| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2004 07:57:22 PM · #26 |
want to know whats not funny? read my last 2 posts on this topic.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 08:44:05 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
It is one thing to say Sadaam was a bad leader and needed to be taken out of power. (Though can the US really think the iraqi's lives have been better since the invasion?)
Even if Sadaam should of been relieved of power, it is another thing to go to war under false pretense and blatantly lie as to why you are going.
I think the american gov't and people, need to be a little humble and admit as painful as it is that
'we blew it'. And hope the UN and global community can help the iraqi people put their lives and country back together.
As an american living outside the US i feel sad for my family and countrymen who are spoon fed CNN and are blind to the views and cultures outside the US. Such views are not just 'patriotic' they can also be ignorant and harmful....tread with caution... |
Ok, Lynn. No Freebies here.
1) Yes, I do think that the Iraqi's lives are better now. I haven't heard of anyone having their fingers cut off one at a time, woman being raped in front of their children, men being thrown off rooftops, etc. etc. since the overthrow of Hussein's regime. And before you even argue the point, the Abu Ghraib abuses pale in comparison both as to numbers and as to severity.
2) What exactly are the "blatant lies" that Bush told to get approval to go to war in Iraq?
3) I agree that, in many ways, we "blew it". Once again, as in Vietnam, we did not act as though this was a real WAR. In a real WAR there are actions after the major conflict is over to disarm those who would attempt to prolong the fighting.
4) I also feel sorry for those Americans who so willingly accept the pablum dished out by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc. Fortunately there are some of us who desire more than pablum, and are willing to work to find other, more credible, less biased sources. As for being blind to the views and cultures outside the U.S. - well, let's just say that the views and cultures of those who would ignore or cave in to the threats of terrorists are not worthy of great consideration. They appear all too willing to sell all of their childrens' tomorrows for just a little peace today. How quickly they forget the lessons of the past.
Ron |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 09:17:56 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Ok, Lynn. No Freebies here.
1) Yes, I do think that the Iraqi's lives are better now. I haven't heard of anyone having their fingers cut off one at a time, woman being raped in front of their children, men being thrown off rooftops, etc. etc. since the overthrow of Hussein's regime. |
"Iraq's interim Defence Minister, Hazim al-Shaalan, promised to crack down on militants with his own Iraqi forces.
"We will cut off their hands and behead them," he said. "
Glad the situation has moved on from fingers being cut off one at a time. Much more efficient these days.
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3817163.stm
Message edited by author 2004-06-17 21:19:06.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 09:40:22 PM · #29 |
A suicide car bomber killed 35 people and wounded 138 outside an army recruiting centre in Baghdad, while the device which went off near Balad killed six members of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps and wounded four.
A car packed with artillery shells was reportedly driven into a crowd of about 100 people queuing to volunteer outside the recruiting centre at Baghdad's old Muthenna airport, which was previously bombed in February killing about 47 people.
Who knows what the translation was? Obviously, at least to me, he may be saying......he will pay for his crimes. The different languanges and cultures makes it very diffucult to say....
But, if its a terrorist what shall we do, reform him and love him ??????
The way we say, we will find him and bring him to justice, the say things a bit different.
He is talking about terrorists, no better then the ones that flew planes into buildings on 9-11.
Message edited by author 2004-06-17 22:08:15. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 09:46:23 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
4) I also feel sorry for those Americans who so willingly accept the pablum dished out by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc. Fortunately there are some of us who desire more than pablum, and are willing to work to find other, more credible, less biased sources.
Ron |
Just curious Ron, what are your more credible and less biased media sources? |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:07:43 PM · #31 |
i too would like to know.
and what makes 'your' sources more credible? |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:10:07 PM · #32 |
I retire from this thread...have fun :)
Message edited by author 2004-06-17 22:11:47. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:13:48 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just curious Ron, what are your more credible and less biased media sources? |
Well, they are fairly wide ranging. I consider most AP dispatches to be biased, but I read them anyway, just for general info - but then I try to find the same item as reported by Reuters or UPI or the like. Often, for colonial ( U.S. ) news, or even for foreign news - I try to find the nearest LOCAL newspaper with an online version. If it's in English, all the better, but I can, with some effort, read French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, etc., though I'm still having a lot of trouble with the posts from Iceland :-).
