Wmd

[danyj]

Isn't it funny, that after 2 years of war in Iraq, America found no weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? America was making a big fuss over how Iraq had nuclear weapons and stuff like that, however they found none! Also, America is still in Iraq! :o

[the mask]

its funny how no-one is allowed to go into america to inspect their weapons of mass destruction??.....mmm....

[Mad Cat]

You say America is still in Iraq, do you understand what would happen if they all pulled out?

Several religious factions are already at eachothers throats, each of them could easily become a new Saddam. If they left Iraq right now, about 100,000 people would be dead in the same day.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@18 April 2004 - 05:45
You say America is still in Iraq, do you understand what would happen if they all pulled out?

Several religious factions are already at eachothers throats, each of them could easily become a new Saddam. If they left Iraq right now, about 100,000 people would be dead in the same day.
who would have thought that would happen? :rolleyes: I wonder....have we made things better...or worse?

As for the WMD....well we started on that, then they weren't found and it became a war to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator ( some spin was needed). I find it hard to believe that we would be in Iraq if it wasn't for the oil fields and Bush is an oil man.

[J'Pol]

I believe the handover of power, to the Iraqi authorities, is scheduled for 30 June.

The coalition forces really cannot leave before that. I doubt very much if the new ruler(s) in Iraq will want them to leave.

Whatever the case, that is the real watershed in this whole issue.

The Mask.

If anyone wishes to search the USA for WMD they can certainly try it.

[the mask]

that is exactly my point j'pol, the bush administration find every other country accountable for WMD's or crimes but need to look at themselves first, and i dont think china would have a problem in trying to have a look in the USA for weapons of mass destruction. the US government are to proud of themselves but every dog has its day...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by the mask@18 April 2004 - 17:31
i dont think china would have a problem in trying to have a look in the USA for weapons of mass destruction.
You can't possibly believe that.

[the mask]

unfortunately, the media is mainly in favour of the US and its army, this is how and why the US forces are hyped up so much but do you ever hear of the US medling in china's affairs. they even got scared from korea because they are some crazy people (and i mean that in a good sense-no offence to any koreans), the US government only poke their nose in where they know they will not come out the underdog like vietnam. going back to the media bit, this is why there is a disagreement whenever al-jazeera and other foreign stations broadcast because they throw a different light on things that are actually happening. if there is no single country out there to take on the US then the US government has to implement the 'divide and rule' policy to make sure that a couple of americas enemies dont unite and challenge them. the cries of the oppressed will be heard one day soon.

[bujub22]

all good points ! ;) but-

china will never inspect the u.s. becuz they would never let them!
why -huroshima-pearl harbor!!!

and wmd :lol: everybody know bush wanted oil ,he went there on the hunt for osama failed, terrisism failed ,saddam well ..that he won but did it for as whole another cause (cough)oil <_< then jus to turn it around and now say were helpin iraq :lol: jus want that oil :D


but what america should do is stop involing are selfs in other country affairs and reall y focus on homeland issues like poverty,jobs and schools.

[chalice]

Originally posted by bujub22@18 April 2004 - 17:14
china will never inspect the u.s. becuz they would never let them&#33;
why -huroshima-pearl harbor&#33;&#33;&#33;
That was Japan.

[dwightfry]

Actually this thing is all my fault. I took a vacation in Iraq a few weeks before the war and I took the WMD home with me....sorry about the misunderstanding.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by chalice+18 April 2004 - 18:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 18 April 2004 - 18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bujub22@18 April 2004 - 17:14
china will never inspect the u.s. becuz they would never let them&#33;
why -huroshima-pearl harbor&#33;&#33;&#33;
That was Japan. [/b][/quote]
So, why should that make a difference.

They look the same don&#39;t they.

The USA and Canada, that&#39;s the same place as well. Or Australia and New Zealand.

[chalice]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+18 April 2004 - 17:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 18 April 2004 - 17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by chalice@18 April 2004 - 18:17
<!--QuoteBegin-bujub22@18 April 2004 - 17:14
china will never inspect the u.s. becuz they would never let them&#33;
why -huroshima-pearl harbor&#33;&#33;&#33;
That was Japan.
So, why should that make a difference.

They look the same don&#39;t they.

