Jump to content

negative affects of media on American politics


Recommended Posts

Dear all,

The affects of 911 left a deep mark on all American citizens as well as all those who love peace. Do you think the media has emphasized too heavily the destruction? Do you think the media has made things look worse than they actually are? Is the media a boon to the United States government? Or is it a total disaster written into the consitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the media has emphasized too heavily the destruction? Do you think the media has made things look worse than they actually are? Is the media a boon to the United States government?

No, they have minimized the destruction. They refuse to even show the film of people diving out of the towers to their death. If they did show this, it would arouse the American public and that would help President Bush - and the media is dominated by liberals so they do everything possible to thwart support for President Bush.

The media is not a boon to the present US government. Now when Clinton was in power, it was a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it is not a boon to the United States government at present. Though i don't think the government was too kind to Clinton after Monica came along. But I don't think there should be support for any type of war. Yes, you could say I'm a liberal but I don't think Bush was justified at all to attack Iraq, yet I read a report that Bush has a 10% cushion over Kerry. How is this possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't think there should be support for any type of war.

No one likes war, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Would you support going to war against Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII?

...I don't think Bush was justified at all to attack Iraq...

Why not? There were numerous justifications to do so.

1) Iraq broke the ceasefire conditions that they agreed to in 1991.

2) Iraq constantly shot at American pilots in the no-fly zone.

3) Iraq attempted to assassinate a former US president.

4) Iraq openly sponsored terrrorism. Saddam even paid the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers. It wasn't only Israelis who were killed; Americans were killed too.

5) Iraq broke 17 UN resolutions - the last one (1441) warning of "dire consequences" if he didn't abide.

6) Iraq allowed the Al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 to train in Salmon Pak in Iraq, as Clinton appointed federal judge Harold Baer ruled when he awarded two 9/11 families a $104 million judgement against the state of Iraq.

...yet I read a report that Bush has a 10% cushion over Kerry. How is this possible?

Simply put, Kerry is a terrible candidate who is running a terrible campaign, is not a likeable person (he comes across as an elitist), flipflops constantly on issues, and is perceived to be very liberal - which doesn't go over too well in the USA.

Have you ever seen a candidate have such a disasterous month as Kerry did in August? Nearly every day his campaign had a mishap.

Remember his acceptance speech at the DNC? It was surreal. The salute and "reporting for duty" comment. Even CNN was perplexed about him spending only 26 seconds of a 55 minute speech talking about his 19 years in the Senate. Instead it seemed like he talked for 26 minutes talking about his 4 months on a Swift Boat in Vietnam 35 years ago. Really really strange. :blink:

If the media wasn't so biased in the USA, he would probably be behind by 25 points. Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek admitted that the media (with the exception of Fox News) wants Kerry to win and that they were going to portray Kerry in as good as light as possible and that it should be good for 15 points.

Also, if you go to opensecrets.org, you will see that 24 of the top 25 "527" organizations are pro-Democrat. The only Repulbican one is at #9. Despite all the constant bashing of President Bush by these organizations, he is still ahead and I am quite sure, will win.

Plus people underestimate Bush. Most liberals (I'm not directing this at you) think conservatives are stupid. Remember how they portrayed Reagan? Same way as they portray Bush. Yet Reagan is considered to gbe one of the greater US presidents. I think Bush is much much smarter than people think he is - despite his pronounciation gaffes - and he surrounds himself with smart people in his administration.

He's not the greatest Prez ever (he spends money like a drunken Ted Kennedy and has made govt bigger, which is something that conservatives are not noted for), but it is going to take someone much better than Kerry to beat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they have minimized the destruction. They refuse to even show the film of people diving out of the towers to their death. If they did show this, it would arouse the American public and that would help President Bush - and the media is dominated by liberals so they do everything possible to thwart support for President Bush.

They refused to show people plummeting to their deaths because it's bad taste. Imagine ho wyou'd feel if you were watching TV and bore witness to one of your loved one's last horrifying moments? It has nothing to do with politics.

