A2597, going in for personal insults is the last resort of a losing argument. Calling people who disagree with you names is childish and throws every other point you might make into the shadow cast by that attitude. Such things make your arguments be taken less seriously.
Fox is the single most biased news source in this country, with the possible exception of the 700 club. They tend to have 20 conservative speakers for every liberal speaker. They lie and distort. They skip over reporting things that disagree with their conservative viewpoint.
as far as the "liberal media" "clinton news network" and other ridiculous claims, even Rush Limbaugh has said that the liberal media doesn't exist. Why is there no real liberal media? Let's examine that issue:
NBC is owned by General Electric, a large and conservative corporation. MSNBC is co-owned my MicroSoft, who had the huge lawsuit against them settled for peanuts by shrub and company.
ABC in owned by Disney, which treats its employees libarally, but supports the conservative side politically. Look at the recent ruling extending their rights to Mickey Mouse instead of it going into the public domain shortly, as required by law.
CBS is owned by Sony/Viacom. Another huge corporation benefitting from the stupid tax cut and corporate welfare doled out by shrub.
CNN is owned by AOL/Time Warner, a giant megalithic corporation that benefits greatly from these same tax breaks and benefits. Too bad their leadership is too incompetent to survive anyway.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most conservative people on the planet. His bias against anything liberal is well established.
Since all of these giant corporations benefit from the Republican corporate largesse, why would any of them support the liberal viewpoint? The reporters frequently support the liberal stance, but the editors and owners often squash stories they disagree with or change them to support their own views. This has become a common practice in our media lately, and a big reason why more americans read the BBC news now.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]A2597, going in for personal insults is the last resort of a losing argument. Calling people who disagree with you names is childish and throws every other point you might make into the shadow cast by that attitude. Such things make your arguments be taken less seriously.
[/B][/QUOTE]
WHEN did I call ANYONE here a name?
RC:
never said ground troops wern't needed, I said that airplanes can take out all air defences, all their tanks, AA, and large numbers of personel.
And I still stand that Fox is the most reliable news source in this country. I do however wish I could get bbc or some other countries news channels....
NBC is owned by General Electric, a large and conservative corporation. MSNBC is co-owned my MicroSoft, who had the huge lawsuit against them settled for peanuts by shrub and company.
ABC in owned by Disney, which treats its employees libarally, but supports the conservative side politically. Look at the recent ruling extending their rights to Mickey Mouse instead of it going into the public domain shortly, as required by law.
-- Disney....conservative...LMAO. And that is why that most conservatives BOYCOTT Disney I suppose? Because Disney is conservative. That is one of the most rediculous claims I have every heard.
CBS is owned by Sony/Viacom. Another huge corporation benefitting from the stupid tax cut and corporate welfare doled out by shrub.
--CBS, almost never watch them, but their news is OK. And again I don't like the timeing of the tax cuts, but some of them were good. You have to remember, it was an equal tax cut, based on percentage. Those that spend more, get more back.
CNN is owned by AOL/Time Warner, a giant megalithic corporation that benefits greatly from these same tax breaks and benefits. Too bad their leadership is too incompetent to survive anyway.
--Gah...DIE AOL. Time Warner was a good company until AOL bought them. Now they wil both die (Soon I hope)
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most conservative people on the planet. His bias against anything liberal is well established.
--From what I've seen, Fox is the only channel to actually show a conservative viewpoint. Even so there are a number of liberals on the show as well. Best shows on fox are O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes (OK, dunno if I got their names spelled right). O'Reilly is Independant (He says) Alot of time he is very concervative in his viewpoints, most likly as a result of his upbringing. Hannity is Concervative, Colmes is definately now. Does that mean I automatically disregaurd anything he says? no. In fact there are times I even agree with him. Albeit not as often as I disagree, but hey, different viewpoints on whats right.
[quote]I think the flow of this argument is going against you A2597...[/quote]
And here is the best part. I can't lose. :) Worst that can happen is that everyone agrees to disagree. :D :p :D
[quote][i]Article RC posted[/i]
[b]Bush criticised over N Korea
A group of senior US Democrats has urged the Bush administration to begin direct talks with North Korea, warning that the secretive state poses a far greater threat of becoming a hostile nuclear power than Iraq. [/b][/quote]
WOOT! Bout bloody time someone told Bush flat out that N. Korea needs to be attended to. They are eerily simuler to the Tom Clancy book, just fill in "North Korea" for "Japan" and you have todays senareo...