The USA and Canada, that&#39;s the same place as well. Or Australia and New Zealand. [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes:

[bujub22]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+18 April 2004 - 13:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 18 April 2004 - 13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by chalice@18 April 2004 - 18:17
<!--QuoteBegin-bujub22@18 April 2004 - 17:14
china will never inspect the u.s. becuz they would never let them&#33;
why -huroshima-pearl harbor&#33;&#33;&#33;
That was Japan.
So, why should that make a difference.

They look the same don&#39;t they.

The USA and Canada, that&#39;s the same place as well. Or Australia and New Zealand. [/b][/quote]
damn tootin it is&#33; :rolleyes: :D


but really they still would never go for it &#33;

[the mask]

thanks bujub, im glad im not the only one who beleives this. its also strange that the &#39;almighty america&#39;, whenever they want to go to war with someone they always have to go as a united force, if they are a powerful as they hype themselves up to be then why dont they go and fight someone all alone or are they too scared. it would be unfair that if i wanted to fight you, that i bring 20 of my friends with me to kick you in. what does that say about me - that im a pussy of course. now you can apply that same rule you know where.

[BigBank_Hank]

Your point about the media being in favor of the US isn&#39;t true. The elite media in the is for the most part is liberal and were and still are against the war and there coverage supports their beliefs. You&#39;ll never hear how great of a job our troops are doing, how well there are handling insurgences and gorilla attacks. But they do love to point out how many were killed in a roadside attack, or that they fired upon a mosque that wasn&#39;t supposed to be fried at, but what they forgot to mention is that there were militants hiding in the mosque firing rocket propelled grenade at troops and they responded to threats.

As for where are the WMD&#39;s. If there were that easy to find we would have found them a long time ago. See that&#39;s what happens when you hide things, it makes them difficult to find. What makes it even more difficult is when you ship them to neighboring countries like Iran and Syria. Some of the weapons that he has are hidden in the middle of the desert and some of them have been destroyed. But you have to be pretty naive to think that he wasn&#39;t hiding anything over there or he would have allowed UN inspectors free will to search when and where the wanted to.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@18 April 2004 - 12:52
Your point about the media being in favor of the US isn&#39;t true. The elite media in the is for the most part is liberal and were and still are against the war and there coverage supports their beliefs. You&#39;ll never hear how great of a job our troops are doing, how well there are handling insurgences and gorilla attacks. But they do love to point out how many were killed in a roadside attack, or that they fired upon a mosque that wasn&#39;t supposed to be fried at, but what they forgot to mention is that there were militants hiding in the mosque firing rocket propelled grenade at troops and they responded to threats.

As for where are the WMD&#39;s. If there were that easy to find we would have found them a long time ago. See that&#39;s what happens when you hide things, it makes them difficult to find. What makes it even more difficult is when you ship them to neighboring countries like Iran and Syria. Some of the weapons that he has are hidden in the middle of the desert and some of them have been destroyed. But you have to be pretty naive to think that he wasn&#39;t hiding anything over there or he would have allowed UN inspectors free will to search when and where the wanted to.
the media is supposed to report, not congratulate. One may think they are biased but that will always be dependent on which side of the fence one sits.

I can&#39;t say one way or the other as to if Iraq had an arsenal of WMD...but to say that because we haven&#39;t found any is just proof that they are hidden....well...

It has been admitted that they "probably" didn&#39;t have the weapons that it was thought they had

let&#39;s take the point made earlier about the USA allowing inspection of our WMD, we wouldn&#39;t allow it, so what makes anyone think that Saddam would ? It doesn&#39;t matter that he invaded another country a decade ago (we aren&#39;t exactly without guilt there)..he did what any leader would do concerning national security of their country. The Arab nations are very proud peoples and to just let the "infidels" come in and roam free through their homes would be insulting and demeaning to them. His refusal could be more about pride than trying to hide something, we may never know the truth.
Don&#39;t misunderstand me, i think Saddam was and is an evil man and i&#39;m glad to see the back of him, however he may not have been the threat to world peace that we have been told he was.