Liberal dominated media? Jesus. :rolleyes:

Iraq allowed the Al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 to train in Salmon Pak in Iraq, as Clinton appointed federal judge Harold Baer ruled when he awarded two 9/11 families a $104 million judgement against the state of Iraq.

That certainly doesn't jibe with official statements from the U.S. administration. Common sense would indicate that if tehre were any hard evidence of an Iraq connection to 9-11, Bush et al would be trumpeting it from teh roof tops and on every corner.

Selective Intelligence

Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Have you ever seen a candidate have such a disasterous month as Kerry did in August? Nearly every day his campaign had a mishap.

Yet the race is still more or less a dead heat. How about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how the portray Bush over in Montegomery but over here, he's like worst president ever. He must be like Hitler to the Muslims. Tell me....where's the weapons? Where's Osama? I suggest everybody takes a walk outside of North America for a change. And Canadians, stop being a suck up to Americans. That goes for the British too. And about the UN crap....didn't the UN vote against going to war against Iraq? So who gave Bush the right to go and fight? His daddy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They refused to show people plummeting to their deaths because it's bad taste. Imagine ho wyou'd feel if you were watching TV and bore witness to one of your loved one's last horrifying moments? It has nothing to do with politics.

Odd. Makes one wonder why they are demanding to photograph soldier's coffins coming back from Iraq. But like you said, it has nothing to do with politics. :rolleyes:

Liberal dominated media? Jesus.

Gee, wonder where I get that from? :unsure:

Maybe the Pew Research survey from a couple of months back? Maybe the fact that 89 of the 96 reporters in the Washington press pool voted Democrat in 2000? Maybe the NY Times polling reporters at the DNC where the reporters favored Kerry 3 to 1 and the Washington reporters favoring Kerry 12 to 1? Maybe it was the forged documents on CBS? The AP reporting boos at the Bush rally when Clinton's name was mentioned - when no such thing happened? The 2 days spent on the Nick Berg beheading story, but the months spent on Abu Ghraib "torture"? The fact that every time someone writes a book critizing Bush gets an automatic spot on 60 Minutes? The Sandy Berger "stuffing top secret documents down his pants" story getting buried by the press (The NY Times broke the story on page A-18)? Months of Joe Wilson and the "Bush ignored my no uranium in Niger claim", only to have the story disappear in a day or two after the 9/11 Commission determined that he lied?

Wherever do I get this liberal media bias thing? I must be paranoid. :rolleyes:

That certainly doesn't jibe with official statements from the U.S. administration. Common sense would indicate that if tehre were any hard evidence of an Iraq connection to 9-11, Bush et al would be trumpeting it from teh roof tops and on every corner.

The operative word being "hard" evidence. It was a civil case, which means that guilt only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

How would the Bush administration be able to trumpet it from the rooftops and on every corner, when the liberal media would just ignore the story? They ignored the findings of this court case. Do a google search. I think there are 5 or 6 articles about it. Most people have no clue what I am talking about when I bring it up.

Selective Intelligence

You linked to a Seymour Hersh article. :lol:

This guy is the Robert Fisk of American mainstream journalism. His newest Bush-bashing book just got a terrible review (from a liberal newspaper) for its anonymous secondhand sources. This is the guy who last year wrote in the NY Times about the "quagmire in Iraq" about 3 days before Baghdad fell. :D

Yet the race is still more or less a dead heat. How about that.

How about it is not "more or less" a dead heat? I have seen only one poll that had it tied, but I have seen a few that have Bush ahead by double digits. He's also turned things around in the "battleground" states. Like I said above, Evan Thomas of Newsweek said that the media's cheerleading for Kerry would give him a 15 point boost. Just think where Kery would be if the media was fair and balanced. I would guess he would be behind 20 to 25 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd. Makes one wonder why they are demanding to photograph soldier's coffins coming back from Iraq. But like you said, it has nothing to do with politics

Who was "demanding" to see the coffins?

Wherever do I get this liberal media bias thing? I must be paranoid.

At least you're honest about your paranoid delusions.

The operative word being "hard" evidence. It was a civil case, which means that guilt only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

How would the Bush administration be able to trumpet it from the rooftops and on every corner, when the liberal media would just ignore the story? They ignored the findings of this court case. Do a google search. I think there are 5 or 6 articles about it. Most people have no clue what I am talking about when I bring it up.

