Iraq

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Give me information from a site that isn't so blatantly biased.

I didn't post the site address specifically for you JD, I posted it because I felt a lot of people posting/viewing this site may share the opinions of those writers.

Feel free to disregard anything I post that you feel is biased

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I didn't post the site address specifically for you JD, I posted it because I felt a lot of people posting/viewing this site may share the opinions of those writers.

Feel free to disregard anything I post that you feel is biased

Okay - I will. Okay - so I thought you were sending that information to me. I could have swore there was a "JD" in your post somewhere.

I still feel the site is biased. It's almost as bad as the Islamic websites that BoP used to post.

[Sween]

Me and my lasswere having one of our in depth conversations about how media can affect our perspective of life (hey its better than hearing about shoes all the time) she made a good point how the media can distort things to an extent. In this country we have the red tops and if i read them they pretty much tell a person what to think. Its quite sad. I myself read the times very respectable paper apprentally wish it wasnt so bigg i have problem reading it on the toilet but that doesnt matter.

I am still waiting to hear a reason for attacking Iraq which does involves 'if' 'buts' 'maybes' and 'possiably'.

As the suppoded most civilised countrys in the world (allthough i doubt this by looking at the way some people act in my town bunch of muppets baseball caps who invented them) we should not attack unless there is a clear danger?

Has sadam ever made a agressive move against the US he invaded quaiate he had no intrest with america till they got involved (rightly so) and since then has he killed anyone in hostile action that wasnt war (wars wars all bets are off killings allowed so that dont count)

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
I myself read the times very respectable paper apprentally wish it wasnt so bigg i have problem reading it on the toilet but that doesnt matter.

Yes accessing accurate information from the media can be difficult, never more so than when the paper rufuses to open properly while on the cludgy

I am still waiting to hear a reason for attacking Iraq which does involves 'if' 'buts' 'maybes' and 'possiably'.


Very good point

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
None of my sources come from unregulated internet sources. ABCNews is a highly respected news organisation in the US.

We get ABC now (instead of BBC world). I wouldn't say that it was reporting both sides of the issue... it seems very biased to me.

JD:
Concerning the CIA agent being part of the last inspector team AND admitting it - all I did was ask you guys to supply me with proof that he had admitted this. You have supplied nothing so far.

Cirdan has already mentioned that it was on CNN.

JD:
I still feel the site is biased. It's almost as bad as the Islamic websites that BoP used to post.

You're like a @#$@! wind up toy, aren't you? You don't !@#$#@ stop. I removed those sites, and you still bloody harp.

All I can say is, at least I was attempting to present BOTH sides of the propaganda argument.

I can't believe you. You rant about bias, and yet you only seem to post stuff from American news sources. Does anyone else smell a rat?

[Sween]

JD is the most pro american american ive ever known. Do you find any faults with your country? He doesnt even mind that they dont have a health serivce for everyone

[BeardofPants]

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/...cs/0000204.php

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I can't believe you. You rant about bias, and yet you only seem to post stuff from American news sources. Does anyone else smell a rat?

Well, to be honest, there has been a whiff of rodent in a lot of things said in this thread

I know that I personally do not trust the mainstream american media to give accurate information, how can I respect the views of the three biggest american TV channel news when they themselves decided that prime time television should not be interupted by the presidents address to the nation

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
...how can I respect the views of the three biggest american TV channel news when they themselves decided that prime time television should not be interupted by the presidents address to the nation

Don't worry, I'm sure JD has a very good reason why they didn't address this.

[Hasty Ent]

one reason could be that the networks are primarily concerned with making profit, which means airing commercials so that viewers could buy things they don't need with money that don't have (possibly a definition for "advertising")

and since prime time air is expensive, better to air braindead sitcoms for a population that would only tune out any presidential address

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Don't worry, I'm sure JD has a very good reason why they didn't address this.

Actually I was pissed that the three networks didn't carry the president's speech.

I find a lot of faults with my country. Not have national health care isn't one of them. If you knew anything about America, whihc by talking to you guys I know you don't, we do have programs for people that can not pay for medical treatment. No one gets turned away from hospitals or doctors. They may not get the same level of service as someone with insurance or who can pay - but neither does Canadians or British.

I have looked at international news sources - as I have said repeatedly - they only report the portion of US news that supports the publiucs view (case in point the BBC).

BoP - you get ABC now? Do you get Nightline and World News Tonight then?

I have been to England twice - so I've seen your newscasts also - have any of you been to the US to actually experience America first hand?

And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

In the last Iraq thread we were at the same point. You guys were arguing that the US should consult it's allies and go to the UN. Well we did that. Now the weapons inspectors are going to be going to Iraq. Just admit it - when Saddam Hussein kicks them out again or prevents them from doing their job - you will still think the US has no reason to do anything about him.