[danyj]

I think the most of the media shows a favour to US. The media helped the bush in proving that going into Iraq was the right thing. As for the weapons of mass destruction, i doubt there are any. This is what happened during the cold war. America thought that Russians were so powerful and had a lot of army and shit like that, when the russians didn&#39;t. This is what Bush is doing. He is using propaganda to show that Iraq has lots of WMDs when they don&#39;t. As for the war, i think its a good thing that Saddam is kicked out. Now all America needs to do is get the hell out of there and out in a leader. (i guess that won&#39;t be happening soon) :lol:

[bujub22]

there prob lots of wmd over there ,there jus to much desert and mountains to search ??

but i believe they my not have a nuke,but they def got bio weapon&#33;
dirty bombs and stuff ,that and the most craziest suicude bomber in the world ;)


and to take the subject a lil off topic - why do they say it&#39;s in the name of god
when did god talk to u ?huh when a man say&#39;s hey god talk to me&#33;...majority of the time your gettin the white jacket and an apple&#33;

but also why would god tell you to kill another ??
when he tried so hard to make everyone see eye to eye


not to be rude or disrespect anybody but his god sound&#39;s like a sweet pussy&#33;

[danyj]

They say that the war is in the name of god or "holy war" becuase America is seen as a Christian country and the ppl attacking America are muslims(NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE AGAINST AMERICA....ONLY BIN LADEN AND HIS GOAT :lol: ) THat is why they call this a holy war. And in answering your question to
but also why would god tell you to kill another ?? yes the Quran says to kill UNBELIEVERS, however it also says to be kind to everyone, so....... i will let you come to a conclusion on that question :) :lookaround:

[the mask]

yes the Quran says to kill UNBELIEVERS, however it also says to be kind to everyone, so....... i will let you come to a conclusion on that question

what you have just said there danyj will be taken out of context. you must remember that the prophet mohammed (PBUH) did not go around just killing non-muslims, there was a diplomatic method implemented. messages were sent to other governments in that day for non-muslim leaders and countries to accept islam, if not then pay taxes to the muslims and if not then go to war. so stating that so harshly is a bit to much. as you know the word islam in arabic means peace, its just such a shame that a few fundamentalists are hijacking islam to promote their own agenda.

[bujub22]

[QUOTE]yes the Quran says to kill UNBELIEVERS,

i want to see a quote from there book on that&#33; time for google

but that&#39;s kinda like juhovah witnesses they say only a few will see the holy land ,hell they even give a number :lol:

to me a johovah witness should be a more exclusive club , religion whatever
i don&#39;t think u want ol charlie skippin in front of u ,when all he did was show up to prayier and never donated but u get denied for being 1 number off and been faithful to your beliefs&#33; :lol: :lol:

[the mask]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm

islam does not allow the killing of innocent non-muslims

[danyj]

this is taken from the Quran.

9.123: O you who believe&#33; fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

This proves that they have to kill the unbelievers, however like i said b4 the Quran says to be kind to everyone.

[bujub22]

u know ...this whole world goin to hell&#33; :(

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@18 April 2004 - 16:38
It doesn&#39;t matter that he invaded another country a decade ago (we aren&#39;t exactly without guilt there)..he did what any leader would do concerning national security of their country.
So you honestly think that he invaded Kuwait because they were a security concern to Iraq? I bet that it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Kuwait.

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+18 April 2004 - 17:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 18 April 2004 - 17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@18 April 2004 - 16:38
It doesn&#39;t matter that he invaded another country a decade ago (we aren&#39;t exactly without guilt there)..he did what any leader would do concerning national security of their country.
So you honestly think that he invaded Kuwait because they were a security concern to Iraq? I bet that it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Kuwait.

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had. [/b][/quote]
let me clarify that one....he was supposed to allow the inspectors in after the gulf war and i was talking about the inspectors and why he didn&#39;t want them. It has been argued that he was a vanquished agressor so he should let them in. I didn&#39;t say he invaded kwait because they were a security risk.
It has been debated on the forum before...why doesn&#39;t the usa "liberate" other countries such as Zimbabwe?...the plain truth is that it wouldn&#39;t benefit us so for those countries with little to offer we decide that "we have no business interfering "...but a country with oil..................
Where are the contracts going for the oil fields in Iraq? Who has the rebuild contracts? the Iraqis?..........................

[danyj]

bujub22 Posted on 18 April 2004 - 20:17
&nbsp; u know ...this whole world goin to hell&#33;

That means there is a god? :o :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

I didn&#39;t say he invaded kwait because they were a security risk.



It doesn&#39;t matter that he invaded another country a decade ago (we aren&#39;t exactly without guilt there)..he did what any leader would do concerning national security of their country.