Alright I'll wade into the defense of A#, he's rather young and has yet to trod the halls of academia.
First Im going to attack the notion that "American needs Europe"
Fact is gentlemen like the world changed in 1900 when the US had more production then the UK and Germany combined the world is changing again, dramaticly.
The next 100 years will see Indonesia, China and India DWARFING Europe. Europe has hit its max population which is what 393 IF that for the whole EU? and dropping. The long term trends have better see us orient our foreign policy to asia, and not Europe. Politicly and economicly its going to be a middle ground player in the long run.
Second of all, yes Iraq sells most of its oil to people other then the US, hell we (I think Mobile or what ever its name is todaydoes refining and they have subisdiaries and partners in europe) buy the legal stuff and process it here, but then it gets shipped to europe!
Lastly Im going to attack the UN AND the very concept of International Institutionalism. Ive got a guy here working on his Phd thesis in IR who's TRYING to keep his belief in International Institutionalism and the mechanisms of the UN but is failing hard.
If you look at the conduct of commitees and actions by the UN its a rather toothless body, the general assembly is mostly irrlevent, member nations often times ignore its resolutions, and when its not convient for all the big 5 even SC resolutions get ignored
Another disturbing trend is that the panels and bodies have taken lives of their own and are creating crazier and crazier language, that the member states are NEVER going to accept, like the one regarding womens rights? the panel that drafted is now trying to say that it means prostitution has to be legalized. The arab nations are ignoring it utterly and now so are alot of western countries.
If you look at the voting record, all the major states pursue realist objectives, and avoid implementing fully the demands of the UN while the smaller states do so hoping the UN can control the larger states from pushing them around, ultimatly itself a realist doctrine
Lastly the North Korean army. JohnD is right and semi wrong, the north Korean army is huge, and parts of it are highly, highly effective, fortunatly its NOT all 7.5 million men of their reserves. With the problems in Korea yove got about half a million men in units that are well equiped and trained, where as the rest have because of their need for domestic work had their traning cycles junked. Maintainace, rifle fire, menuver practice, you got to do those things ALOT to be good at it, and many NK units havent been doing so.
Attacking North Korea would be a massive blood bath, unless we have more cool toys then we are talking about, however if the PDRK troops tried invading the south, the ROK forces will probably hold, but alot of dying is going to happen.
Problem is, we CANT cave in to Kim Il Jong, we do that and he's going to constantly up his demands and rehtoric, he's got that kind of a complex, pacification will only end with a unified communist korea, that subsequently must be constantly subsidized by the outside world, and great expense to everybody because their own inherent inefficancies.
Lastly on the news thing, Im with A# on that one, Fox doesnt distort as much as everybody likes to think, what it does is point out the other side that the big boys typicly leave out.
Like the story that started this whole debate, more then half of the Human shields HAVE fled, and more are leaving, and the newest replacement group suddenly seems to be "stuck"in Lebanon. There is stuff going on there that nobody is talking about. This deal WAS arranged by the Iraqi government as part of a PR propoganda effort.
Look at alot of the stuff that was dismissed as "rightwing distortion and propoganda" during the cold war, a healthy chuck of it turned out to have more then a kernal of truth soon as we got the other sides story. IE the opening of the Communist International archives.
Frankly alot of the stuff I rember seeing put out by the far left in the 80's turned out to be manufactured KGB propaganda.. Rember the Sandinistas? How they are pretty much defunct in a more democratic Nicaragua? Cause they werent exactly the "hero's of the people" the media portrayed them to be?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]oh...just relized I used "bloody" in a sentance...been reading to much Wheel of Time... [/B][/QUOTE]
I read to much stuff written in commenwealth countries is my problem.. damn quick jotted notes, the words are infecting my Yank english!
I used to have an Aussie friend, she was in Melbourn, I havent talked to her in a long while. Ahh she was hot, had a nice voice and daaamn that accent ;)
ShadowBoxer! I say we arrange an exchange! our annoying women for yours! maybe we can work with something different! ;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]I read to much stuff written in commenwealth countries is my problem.. damn quick jotted notes, the words are infecting my Yank english! [/B][/QUOTE]
I live in a commonwealth country. I use "bloody" all the time. :)
I posted - then deleted it - it was semi off topic and down an avenue we didn't need to go...