Oh yes, I'm sure. :rolleyes: "Well, Mr. president, we have evidence that concretely connects Iraq with the 9-11 attacks. This evidence would solidify your popularity and demonstrate that attacking Iraq was justified in the context of the war on terror. However, due to that gosh-darned liberal media, we shouldn't ever relesase this evidence and, in fact, should mak epublic statements denying any connection between Saddam and Al Q'aeda." :rolleyes:

The article I linked to showed that U.S. intelligence was aware of what wa shapppening at Salman Pak and it had nothing to do with terrorism and 9-11.

You linked to a Seymour Hersh article. 

This guy is the Robert Fisk of American mainstream journalism. His newest Bush-bashing book just got a terrible review (from a liberal newspaper) for its anonymous secondhand sources. This

Attack the substance, not the source. Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. You are a nobody on a chat board. Who has more credibility?

is the guy who last year wrote in the NY Times about the "quagmire in Iraq" about 3 days before Baghdad fell 

That would be the same quagmire that the U.S. is currently mired in yes?

How about it is not "more or less" a dead heat? I have seen only one poll that had it tied, but I have seen a few that have Bush ahead by double digits. He's also turned things around in the "battleground" states.

In the 2000 welection, Gore led Bush by double digits as little as a week before election day. Zogby's (which is regared as one of the most acurate pollsters) has a 3 point spread between the two in their latest poll. Most others have a spread of five points or less. Gallup's 14 point Bush lead is so out of step with the rest, I would question it's veracity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how the portray Bush over in Montegomery...

Er, Montgomery Burns is a character off The Simpsons TV show.

...but over here, he's like worst president ever.

Where is "over here?"

He must be like Hitler to the Muslims.

Probably more like Ronald Reagan. He has liberated over 50 million Muslims. How many Muslims has "over here" liberated from tyranny?

Tell me....where's the weapons?

Remember those sarin-filled shells the Polish troops found? The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas. (July 2, 2004)

May 19, 2004

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin .

April 26, 2004

Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria.

Since Israeli and US intelligence saw many trucks fleeing to Syria before the enforcement of international law began against Saddam, what do you think about this? Intelligence agencies throughout the world say that Syria lacks chemical weapons, where do you think these came from? Does Al Qaeda have 20 tons of chemicals in their caves on the Afghan/Pakistan border? ;)

May 17, 2004

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an ]IED

June 17, 2004

U.N confirms that Iraqi WMD components found in Rotterdam scrapyard

October 1, 2003

Kuwaiti security forces foiled an attempted smuggling of $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country

Don't forget David Kay's report where he cited; 1) chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval; 2) reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist); 3) new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin; 4) a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans; 5) long-range missiles (prohibited by UN resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs; 6) documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea, and 7) facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Wake up, Han. I shouldn't have to do your hokmework for you.

Where's Osama?

Dunno. Some say he is dead and some say he is hiding in a cave somewhere in the mountainous range near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

I suggest everybody takes a walk outside of North America for a change.

Been there, done that - and I wasn't overly impressed.

And Canadians, stop being a suck up to Americans.

:lol: Some Canadians consider their American neighbors friends, but some also hate Americans. Canadians are relentlessly indoctrinated by the state-run CBC news to dislike Americans - or I should say - conservative Americans. Candians are also taught to despise Americans by members of the ruling Liberal Party, who has had many members publically call Americans derogatory names, despite the fact that they are Canada's best customer, as they buy 85% of Canada's trade. Not to mention the fact that they protect Canada. It is doubtful that Canada could defend itself if attacked. The Liberal Party has allowed the Canadian military to woefully deteoriate.

And about the UN crap....didn't the UN vote against going to war against Iraq?

Well, if you consider France (who blocked the vote to protect the dirty dealing they were doing with Saddam) the UN, then I guess the answer is yes.

Arrogantly, France tried to interfere in the USA's right to defend itself, essentially, they tried to interfere with America's sovereignty.