If we were just to liberate countries that are only rich in oil then what about Afghanistan? I guess that we sent troops in there because of their of all the oil fields that they have <_< Its just not logistically possible to help every single country everywhere, you can&#39;t help everyone everywhere its just not possible.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@18 April 2004 - 20:24
If we were just to liberate countries that are only rich in oil then what about Afghanistan? I guess that we sent troops in there because of their of all the oil fields that they have <_< Its just not logistically possible to help every single country everywhere, you can&#39;t help everyone everywhere its just not possible.
Afganistan was the war on terror...9:11 and the hunt fo bin laden...the taliban shielded him. (didn&#39;t the usa support the taliban because the practically stopped the opium trade?)

i fully agree about helping every country but i was responding to your post saying
We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had. :)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 01:42

So you honestly think that he invaded Kuwait because they were a security concern to Iraq? I bet that it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Kuwait.

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.
So you honestly think that he invaded Iraq because they were a security concern to USA? I bet it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Iraq.

As to the 2nd part, i suggest you go and look through the History books..maybe a good starting point is why Cuba was ripe for Revolution and throwing the USA out. Or maybe China (along with just about every European Country) at the end of the 19th Century/start of the 20th.. or...


If we were just to liberate countries that are only rich in oil then what about Afghanistan? I guess that we sent troops in there because of their of all the oil fields that they have Its just not logistically possible to help every single country everywhere, you can&#39;t help everyone everywhere its just not possible.

Afganistan has huge Gas Reserves, and is required for an oil pipeline that the Taliban refused to let a US Oil company build... so yes, it was still about the Energy Companies (yes, oil)

The USA were offered Bin Laden twice for extradition.

1st time in 1998, and the response was to send Rockets to bomb the country, so the offer was withdrawn.

2nd time was shortly after 9/11, although the Taliban would not hand them over directly to the USA, as they wouldnt receive a fair trial (something the USA has proved to my satisfaction with the camps in Cuba)...they offered to hand them over to an American Ally though....Pakistan.

[the mask]

9.123: O you who believe&#33; fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

This proves that they have to kill the unbelievers, however like i said b4 the Quran says to be kind to everyone.

danyj, i dont know if you understand arabic but you have not fully translated the verse, it seems to me that you have just taken it from an arabic/english quran. but let me explain something for you - firstly you have to know why and when this verse was revealed- it was at the time when &#39;jihad&#39; was necessary, it is explaining to the muslims as what to do for, and how to fight against the non-muslims if they invade a muslim country. jihad is farz-e-kifiyah (compulsoray on some) which should be done according to the natural sequence against those kafirs (non-muslims) who are near to the muslims and then those who are close to them. in this way the circle of jihad should be widened. the jihads of the holy prophet (peace be upon him) and the khulafa-e-rashedeen (the 4 deputies after the passing of the prophet) were made according to this arrangement. in defensive jihads the same system is given by the muslim fuqaha (jurists) that if some non-muslims invade a darul-islam (islamic state) jihad is obligatory on the muslims of that islamic state. if those muslims are not sufficient or are indolent then those muslims who are adjacent to them should wage jihad on the aggressors. if they too are insufficient or weak then those near them should join the jihad and so on and so fourth the jihad shall become obligatory from east to west.

so as you can now see muslims are not allowed to go around just killing who they feel like it, when they feel like it. there are set rules codes and practices.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by the mask@19 April 2004 - 09:27
so as you can now see muslims are not allowed to go around just killing who they feel like it, when they feel like it. there are set rules codes and practices.
Yet Muslims violates their own "rules" all the time.....just like everyone else.


People need to understand that there good and evil people that follow Islam.

Keep in mind to that on 9/11 those hijackers killed many Muslims as well.

Nice going....idiots. <_<

[BigBank_Hank]

So you honestly think that he invaded Iraq because they were a security concern to USA? I bet it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Iraq.


Absolutely they were a security risk. We had the opportunity to finish Saddam off in the first gulf war we didn&#39;t take it and now we had to go back and finish the job. Even the last administration knew that Saddam had to be taken care of but of course Clinton wouldn&#39;t do anything about it.

Saddam was a menace to his own people and posed a threat to the entire world. He had weapons that violated UN resolutions and the UN was content to sit on there asses and do nothing about it. Sure he may have allowed inspectors in but it was when he wanted them in and what areas he allowed them to search.

The continued agreement over we invaded Iraq because of oil reserves is weak. If that was the main purpose for invasion then why wouldn&#39;t we just have done it on our own? We kept trying to convince the UN that it was the right thing to do along with other countries and asked for their support. If we were there for the soul purpose of oil we would have just bombed everything in every city and took control of everything.