I will say this:
------
To the people who walked out of schools and classes on Tuesday I say - Education is often the answer to war - not gaining ignorance by skipping class. That was silly.
------
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
In my view, it's never displayed anything productive in any way, expecially in High Schools and Colleges, where many students would much rather *not* attend classes, and would gladly use a "protest walk-out" as a reason to leave.
What I think would be better would be a teacher walk-out, or perhaps using the class time to educate the students about the political situation.
True, a teacher walk-out would still leave the students without class, but it would be more powerful than if students alone were to leave.
On the other hand, using class time to educate the students on what appears to be the inevitable would be a perfect way to demonstrate an interest (whether for or against) the possible war. Better yet, having teachers coordinate their activities as to have the departments work together to fully educate the students would be the best idea, IMHO.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
A2597:
I just came across this article - very interesting. It is not for or against war, but rather what some consequences of the war that you normally wouldn't think of: International war crimes charges against Bush and Blair could be possible if they go to war without the UNSC backing.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]
I just came across this article - very interesting. It is not for or against war, but rather what some consequences of the war that you normally wouldn't think of: International war crimes charges against Bush and Blair could be possible if they go to war without the UNSC backing.
[/B][/QUOTE]
And we all know how effective they are at rounding up war criminals... :rolleyes:
I'd hate to say this, but as much good as it's done in the past, the UN's been moving more and more into... well.. does the word "League of Nations" bring up anything in mind ?
"do you just want to bicker and waste time, or do you want to be like the REAL UN ?" -Mr. Skinner
With regards to the North Korea situation, I think people here are forgetting one very important aspect.
China.
It's impossible to do anything about North Korea without involving China in some way or another. There's an article (slightly dated) by Orson Scott Card about it [url=http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-01-06-1.html]here[/url]. OSC tends to show a conservative bias with regards to international politics (I have no idea how he can call himself a Democrat), but I believe his analysis is essentially correct.
[QUOTE]"real safety issues in the work they were hoping to do in Iraq".[/QUOTE]
I love that quote.... I'd heard that they'd been sent to power stations and such, but couldn't find an article (the link posted on the first reply or something like that).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]And we all know how effective they are at rounding up war criminals... :rolleyes:
I'd hate to say this, but as much good as it's done in the past, the UN's been moving more and more into... well.. does the word "League of Nations" bring up anything in mind ?
"do you just want to bicker and waste time, or do you want to be like the REAL UN ?" -Mr. Skinner [/B][/QUOTE]
That's it exactly... as sad as it is. Just because it's an international assembly doesn't give it some omnicient viewpoint into the future or an ability to understand and forsee the ills that will befall the world.
Just as some accuse the US government, more specifically President Bush, of playing internal agendas, just keep in mind that other governments play interal agendas as well. France, for instance, benifits the most from the Iraqi "Oil for Food" program. Wouldn't want to loose that now, would we? Anyone else see Ari Fleisher today say that the US would not touch Iraqi oil?
This whole situation, at least to me, also reminds me of the League of Nations right before WWII where it failed to recognize the threat that the rearmament of Germany (in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) posed to Europe.
Does history repeat itself, or have we just failed to realize the uncanny resemblance this circumstance reflects upon those in pre-WWII Europe.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]A2597:
I just came across this article - very interesting. It is not for or against war, but rather what some consequences of the war that you normally wouldn't think of: International war crimes charges against Bush and Blair could be possible if they go to war without the UNSC backing.[/B][/QUOTE]
This would never happen, it all depends on how you interpret UN resolution 1441. The wording of "serious consequences," apparently means different things to different people. I think the ambiguity of it would detract from any war crimes case that would, if ever, be leveled.
Comments
Fox is the single most biased news source in this country, with the possible exception of the 700 club. They tend to have 20 conservative speakers for every liberal speaker. They lie and distort. They skip over reporting things that disagree with their conservative viewpoint.
as far as the "liberal media" "clinton news network" and other ridiculous claims, even Rush Limbaugh has said that the liberal media doesn't exist. Why is there no real liberal media? Let's examine that issue:
NBC is owned by General Electric, a large and conservative corporation. MSNBC is co-owned my MicroSoft, who had the huge lawsuit against them settled for peanuts by shrub and company.