I have said that I'm not necessarily for the war or against the war right now. I WANT to see what happens with the weapons inspections. When it was first announced that we were going to go after Iraq - I was VERY much against it. But look what our threats did - Iraq has agreed to let weapons inspectors in. Would he have if the UN got down on it's hands and knees and begged like it was before? No - of course not. As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Speak softly but carry a big stick." The thing is Hussein only understands the big stick. We've threatened him with the big stick and we will continue to threaten him. If he doesn't comply we will use it.

I'm not ashamed of being patriotic. Supporting a stand you believe in though has nothing to do with being patriotic though. I do support the process that we are going through and if Hussein does not give the inspectors unfettered access like he's supposed to - then I will support the war also.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
one reason could be that the networks are primarily concerned with making profit, which means airing commercials so that viewers could buy things they don't need with money that don't have (possibly a definition for "advertising")

and since prime time air is expensive, better to air braindead sitcoms for a population that would only tune out any presidential address

I watched the President's speech on CNN. Also on Satruday I watched the French Parliment Debate Iraq which was shown on C-SPAN.

[Hasty Ent]

i don't have cable, and most people i know don't either... i refuse to pay money to watch commercials

don't have the stats on this, but maybe someone here does: what percentage of the tv viewing public in the usa has cable? and of that percentage, how many tune in to political programs?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
BoP - you get ABC now? Do you get Nightline and World News Tonight then?

We only started getting it recently so I'm not too sure of its format; it runs quite late as well -- about 12.30am onwards. But the first half an hour or so appears to be an ABC world type thing.

JD
- have any of you been to the US to actually experience America first hand?

Planning on it.

JD
And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

Do a google search. It's not hard. There's a whole bunch of stuff. Can't promise any unbiased sources though.

JD
Just admit it - when Saddam Hussein kicks them out again or prevents them from doing their job - you will still think the US has no reason to do anything about him.

I have never said that Saddam wasn't an SOB. He is. But the US has never started a war without a strong pretext to back it up before. I'm sorry, but every part of me screams "sour grapes". I still think there are bigger threats in the world to worry about... Bali being case in point. Let's worry about the actual terrorists, instead of trying to link Iraq into everything.

[BeardofPants]

JD, have you ever thought about running for congress? You'd be quite good at it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
We only started getting it recently so I'm not too sure of its format; it runs quite late as well -- about 12.30am onwards. But the first half an hour or so appears to be an ABC world type thing.

Then how can you say it's so biased?

Do a google search. It's not hard. There's a whole bunch of stuff. Can't promise any unbiased sources though.

I do do google searches - that's the problem - I haven't found anything. As I have already said also - if it was reported from BBC or something I would believe it. If it was from Iraq.com - I'm not going to. I judge news sources just as harshly here. Time lost a lot of respect from me when they called the Bushes "The Bushies". That demostrates their biases. It's something a Kindergartner would say, not a professional news source.

I have never said that Saddam wasn't an SOB. He is. But the US has never started a war without a strong pretext to back it up before. I'm sorry, but every part of me screams "sour grapes". I still think there are bigger threats in the world to worry about... Bali being case in point. Let's worry about the actual terrorists, instead of trying to link Iraq into everything.

Yes and unless anything like Bali attack occurred in Indonesia - you would be complaining if America started sending troops there. You would be screaming for proof - and nothing would be good enough. Now that close to 200 people have died - it's alright for the US to get involved. Why do we always have to be on the defense?

We still have not started a war with Iraq. Chances are there will be. He's not going to let inspectors in.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually I was pissed that the three networks didn't carry the president's speech.

I find a lot of faults with my country. Not have national health care isn't one of them. If you knew anything about America, whihc by talking to you guys I know you don't, we do have programs for people that can not pay for medical treatment. No one gets turned away from hospitals or doctors. They may not get the same level of service as someone with insurance or who can pay - but neither does Canadians or British.

I have looked at international news sources - as I have said repeatedly - they only report the portion of US news that supports the publiucs view (case in point the BBC).

BoP - you get ABC now? Do you get Nightline and World News Tonight then?

I have been to England twice - so I've seen your newscasts also - have any of you been to the US to actually experience America first hand?

And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

In the last Iraq thread we were at the same point. You guys were arguing that the US should consult it's allies and go to the UN. Well we did that. Now the weapons inspectors are going to be going to Iraq. Just admit it - when Saddam Hussein kicks them out again or prevents them from doing their job - you will still think the US has no reason to do anything about him.