[the mask]

Yet Muslims violates their own "rules" all the time.....just like everyone else
i have to agree with you busyman, unfortunately this is why the world is in the state that it is, but i had to just clarify a point to danyj. it just appears to me that the USA government try to make everything look that they abide by all the rules and everyone else is breaking them but have they forgot japan,JFK oh and by the way are blacks allowed to drink from the same tap as whites or is that all over now...mmm :ph34r:
and bigbank i disagree, yes one of the major factors for going to war is oil. going in alone would have been risky business because other surrounding countries may have taken iraq&#39;s side and that would have been bad for the US army as they cant even gain control now with a united force so imagine if they were alone. and as for going in and just bombing everything well i go back to my original remarks about the USA showing that they obey all the rules etc

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 07:55

Absolutely they were a security risk.



Saddam was a menace to his own people and posed a threat to the entire world. He had weapons that violated UN resolutions and the UN was content to sit on there asses and do nothing about it. Sure he may have allowed inspectors in but it was when he wanted them in and what areas he allowed them to search.

well we still haven&#39;t been able to prove that...where are those WMD? Even Bush admitted that the intelligence he had at the time was inacurate. There has been no evedence linking Iraq with bin laden...iraq was not the war on terror.


The continued agreement over we invaded Iraq because of oil reserves is weak. If that was the main purpose for invasion then why wouldn&#39;t we just have done it on our own? We kept trying to convince the UN that it was the right thing to do along with other countries and asked for their support. If we were there for the soul purpose of oil we would have just bombed everything in every city and took control of everything.

America may be the dominant superpower but it would not stand a chance against the rest of the world combined...it needed support even if it was just diplomatic. Even if the rest of the world didn&#39;t take military action the embargos and sanctions would cripple us.

[BigBank_Hank]

vidcc you would be content to sit on your hands and wait for Saddam to kill more innocent people before we would have to finally do something? How many more people need to die under his regime before it would be acceptable to remove him?

Militarily we cold have done the job on our own. We had plenty of weapons in the arsenal that we didn&#39;t even use because the regime toppled so quickly. Post war is where we knew we would need help. And I&#39;ll admit that we underestimated how much trouble it would be to settle things down, of course Iran and Syria sending weapons and troops to fight isn&#39;t helping the cause.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 12:13
vidcc you would be content to sit on your hands and wait for Saddam to kill more innocent people before we would have to finally do something? How many more people need to die under his regime before it would be acceptable to remove him?


I don&#39;t want to see any innocent people killed, But as you pointed out we can&#39;t go around liberating the whole world.......
So which people do we liberate?.....but we are just going round in circles here :)

Don&#39;t misunderstand me, i think Saddam was and is an evil man and i&#39;m glad to see the back of him

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 21:13

Militarily we cold have done the job on our own. We had plenty of weapons in the arsenal that we didn&#39;t even use because the regime toppled so quickly.
This my friend is the point.

It is the people of the USA and the UK (and their coalition allies) who are risking their people&#39;s lives and spending their countries resources.

It is a matter for them who they choose to help and who they do not choose to help. It is not a situation that if you depose one dictator you must depose them all. The reality is that the world should be glad that another one of them is gone.

The rest of the world does not have the right to choose the next conflict. If the USA, the UK etc say nope, we have done what we think is right and now we rest, then that is their business.

If they choose to take up arms again then that will be their choice, where to do it and when to do it.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 12:13
Militarily we cold have done the job on our own. We had plenty of weapons in the arsenal that we didn&#39;t even use because the regime toppled so quickly. Post war is where we knew we would need help. And I&#39;ll admit that we underestimated how much trouble it would be to settle things down, of course Iran and Syria sending weapons and troops to fight isn&#39;t helping the cause.
nobody could deny that we have the weapons to tackle smaller countries unilaterally...but without the approval of the rest of the world or a large part thereof then it&#39;s the reprocussions that we would have a problem with. this is why we needed the UN on our side

Jpol
I agree with what you said, it is up to us who we choose to help. But it was argued by an American that the USA helps for humanitarian reasons and not because we can benefit and it was pointed out that we seem to only be humanitarian to nations that we can benefit from, Bush uses phrases like fighting to protect "American interests abroad"...Its a fair comment.
It is the way we sell our campaigns that bring out the question "why help one and not the other ?"