My major portal to the news is Google News, though I consider their lead items to be just that - leads as to what I might be interested in reserching a little further. I use the Google News Search for a list of online media and pick the ones that do NOT lead off with the standard AP byline. I also look at the semi-official government dispatches ( Dept. of the Army, Navy, etc. ). And, of course, I try to read the articles linked to by the posters at DPC - many of which I would NOT encounter in my normal perusal.
If you're really interested, I'll try to keep a log and let you know what specific media sites I visit.
Ron
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:29:59 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
i too would like to know.
and what makes 'your' sources more credible? |
Well, first and foremost, credible sources report the news without interjecting misleading statements and editorial bias. For example, from today's news:
1) Here's the lead paragraph from an article in English.EastDay.Com ( in Shanghai ):
"The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks found "no credible evidence" of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida on attacks against the United States, a staff report issued on Wednesday said."
2) Here's the lead paragraph from the Associated Press ( as quoted on Truthout.org ):
"By Hope Yen
Associated Press
Wednesday 16 June 2004
Washington - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States."
Notice how the lead paragraph from Shanghai states the truth, without editorializing. Then notice how the lead paragraph from the AP tells a lie - the Bush administration NEVER said that Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks, so how can the commission report "bluntly contradict" what they neve said? That statement is a lie intended to make idle readers believe that the Bush administration DID link Hussein to 9/11 and that that link was disproved by the commission. Just something to make Bush look bad.
So, I believe that, at least in this case, the AP is biased against Bush. The Shanghai News, in this case, is not.
Sufficient?
Ron
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:41:14 PM · #35 |
ok gordon,
could you dispatch with the one liners and one line quotes. how bout a stance? I'm just curious here, but I'd really like to know where you stand. Do you or do you not believe the Iraqis (the innocent parents, children, and hard working silent majority) are better off without Saddam Hussein in charge?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2004 10:43:17 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just curious Ron, what are your more credible and less biased media sources? |
Well, they are fairly wide ranging. I consider most AP dispatches to be biased, but I read them anyway, just for general info - but then I try to find the same item as reported by Reuters or UPI or the like. Often, for colonial ( U.S. ) news, or even for foreign news - I try to find the nearest LOCAL newspaper with an online version. If it's in English, all the better, but I can, with some effort, read French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, etc., though I'm still having a lot of trouble with the posts from Iceland :-).
My major portal to the news is Google News, though I consider their lead items to be just that - leads as to what I might be interested in reserching a little further. I use the Google News Search for a list of online media and pick the ones that do NOT lead off with the standard AP byline. I also look at the semi-official government dispatches ( Dept. of the Army, Navy, etc. ). And, of course, I try to read the articles linked to by the posters at DPC - many of which I would NOT encounter in my normal perusal.
If you're really interested, I'll try to keep a log and let you know what specific media sites I visit.
Ron |
Thanks, Ron, but no need to keep a log... |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 08:36:07 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
A suicide car bomber killed 35 people and wounded 138 outside an army recruiting centre in Baghdad, while the device which went off near Balad killed six members of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps and wounded four.
A car packed with artillery shells was reportedly driven into a crowd of about 100 people queuing to volunteer outside the recruiting centre at Baghdad's old Muthenna airport, which was previously bombed in February killing about 47 people.
Who knows what the translation was? Obviously, at least to me, he may be saying......he will pay for his crimes. The different languanges and cultures makes it very diffucult to say.... |
Absolutely - that was largely the point I was trying to make anyway. It is a very different culture and many seem to just ignore that fact.