I have said that I'm not necessarily for the war or against the war right now. I WANT to see what happens with the weapons inspections. When it was first announced that we were going to go after Iraq - I was VERY much against it. But look what our threats did - Iraq has agreed to let weapons inspectors in. Would he have if the UN got down on it's hands and knees and begged like it was before? No - of course not. As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Speak softly but carry a big stick." The thing is Hussein only understands the big stick. We've threatened him with the big stick and we will continue to threaten him. If he doesn't comply we will use it.

I'm not ashamed of being patriotic. Supporting a stand you believe in though has nothing to do with being patriotic though. I do support the process that we are going through and if Hussein does not give the inspectors unfettered access like he's supposed to - then I will support the war also.

Actually people in the UK who subscribe to a private health plan recieve exactly the same health treatment as those on the NHS, the only major differnence being the administration, people who have a private plan have more control over there medical records, Dr's refferals etc.............the treatment covered by a private health plan is adminstered by doctors who also work for the NHS (I know because I have one )

The BBC has, and still does, operate the biggest international news service , the World Service, are you saying that this bias is carried to the majority of the world capable of recieving radio transmissions ..................... if so then why does this not directly affect the world?.......tune your radio to the World Service.........I think you'll find it to be incredibly unbiased. The World Service is broadcast in 37 different languages internationally, no other company provides that kind of converage.

If Saddam "kicks out" the inspectors then surely the problem of Iraq becomes an international problem.........the world knows this but why is America so willing to make it their own personal problem

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, have you ever thought about running for congress? You'd be quite good at it.

Nice sarcasm. Just because you don't agree with my feelings doesn't mean that I'm wrong. I was right in saying in the other threads for you guys to wait - that we weren't going to war tomorrow. That was several months ago. We're still not at war. I had stated that we would be meeting with out allies and we have been. We even went through the UN.

The only reason the UN decided to pick up the issue was because we said that it was time for the Un to prove that it was not irrelavent and that if they didn't handle the problem we would.


Hasty Ent - C-Span broadcasts over the net. Also - a lot of news organisations broadcast over the net. Since you're on Entmoot - I must assume you have access to the net. You can also get all or most of the President's Speeches off of Whitehouse.gov

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Then how can you say it's so biased?

Well maybe because it is?

JD:
I judge news sources just as harshly here. Time lost a lot of respect from me when they called the Bushes "The Bushies". That demostrates their biases. It's something a Kindergartner would say, not a professional news source.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are many left that have any semblance of respect for Bush......

JD:
Yes and unless anything like Bali attack occurred in Indonesia - you would be complaining if America started sending troops there. You would be screaming for proof - and nothing would be good enough. Now that close to 200 people have died - it's alright for the US to get involved. Why do we always have to be on the defense?

Ah, but you see, I don't want the US to go barging into Bali to try and sort it out. It would only make it worse. As would an Australian resolution. The extreme hatred for Australians in Indonesia is overwhelming... You really think that Aussie or US troops sent in would sort things out? It is unfortunate, but the only way these things can be resolved is if they have a chance to mature.... an endless vicious cycle, because they won't get a chance with us breathing down their necks: and with good reason too.... close to 200 people died. I want to personally strangle them myself. But. Our interference wouldn't acheive anything. The change has to come from within.

JD:
We still have not started a war with Iraq. Chances are there will be. He's not going to let inspectors in.

Yeah, and that's a great reason to start a war, and kill thousands of civilians. "We suspect you have WMD and you won't let us in so we are going to level you."

Show me the money, JD.

Give me, and the rest of us, proof that there are WMD in Iraq. I don't want conjecture or speculation... I want actual proof.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

The BBC has, and still does, operate the biggest international news service , the World Service, are you saying that this bias is carried to the majority of the world capable of recieving radio transmissions ..................... if so then why does this not directly affect the world?.......tune your radio to the World Service.........I think you'll find it to be incredibly unbiased. The World Service is broadcast in 37 different languages internationally, no other company provides that kind of converage.

When I had tried looking at how BBC was reporting the debates going on here over Iraq - they never mentioned all the discussions that Congress was have, nor did they mention all the meetings the President was having with Congressmen. They were basically reporting at that time that we were going to war and that was it.

If Saddam "kicks out" the inspectors then surely the problem of Iraq becomes an international problem.........the world knows this but why is America so willing to make it their own personal problem

Because the world doesn't get involved unless America does. Also - as I've said - I think that America should take it's troops, it's aid and it's foreign policy and leave it all up to the rest of the world. Have Britain send troops to Indonesia - and lead the charge. Let France, let New Zealand, Germany. If you don't like what America is doing then get involved and you guys go in and attempt to fix the problems. Don't constantly stand behind us and critisize.