[Alex H]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank
The elite media in the is for the most part is liberal and were and still are against the war and there coverage supports their beliefs. You&#39;ll never hear how great of a job our troops are doing, how well there are handling insurgences and gorilla attacks.

Yes, the elite media are just that: elite, i.e. a very small group with very good research abilities and very good journalists. And hardly anyone listens to them because the "popular" media like to make things more interesting with 3 word headlines, a snappy story and maybe a few photos of US Marines standing on the corner of a street holding M16s.

All the general public want to know is: Who are the goodies, who are the badies and how much did we kick their arse in yesterday&#39;s fighting.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Alex H@19 April 2004 - 20:40
Yes, the elite media are just that: elite, i.e. a very small group with very good research abilities and very good journalists.
Small group? So: CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC just to name a few in television and The New York Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribute just to name a few newspapers are a small minority? Alex that doesn&#39;t seem like a small group to me.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+19 April 2004 - 22:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 19 April 2004 - 22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@19 April 2004 - 20:40
Yes, the elite media are just that: elite, i.e. a very small group with very good research abilities and very good journalists.
Small group? So: CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC just to name a few in television and The New York Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribute just to name a few newspapers are a small minority? Alex that doesn&#39;t seem like a small group to me.[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s easier to do it the other way, Hank, and, if I might, I would not label the following conservative, merely not overwhelmingly liberal.

Newspapers:

The Washington Times.

The Wall Street Journal

Television news:

FOXNEWS

That constitutes the sum total of the "other-than-liberal" roster in the U.S.

Of course, we OWN talk radio. :D

Al Franken has fallen apart already&#33; :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

:lol: No kidding I&#39;d be here all night if I wanted to list all liberal media sources.

Thank goodness we at least have FOX News.

And of course Rush Limbaugh :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 22:29
:lol: No kidding I&#39;d be here all night if I wanted to list all liberal media sources.

Thank goodness we at least have FOX News.

And of course Rush Limbaugh :D
In here, Rush has a standing similar to that of Macbeth; the mere mention of his name drives people mad. :D

[Alex H]

Hey, I&#39;ve worked in theatre a lot and am very superstisious about that. We theatre folk prefer The Scottish Play, The Scottish King or The M Word.

And the curse is real&#33;

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@19 April 2004 - 22:44
Hey, I&#39;ve worked in theatre a lot and am very superstisious about that. We theatre folk prefer The Scottish Play, The Scottish King or The M Word.

And the curse is real&#33;
Of all that, I am aware.

I keep such facts in my vest pocket until an opportune time comes to thrash someone with them.

Beware, sir&#33; :P

[masta.z]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@18 April 2004 - 13:27

The USA and Canada, that&#39;s the same place as well. Or Australia and New Zealand.
you saying i live in the use then?? :( :&#39;( :helpsmile: :frusty:

[jetje]

It seems that the UN weapon investigators where right all the time.... ;)

But somehow i ain&#39;t surprised if the weapons will be found justin time for a nice election stunt... they&#39;re probably bringing that stuff in there now :ph34r:

[masta.z]

Originally posted by jetje@21 April 2004 - 18:57
It seems that the UN weapon investigators where right all the time.... ;)

But somehow i ain&#39;t surprised if the weapons will be found justin time for a nice election stunt... they&#39;re probably bringing that stuff in there now :ph34r:
their boarding the plane as we speak ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@20 April 2004 - 04:29
:lol: No kidding I&#39;d be here all night if I wanted to list all liberal media sources.

Thank goodness we at least have FOX News.

And of course Rush Limbaugh :D
I am inclined to the view that the right of the US political spectrum is not well served by the media.

If there was a broad range of such outlets, tacky vehicles like Fox would get short shrift by serious consumers of News; such as J2K4. I have tried to watch it several times but (notwithstanding its political bias which actually tickles me) I find it too short and too bitty in its coverage of issues.

As I understand it, (and I may be wrong here) although the Republicans are gung ho regarding issues like Israel, the NY liberal intelligensia is often Jewish and Democrat. This would suggest a certain interesting political complexity in the US. :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+22 April 2004 - 13:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 22 April 2004 - 13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@20 April 2004 - 04:29
:lol: No kidding I&#39;d be here all night if I wanted to list all liberal media sources.