So who gave Bush the right to go and fight? His daddy?

Uh no. It was the American people who gave Bush the right - through the people they voted into Congress.

PS montgomery I suggest you read The Irrational Hatred of George W. Bush.

Never heard of it. Even a google search produced nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was "demanding" to see the coffins?

Liberal commentators.

At least you're honest about your paranoid delusions.

My obvious sarcasm flew right over your head.

Oh yes, I'm sure. "Well, Mr. president, we have evidence that concretely connects Iraq with the 9-11 attacks. This evidence would solidify your popularity and demonstrate that attacking Iraq was justified in the context of the war on terror. However, due to that gosh-darned liberal media, we shouldn't ever relesase this evidence and, in fact, should mak epublic statements denying any connection between Saddam and Al Q'aeda."

The very nature of intelligence is murky and counter-intelligence is designed to throw up smokescreens. Rarely is it ever "concrete evidence". As for American popularity, one judges a country by the number of people coming and leaving. I still see people risking life and limb to get to America. OTOH, about 15% of the Iraqi population fled from your beloved Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

And the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan commission; it was not the Bush administration.

Attack the substance, not the source. Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. You are a nobody on a chat board. Who has more credibility?

I prefer to disregard the source. Seymour Hersh is a well-known Bush-hater. If the left can atack Fox News as "ALL LIES!", then I can disregard Seymour Hersh.

Who has more credibility? I do. I never called Iraq a quagmire (which was a windstorm) a couple of days before Baghdad fell. And the Pulitzer Prize is given to liberals because the media is dominated by liberals. How many Pulitizer Prizes did the NY Times get, despite the Jayson Blair scandal which caused the managing editor to be forced to resign. Remember how many Pulitzers the very leftwing LA Times has gotten?

Do you know if Dan Rather & CBS getting a Pulitzer? :D

I kid. I know it is only given to newspapers...atleast I think it is. :unsure:

That would be the same quagmire that the U.S. is currently mired in yes?

Really? Wow. I wonder what you call WWII, then. A super duper quagmire? :rolleyes:

Zogby's (which is regared as one of the most acurate pollsters)...

Er, no. Zogby's is considered to be very helpful to the left. Their polls usually tilt to the Democrat candidate.

...has a 3 point spread between the two in their latest poll. Most others have a spread of five points or less. Gallup's 14 point Bush lead is so out of step with the rest, I would question it's veracity.

Perhaps, but there were also 3 polls done by Newsweek and Time - all of them giving Bush double digit leads. Personally, I suspect it is probably in the high single digits. Btw, you forgot about the change in the polls in the swing states.

Remember that population shifts have given Bush an advantage this election. He won 271-267 in 2000, but those same states today would be 278-260 for Bush. Kerry must win all the states that Gore won, plus pick up a midsized state (10 electoral votes) to win.

I don't think he can do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal commentators.

Like who? Citations?

My obvious sarcasm flew right over your head.

No I just chose to write off your screed for what it was: delusional ramblings.

The very nature of intelligence is murky and counter-intelligence is designed to throw up smokescreens. Rarely is it ever "concrete evidence".

Given the credence given to the dubious WMD claims trumpeted as the causus belli before the war, I would expect that any "evidence" of a Iraq link to 9-11 would be expolited fully.

As for American popularity, one judges a country by the number of people coming and leaving. I still see people risking life and limb to get to America. OTOH, about 15% of the Iraqi population fled from your beloved Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

WTF? This is appropos of nothing.

And the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan commission; it was not the Bush administration.

bUSH REJECTS sADDAM 9-11 LINK

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."

-President Bush

I prefer to disregard the source.

Then you don't really have any argument.

Who has more credibility? I do. I never called Iraq a quagmire (which was a windstorm) a couple of days before Baghdad fell.

Given the quagmire-like state of affairs, it seems Sy Hersh made the right call.

Really? Wow. I wonder what you call WWII, then. A super duper quagmire? 

I don't think you understand what a quagmire is.

Why We Can't Win

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

Er, no. Zogby's is considered to be very helpful to the left. Their polls usually tilt to the Democrat candidate.