Trying to force cultural change isn't likely to happen and certainly not in a year or so. But the idea that western democracy was going to sweep the middle east as a result of invading Iraq was talked about for quite a while.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 08:41:39 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
ok gordon,
could you dispatch with the one liners and one line quotes. how bout a stance? I'm just curious here, but I'd really like to know where you stand. Do you or do you not believe the Iraqis (the innocent parents, children, and hard working silent majority) are better off without Saddam Hussein in charge? |
I do not know if they are better off. Do you ? They may end up with a more extreme religious government. A new dictator may well emerge. If you have a crystal ball feel free to let me know if they are better off.
Right now reports don't seem to indicate a wonderful new society in place. It might emerge - I hope it does.
As a lot of people always seem to want links to other parts of the internet for some sort of support for an opinion:
//www.fundforpeace.org/publications/reports/iraq-rep02.php
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 08:54:20.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:12:25 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Malokata:
We don't need a justification - just a villain. Though lacking in spandex, we are nonetheless a global superhero. We define what's bad, and since it's bad, we stop it. There is nothing wrong with our methodology, nothing hypocritical in our proclamations, nothing unstated in our motives; in short, there is nothing that should be questioned.
You're either with us - |
You should specify that we are the self-appointed superheroes -- the world is not exactly clamoring for us to impose our values on them by force ... they mostly seem happy with their own cultures and heritage.
Perhaps you should study the concept of hubris.
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 10:12:52. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:16:58 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Malokata:
We don't need a justification - just a villain. Though lacking in spandex, we are nonetheless a global superhero. We define what's bad, and since it's bad, we stop it. There is nothing wrong with our methodology, nothing hypocritical in our proclamations, nothing unstated in our motives; in short, there is nothing that should be questioned.
You're either with us - |
That sounds rather like dictatorship. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:31:28 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Malokata:
We don't need a justification - just a villain. Though lacking in spandex, we are nonetheless a global superhero. We define what's bad, and since it's bad, we stop it. There is nothing wrong with our methodology, nothing hypocritical in our proclamations, nothing unstated in our motives; in short, there is nothing that should be questioned.
You're either with us - |
You should specify that we are the self-appointed superheroes -- the world is not exactly clamoring for us to impose our values on them by force ... they mostly seem happy with their own cultures and heritage.
Perhaps you should study the concept of hubris. |
this is complete bs because any time there is an international meeting of the minds, the US always ends up contributing the most because we have the most, so you want to say we impose ourselves on others? are you saying we should never get involved with foreign affairs or are you just calling us a rogue state?
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 10:47:50 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by achiral:
this is complete bs because any time there is an international meeting of the minds, the US always ends up contributing the most because we have the most ... |
Perhaps you should study the concept of hubris. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 11:43:11 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by achiral:
this is complete bs because any time there is an international meeting of the minds, the US always ends up contributing the most because we have the most, so you want to say we impose ourselves on others? are you saying we should never get involved with foreign affairs or are you just calling us a rogue state? |
Could you give some examples where the US govt contributed "the most" and what the most was of?
Message edited by author 2004-06-18 11:43:42. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 12:10:05 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Could you give some examples where the US govt contributed "the most" and what the most was of? |
Well, Bam, Iran comes to mind:
1) 90 metric tons of emergency supplies
2) 84 disaster relief experts
3) USAID air shipment of an additional 12,500 blankets and enough plastic sheeting to provide shelter to 3,000 families
4) USAID also contributed $600,000 to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to assist in the relief operations.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 12:42:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, first and foremost, credible sources report the news without interjecting misleading statements and editorial bias. For example, from today's news:
1) Here's the lead paragraph from an article in English.EastDay.Com ( in Shanghai ):
"The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks found "no credible evidence" of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida on attacks against the United States, a staff report issued on Wednesday said."
2) Here's the lead paragraph from the Associated Press ( as quoted on Truthout.org ):
"By Hope Yen
Associated Press
Wednesday 16 June 2004
Washington - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States."