Thank goodness we at least have FOX News.

And of course Rush Limbaugh :D
I am inclined to the view that the right of the US political spectrum is not well served by the media.

If there was a broad range of such outlets, tacky vehicles like Fox would get short shrift by serious consumers of News; such as J2K4. I have tried to watch it several times but (notwithstanding its political bias which actually tickles me) I find it too short and too bitty in its coverage of issues.

As I understand it, (and I may be wrong here) although the Republicans are gung ho regarding issues like Israel, the NY liberal intelligensia is often Jewish and Democrat. This would suggest a certain interesting political complexity in the US. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
Biggles-

You have discerned a "range" which is actually two extremes bracketing a rather sparsely populated middle-might be more correctly referred to as a void.

As I have said many times, I watch FOX due to the unfortunate circumstance of it&#39;s being the only outlet giving anything other than short-shrift to the views of the Right.

It is no more or less tacky than any other outlet; they all have the same format and putrid graphics that appeal to the attention-span challenged.

It&#39;s approach is as truncated and lurid as the rest.

How this is managed (in this glorious age of 24-hour news coverage) is beyond me.

Nothing can replace the written word, in my view; for the most part, anything on the telly is background noise, and absent 9/11, I probably would never turn the damned thing on at all.

EDIT: You have also tumbled to the peculiarities of what you refer to as "political complexity"; just so: Irony is truly rife.

The Right takes care of Israel, while American Jews vote Democrat.

The Gods must be crazy. :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Is it just me or does anyone else hate that damn crawl at the bottom of the screen?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@23 April 2004 - 00:18
Is it just me or does anyone else hate that damn crawl at the bottom of the screen?
:lol: Oh yes&#33;

A fair number of News Channels have so many "bits" on the screen the actual picture size left to watch is a small square in the centre. If I had wanted a 14" TV I would have bought one.

If you try and read the crawl along the bottom you miss whatever was showing above anyway. I have not yet mastered the lizard like trick of turning my eyeballs in two separate directions.


Minor rant over. :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+22 April 2004 - 18:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 22 April 2004 - 18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@23 April 2004 - 00:18
Is it just me or does anyone else hate that damn crawl at the bottom of the screen?
:lol: Oh yes&#33;

A fair number of News Channels have so many "bits" on the screen the actual picture size left to watch is a small square in the centre. If I had wanted a 14" TV I would have bought one.

If you try and read the crawl along the bottom you miss whatever was showing above anyway. I have not yet mastered the lizard like trick of turning my eyeballs in two separate directions.


Minor rant over. :ph34r: [/b][/quote]
Bingo&#33;

Goes to my point about attention-span; ultimately no one is capable of taking all of the (half-baked) information on-board, anyway.

[cpt_azad]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@18 April 2004 - 05:45
You say America is still in Iraq, do you understand what would happen if they all pulled out?

Several religious factions are already at eachothers throats, each of them could easily become a new Saddam. If they left Iraq right now, about 100,000 people would be dead in the same day.
LMFAO&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; now that is just hilarious, lets see, THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IF AMERICA (SORRY, I MEANT GEORGE W. BUSH) DIDN&#39;T INVADE IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, DUMASS&#33;

[vidcc]

Originally posted by cpt_azad+22 April 2004 - 17:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cpt_azad @ 22 April 2004 - 17:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mad Cat@18 April 2004 - 05:45
You say America is still in Iraq, do you understand what would happen if they all pulled out?

Several religious factions are already at eachothers throats, each of them could easily become a new Saddam. If they left Iraq right now, about 100,000 people would be dead in the same day.
LMFAO&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; now that is just hilarious, lets see, THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IF AMERICA (SORRY, I MEANT GEORGE W. BUSH) DIDN&#39;T INVADE IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, DUMASS&#33; [/b][/quote]
Actually Saddam was very good at preventing that happening. For better or worse with his harsh regime he quashed all opposition before it had chance to rise. Iraq may have been under a brutal regime but it was certainly more "stable" than it is as present. We may be replacing one tyrant with several :(
Hopefully when power is handed back and actual elections take place (not the installed quango) it might settle down....but i fear it will be a long time before Iraq no longer hears the sound of munitions

[MagicNakor]

A letter written in to my local newspaper suggested reinstating Hussein as something of a puppet leader. I&#39;ll have to see if I can dig it up again, it was an interesting take.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@22 April 2004 - 23:54
A letter written in to my local newspaper suggested reinstating Hussein as something of a puppet leader. I&#39;ll have to see if I can dig it up again, it was an interesting take.

