attacks every day. Where do you think these people come from. Eventually they would all be gone if there was not more of them being created all the time by this administration's actions.Agreed. Even though the majority of Iraqis might be happy that the US et al overthrew Saddam, there is still a very large group of disaffected people in Iraq and around the world. I really don't think the invasion was a good idea at all because it has encouraged terrorism.
LearJett+ Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 Yes, learjett, only extremist Iraqis are attacking our troops, but the ranks of them is constantly increasing. Why do you think so many of them are suicide bombers and yet theres attacks every day. Where do you think these people come from. Eventually they would all be gone if there was not more of them being created all the time by this administration's actions.Lol it's not like there's just 10 guys in someone's basement that don't like us. There are loads of extemists. I was merely commenting however that the majority of Iraq is in fact favor of us being there. As we speak, the US is trying to make it so that we can train the Iraqis to guard their own country so that we can pull out. Whenever we see on the news about America sending more troops over, it is merely to relieve the ones there already. The local marine detachment around here is actually coming home in about a month. With regards to your second link, the writer, David T. Hardy happens to also be a conservate and a gun supporter. linkmetoyomomma Your last link is basically only some guy who made a website taking exerpts from conservatives' opinions. If you are going to get sources against Michael Moore, make sure to not get them from conservatives unless they can back up their opinions the way Michael Moore backed his opinions with VIDEO FOOTAGE Lol you discount my sources because they are conservatie whereas you support your because they are liberal . As for video footage, I'll go get some consertive footage and make a movie. Deal?
AstroProdigy Posted August 11, 2005 Author Report Posted August 11, 2005 Lol you discount my sources because they are conservatie whereas you support your because they are liberal blink.gif. As for video footage, I'll go get some consertive footage and make a movie. Deal?I did not say I support his opinion because he is liberal; I said despite the fact that he is liberal and has an agenda to his work, it is hard to disagree with video footage and he did not make up the actual facts, he just used them for his own agenda. You should see Fahrenheit 9/11 before you infer it is just random footage thrown together to make the administration look bad. Your first source, however, was really easy to discredit, lol. That guy is a nutjob. As for foreigners being jealous, I did not say they are ALL jealous of us; I said a lot of them are jealous of us. Monte, when I said they insult us and then want our consumer goods, I do not mean they just disagree with some of our policies, I mean they just do not like us. Also, I went to Cyprus because that is where my parents are from and I was visiting relatives. As for the majority of Iraqis being in favor of us being there, it is more like the majority of Iraqis were in favor of us toppling Saddam. As for us have an extended stay in Iraq for at least a decade, much less Iraqis are in favor of that than the former. We are training Iraqis, but they will not be ready to defend their own country without us for several more years. Of course not, noone would be willing to attack a country that actually HAS weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. (it can also be argued that the US couldn't afford to do so while it has so much of its military resources invested in Iraq) The problem is, when they were starting the nuclear program, we were powerless to even try to stop them because most of our troops were stuck in Iraq for a war that will go out in the history books as just another war we fought to oppress other nations. Besides, if we really want to claim this role as the spreaders of democracy and human rights, we should do it with everyone; not pick and choose the countries that can give certain high level officials and their friends a profit. The first rule of a corporation is that you have to make a profit to your stockholders. They are your first priority. !@#$%^&* Cheney did a good job of making a profit for his stockholders at Haliburton. I mean, seriously, they did not even allow for compe!@#$%^&*ion in the contract for the rights to drill in Iraq for oil. That means the Iraqi people get ripped off and the American people get ripped off. Do you ever wonder why the introduction of the second largest deposit of oil in the world into our economy did nothing to reduce oil prices? Someone had to make the profit. If it was not the Iraqi people and not the American people, then it had to be the oil company that made a huge profit. It seems like a crackpot theory, but think about it.
MonteZuma Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 I do not mean they just disagree with some of our policies, I mean they just do not like us.Are you sure that a Brit or Australian or Chinese or Greek or Turkish tourist would not be treated the same way? As for the majority of Iraqis being in favor of us being there, it is more like the majority of Iraqis were in favor of us toppling Saddam.Agreed. Now the US is in a catch-22 situation. To pull out now could destroy any opportunity to build a democratic, pro-US government in Iraq. To stay may lead to never-ending attacks on western interests and more American deaths. The policy of pre-emption has caused the US to be backed into a corner.
Greased_Lightning Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 I'm only going to talk about a couple things because to be honest, I didn't feel like reading all of that... maybe tomorrow I will... anyways... The thing about Osama getting through Tora Bora... That region of Afghanistan is right smack next to Pakistan. It might not have been a really good idea to have a bunch of troops (US, but especially Northern Alliance) rushing towards the Pakistan border. Could have easily been confusion if forces approached the border, either saw or thought they saw hostiles who may in fact have been friendlies. Such a situation like that could get a little out of hand resulting in friendly casualties before things could be sorted out. I saw moores farenheit 911 and the thing that really pissed me off is how he hammered on the fact that GW didn't leave that school immediately upon hearing about the attack. Seriously, what's he going to do in front of a bunch of kids, leap up and say "HOLY !@#$%^&* WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!" and run out of the room causing panic? I went to school that morning and had study hall 1st period so I went into another room to bull!@#$%^&* with some friends and they said a plane crashed into the WTC and they were watching on TV. I didn't think much of it so I said have fun and went back and took a nap. Next period the buildings fell and the Pentagon got hit, then I kinda thought Hmmmm this isn't good. Lastly... not really germane to this discussion, but in my opinion, I think a terrorist strike on a small town would but more fear into people than would another 9/11 type attack. Imagine a well planned terrorist strike on a rural town of, say, 1000-2000 people that kills somewhere between 500-1000... thats 20-50% of the entire town. Local emergency responders would be overwhelmed and due to distances between rural areas, outside help could be several hours from coming.(This would be easy in towns near me that have tanks of anhydrous ammonia on the edge of town, anhydrous ammonia being used as fertilizer...if wind is from a certain direction, an explosion from a tank would go through the town and kill many as the gas hangs for a long time... OR, since this is transported via railroad, derailing such a shipment would be easy as happened near Minot, North Dakota a few years back)A strike on a target as large as New York is hard to defend against, therefore more is spent on defending that than DinkyTown Montana because the people of DinkyTown feel secure in their anonymity, hence making it a perfect target to put real fear into people that no one is secure. Edit: Rural towns of 1000-2000 are actually big for their area, so an attack on a smaller town of 500 or less would be even more devastating and would scare people even more. An entire town wiped out. Think about it. Anyways, I kinda rambled on there for a second, sorry about that, maybe I'll read more tomorrow and think up more pointless stories about DinkyTown.
Recommended Posts