Notice how the lead paragraph from Shanghai states the truth, without editorializing. Then notice how the lead paragraph from the AP tells a lie - the Bush administration NEVER said that Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks, so how can the commission report "bluntly contradict" what they neve said? That statement is a lie intended to make idle readers believe that the Bush administration DID link Hussein to 9/11 and that that link was disproved by the commission. Just something to make Bush look bad.
So, I believe that, at least in this case, the AP is biased against Bush. The Shanghai News, in this case, is not.
Sufficient?
Ron |
And after watching the ABC news coverage this week, you'd think that ABC new came down with a case of amnesia. Apparently they forgot about some of their own news stories linking Iraq to bin Laden. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 12:44:46 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
this is complete bs because any time there is an international meeting of the minds, the US always ends up contributing the most because we have the most ... |
Perhaps you should study the concept of hubris. |
look in the mirror my friend
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 01:46:05 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Could you give some examples where the US govt contributed "the most" and what the most was of? |
Well, Bam, Iran comes to mind:
1) 90 metric tons of emergency supplies
2) 84 disaster relief experts
3) USAID air shipment of an additional 12,500 blankets and enough plastic sheeting to provide shelter to 3,000 families
4) USAID also contributed $600,000 to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to assist in the relief operations. |
Acknowledged...Yes, the US govt is very good about sending relief aid during natural catastrophes. |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 03:11:10 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just curious Ron, what are your more credible and less biased media sources? |
Here's another example of bias in the media:
Richard Murphy, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, 6/20 starts his article off by saying "Our problem is that the Iraqi people still perceive little improvement in their personal lives and no end to violence in their country." Link HERE
Contrast that statement with a report from the BBC dated 16 March that says, "An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago. The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence...56% said that things were better now than they were before the war." Link HERE
When one uses the term "The Iraqi People", a reader would expect that reference was being made to the MAJORITY of Iraqi people. But, in this case, the MAJORITY of Iraqi people DO believe that things are either somewhat ( 21.9% ) or much ( 34.6% ) better. So we see, yet again, bias in the media - in this case another outright lie being published by the Washington Post.
For those interested, the complete Iraqi poll can be viewed ( PDF File ) HERE
Ron |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 03:39:09 PM · #49 |
Come now Ron, you know better than that.
Statistics, to prove a point ? From a sample of 2,652 out of 25,374,691 people (from CIA figures).
So, roughly 0.005% of the Iraqi population so far have said things are better, according to your link ?
Statistics say anything you want them to say. I'd hardly call 2652 people a MAJORITY, or even a majority, come to that.
You can even use the data from that survey to show that the MAJORITY of Iraqi's surveyed either oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq. Or that over 40% of those surveyed believe things are worse since the US invaded.
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 15:56:24.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 04:13:23 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, roughly 0.005% of the Iraqi population so far have said things are better, according to your link ? |
Yep, and only 0.0045% of the Iraqi population so far have said that things are NOT better, according to the same link.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Statistics say anything you want them to say. I'd hardly call 2652 people a MAJORITY, or even a majority, come to that. |
I wouldn't call 2652 people a MAJORITY either. But in a survey, it is understood that 1 person represents thousands, if not tens of thousands. One also assumes that the survey was conducted in an upright fashion ( e.g. random ). Plus, absent such a survey, what credible basis does Murphy have for making his statement - and stating it as though it were FACT?
Originally posted by Gordon:
You can even use the data from that survey to show that the MAJORITY of Iraqi's surveyed either oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq. Or that over 40% of those surveyed believe things are worse since the US invaded. |
The first statement is true, and, if stated in an article, I wouldn't challenge it. The second is not true - you cannot use the survey to prove that over 40% belive that things are worse. That's just the kind of statement that the biased media would use. Actually only 18.6% of the people believed that things were WORSE. In the middle are 1.6% who found it difficult to say, and 23.3% who believe that things are about the same. But if an article were to say ( truthfully ) that 18.6% of those surveyed believe things are worse, then that would leave 81.4% that do not. That permits people who do not have the means or the desire to look BEYOND the article at least an opportunity to figure out the truth, if they can do the math.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 16:26:11. |
|