:ninja:
Please do. :huh:

[MagicNakor]

I hope you enjoy it. ;) I dug through the recycling for half an hour and tripped over my frenzied, stairs-running cat to get it to you.

Just to date it, this was two weeks after the burnt bodies of four Americans were hung from a bridge in Fallujah.


Easy solution to mess in Iraq

Dear Editor,

&nbsp; The Bush administration is starting to look a bit desperate as it seeks a way out of the mess it created with its invasion and occupation of Iraq.
&nbsp; The weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly the reason for the war are nowhere to be found, and the Iraqis are acting anything but grateful for their "liberation."
&nbsp; Fortunately the solution to the whole debacle is within the Americans&#39; grasp.
&nbsp; All they need do is release Saddam Hussein from custody and put him back in power. Given a second chance, he&#39;ll soon crush the opposition and restore order. He&#39;s got the credentials and the track record for the job, if anybody does.
&nbsp; It&#39;s true he&#39;s a truly nasty piece of work, but his methods, including mass murder and torture, didn&#39;t stop the United States from supporting him enthusiastically throughout the 1980s, the period of his greatest crimes. It was only when he made the mistake of disobeying the U.S. that he became an enemy.
&nbsp; No doubt a deal could be worked out. Saddam would be happy to return to power in exchange for an undertaking to follow orders. And the U.S. could withdraw its troops, secure in the knowledge that a reliable tyrant will maintain order and keep the oil flowing.


:ninja:

[jetje]

Well media over here reported that one of the biggest mistakes that was made was that they sended home the entire top of the Iraqi army. One of the solutions they overthink now to get control on the attacks now is to reinstate a lot of former army officers.. Cause they could be able to get grip on the guerilla war that&#39;s starting now ;) A bit different as what magic posted but it pretty much breathe the same thoughts. ;)

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@23 April 2004 - 00:18
Is it just me or does anyone else hate that damn crawl at the bottom of the screen?
No I really like that actually&#33;&#33; :P

(I&#39;m an information addict)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 April 2004 - 02:00
I hope you enjoy it. ;) I dug through the recycling for half an hour and tripped over my frenzied, stairs-running cat to get it to you.

Just to date it, this was two weeks after the burnt bodies of four Americans were hung from a bridge in Fallujah.


Easy solution to mess in Iraq

Dear Editor,

&nbsp; The Bush administration is starting to look a bit desperate as it seeks a way out of the mess it created with its invasion and occupation of Iraq.
&nbsp; The weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly the reason for the war are nowhere to be found, and the Iraqis are acting anything but grateful for their "liberation."
&nbsp; Fortunately the solution to the whole debacle is within the Americans&#39; grasp.
&nbsp; All they need do is release Saddam Hussein from custody and put him back in power. Given a second chance, he&#39;ll soon crush the opposition and restore order. He&#39;s got the credentials and the track record for the job, if anybody does.
&nbsp; It&#39;s true he&#39;s a truly nasty piece of work, but his methods, including mass murder and torture, didn&#39;t stop the United States from supporting him enthusiastically throughout the 1980s, the period of his greatest crimes. It was only when he made the mistake of disobeying the U.S. that he became an enemy.
&nbsp; No doubt a deal could be worked out. Saddam would be happy to return to power in exchange for an undertaking to follow orders. And the U.S. could withdraw its troops, secure in the knowledge that a reliable tyrant will maintain order and keep the oil flowing.


:ninja:
I thank you kindly for the effort, MN, and hope the cat escaped unscathed.

After reading it, I must say I find it less interesting than I had hoped, though; cynics abound.

After all, to properly restore Saddam, we&#39;d have to somehow resurrect his sons, who I feel were the key to his not being overthrown in the first place.

Again, thanks for your extraordinary effort&#33;

[BigBank_Hank]

This made me laugh:


secure in the knowledge that a reliable tyrant will maintain order and keep the oil flowing.


Nothing I hate more in this world than an unreliable tyrant.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@23 April 2004 - 10:21
This made me laugh:


secure in the knowledge that a reliable tyrant will maintain order and keep the oil flowing.


Nothing I hate more in this world than an unreliable tyrant.
Quite.

Can&#39;t count on those buggers for anything. ;)