Er,...no. In the last election, Zogby's was the most accurate polling firm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing about the bias of media misses the point entirely.

Look at the issues you're discussing - scandals, gaffes and graphic violence. This should give you a clue as to the real problem. There is a dearth of suitable information available to the mass public. The information given is either too detailed, or entertainment-based.

Why is the news entertainment-based ?

Because media organizations need to sell information to make money. They will only behave "journalistically" if doing so helps that prime directive. Entertaining news reaches a mass audience and attracts advertisers.

But making oneself aware of issues requires paying attention to less entertaining aspects of the headlines.

The information on such issues is only available to the patient, and the studious.

Therein lies our problem - we're trying to make reasonable decisions based on sideshows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like who? Citations?

I've read and seen that mentioned on TV many times. It took me about a second and a half to find this from Newsweek.

I suppose you will call Newsweek a conservative magazine. :rolleyes:

The title:

Would the media give more coverage to U.S. fatalities in Iraq if we were allowed to see the flag-draped coffins coming home?

Martha Brant whines:

But there are no images of flag-draped coffins in this war to remind people of the human price being paid...such images would create pressure on the administration...
No I just chose to write off your screed for what it was: delusional ramblings.

Doesn't say much for you, then. I've been kicking your butt all day on this forum. :P

Given the credence given to the dubious WMD claims trumpeted as the causus belli before the war, I would expect that any "evidence" of a Iraq link to 9-11 would be expolited fully.

What are you talking about? Every intelligence source in the world said Iraq had not gotten rid of their WMD. Even the last UNMOVIC report from March 6/03 - three months after the final deadline the UN set for Saddam's full disclosure and a mere 14 days before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire began - was full of such items as "Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

WTF? This is appropos of nothing.

No, it is apropos of your earlier comment. People do not flock to a country they hate that is full of people they hate.

bUSH REJECTS 9-11 LINK

You really should read the article you linked to - from the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation - instead of just reading the headline.

As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush said, "What the vice-president said was is that he [saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda.  And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."

Then you don't really have any argument.

Why should I waste my time trying to argue with a screeching moonbat with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), like Sy Hersh? He is an avid Bush-hater who made a fool out of himself with his "it's a quagmire" statement 3 days before Baghdad fell.

Given the quagmire-like state of affairs, it seems Sy Hersh made the right call.

I don't think you know the definition of quagmire. It is hard. Bush always said it would be. He has never said it would be a cakewalk.

But precarious and a predicament? I don't think so. 1000 casualties (combat and non-combat) in 1.5 years? At this rate, it will take the terrorists 210 years to knock off the US military in Iraq. Compare where Iraq is at this stage versus Japan and Germany at this stage after WWII.

Why we can't win?

Mr. Lorentz is entitled to his opinion, but I would give more weight to the commanders in Iraq. Besides, his whole premise is based on the badwill the US is getting by civilians getting killed during fighting lately. However, it is the terrorists who have been killing more civilians lately and are losing support amongst the Iraqi people. Look at the last 2 cities the US cleaned out; both times they got significant tips and assistance from the Iraqi people who are fed up with the terrorists massacring Iraqi citizens.

Er,...no. In the last election, Zogby's was the most accurate polling firm.

Um, no. Zogby had Gore ahead in Tennessee and we all know that Gore lost his home state. Zogby made its rep last election by being the only pollster to do a poll on the last weekend before the election - which was held on Tuesday. Zogby was able to report that Gore had rallied back from being behind because that Democrat slimeball released the story of Bush getting a DUI years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read and seen that mentioned on TV many times. It took me about a second and a half to find this from Newsweek.

Well, finally a citation. And it only took three tries.

Now, what's your point? That graphic images of people plunging to their deaths would help Bush, but photos of flag-draped coffins would hurt him?

Once again, however, your logic is faulty in that you assume your conclusion is the only valid one. In other words: the only explanation, in your view, for the refusal to show images of people dying, is because of political bias. Occam's Razor, would simply state that no news outlet would show any such material. Again: there's no political bias at work only good taste and decency (you may have to look those words up).

What are you talking about? Every intelligence source in the world said Iraq had not gotten rid of their WMD. Even the last UNMOVIC report from March 6/03 - three months after the final deadline the UN set for Saddam's full disclosure and a mere 14 days before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire began - was full of such items as "Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

Irrelevant to the point, which was that Salman Pak, if it were in actuality a terrorist base, would have been declared such in no uncertain terms. However, there's no evidence to indicate it was used in connection with 9-11 and official statements have reflected as much.

QUOTE 

WTF? This is appropos of nothing.

No, it is apropos of your earlier comment. People do not flock to a country they hate that is full of people they hate.

Uh...you pulled that out of nowhere.

I don't think you know the definition of quagmire. It is hard. Bush always said it would be. He has never said it would be a cakewalk.

But precarious and a predicament? I don't think so. 1000 casualties (combat and non-combat) in 1.5 years? At this rate, it will take the terrorists 210 years to knock off the US military in Iraq. Compare where Iraq is at this stage versus Japan and Germany at this stage after WWII.

Of course, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. In simple terms, a quagmire is a state of affairs wherein the U.S. cannot achieve its objectives, but cannot withdraw. They're stuck.

(See the excellent opening post to "Why Iraq will never be a democracy" on this board.)

Mr. Lorentz is entitled to his opinion, but I would give more weight to the commanders in Iraq. Besides, his whole premise is based on the badwill the US is getting by civilians getting killed during fighting lately. However, it is the terrorists who have been killing more civilians lately and are losing support amongst the Iraqi people. Look at the last 2 cities the US cleaned out; both times they got significant tips and assistance from the Iraqi people who are fed up with the terrorists massacring Iraqi citizens.

What cities did the U.S. "clean out"? :lol: The insurgency is still active and is growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear all,

The affects of 911 left a deep mark on all American citizens as well as all those who love peace. Do you think the media has emphasized too heavily the destruction? Do you think the media has made things look worse than they actually are? Is the media a boon to the United States government? Or is it a total disaster written into the consitution?

The media tv networks are in the advertising business. Everything, and I mean everything, is subservient to selling their ads, and anything that gets in the way is relentlessly crushed.

The news in the way it is presented is very destructive to us as human beings and as society as a whole. If one spent a lot of time watching the news, one could easily become a very negative, paranoid person. The news does not in any way represent an average cross-section of societial behaviour. It shows basically the freaks.

As I stated above, the raison d'etre for the media is selling their ads. They couldn't give a rat's ass what news is presented, as long as it is depressing, ugly, and dismal.

The idea is to make you feel so bad that in desperation you will turn to the products they are advertising for relief to make yourself feel better. Why do you think the news is prime time? Do you really thing the crap they show on the news is connected or relates to the average citizen?

There is only one way to feel better. Turn off the TV, get off the couch, go and have a walk, a run, a swim, go to the symphony, or the art gallery, or make love, or go to a laughter workshop, etc.

As long as you subject yourself to the news you cannot help but become depressed and eventually become dependant on the drug industry for relief. Is that the life you wish for yourself? :blink:

The media is one of, if not the most, destructive elements we have in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What troubles me about Wells' article is the ease with which he brushes off Meech. Meech lake has been creeping in over the years in spite of the rejection of its principles by the whole people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Mr. Burns....do you remember everything you read or something? J Christ. So America protecting itself is attacking Iraq? And these WMD, how do they compare to what the US has? And how come I never came across these reports? And liberated 50 million muslims. STFU...that's why there's a bloody civil war going on in Iraq, that's why there's so many terrorists against the United States, that's why Bush is so POPULAR pointing fingers around (at Syria, Iran). Allah must smile his ass off at Bush. And by the way....are you by any chance a Republican?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They refused to show people plummeting to their deaths because it's bad taste. Imagine ho wyou'd feel if you were watching TV and bore witness to one of your loved one's last horrifying moments? It has nothing to do with politics.

Odd. Makes one wonder why they are demanding to photograph soldier's coffins coming back from Iraq.

Pardon me? What sort of thinking allows you to equate the portrayal of victims in the throes of their deaths with the decorous return of honourable dead service-people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...