ABC in owned by Disney, which treats its employees libarally, but supports the conservative side politically. Look at the recent ruling extending their rights to Mickey Mouse instead of it going into the public domain shortly, as required by law.
CBS is owned by Sony/Viacom. Another huge corporation benefitting from the stupid tax cut and corporate welfare doled out by shrub.
CNN is owned by AOL/Time Warner, a giant megalithic corporation that benefits greatly from these same tax breaks and benefits. Too bad their leadership is too incompetent to survive anyway.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most conservative people on the planet. His bias against anything liberal is well established.
Since all of these giant corporations benefit from the Republican corporate largesse, why would any of them support the liberal viewpoint? The reporters frequently support the liberal stance, but the editors and owners often squash stories they disagree with or change them to support their own views. This has become a common practice in our media lately, and a big reason why more americans read the BBC news now.
[B]A2597, going in for personal insults is the last resort of a losing argument. Calling people who disagree with you names is childish and throws every other point you might make into the shadow cast by that attitude. Such things make your arguments be taken less seriously.
[/B][/QUOTE]
WHEN did I call ANYONE here a name?
RC:
never said ground troops wern't needed, I said that airplanes can take out all air defences, all their tanks, AA, and large numbers of personel.
And I still stand that Fox is the most reliable news source in this country. I do however wish I could get bbc or some other countries news channels....
ABC in owned by Disney, which treats its employees libarally, but supports the conservative side politically. Look at the recent ruling extending their rights to Mickey Mouse instead of it going into the public domain shortly, as required by law.
-- Disney....conservative...LMAO. And that is why that most conservatives BOYCOTT Disney I suppose? Because Disney is conservative. That is one of the most rediculous claims I have every heard.
CBS is owned by Sony/Viacom. Another huge corporation benefitting from the stupid tax cut and corporate welfare doled out by shrub.
--CBS, almost never watch them, but their news is OK. And again I don't like the timeing of the tax cuts, but some of them were good. You have to remember, it was an equal tax cut, based on percentage. Those that spend more, get more back.
CNN is owned by AOL/Time Warner, a giant megalithic corporation that benefits greatly from these same tax breaks and benefits. Too bad their leadership is too incompetent to survive anyway.
--Gah...DIE AOL. Time Warner was a good company until AOL bought them. Now they wil both die (Soon I hope)
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most conservative people on the planet. His bias against anything liberal is well established.
--From what I've seen, Fox is the only channel to actually show a conservative viewpoint. Even so there are a number of liberals on the show as well. Best shows on fox are O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes (OK, dunno if I got their names spelled right). O'Reilly is Independant (He says) Alot of time he is very concervative in his viewpoints, most likly as a result of his upbringing. Hannity is Concervative, Colmes is definately now. Does that mean I automatically disregaurd anything he says? no. In fact there are times I even agree with him. Albeit not as often as I disagree, but hey, different viewpoints on whats right.
[quote]I think the flow of this argument is going against you A2597...[/quote]
And here is the best part. I can't lose. :) Worst that can happen is that everyone agrees to disagree. :D :p :D
[b]Bush criticised over N Korea
A group of senior US Democrats has urged the Bush administration to begin direct talks with North Korea, warning that the secretive state poses a far greater threat of becoming a hostile nuclear power than Iraq. [/b][/quote]
WOOT! Bout bloody time someone told Bush flat out that N. Korea needs to be attended to. They are eerily simuler to the Tom Clancy book, just fill in "North Korea" for "Japan" and you have todays senareo...
First Im going to attack the notion that "American needs Europe"
Fact is gentlemen like the world changed in 1900 when the US had more production then the UK and Germany combined the world is changing again, dramaticly.
The next 100 years will see Indonesia, China and India DWARFING Europe. Europe has hit its max population which is what 393 IF that for the whole EU? and dropping. The long term trends have better see us orient our foreign policy to asia, and not Europe. Politicly and economicly its going to be a middle ground player in the long run.
Second of all, yes Iraq sells most of its oil to people other then the US, hell we (I think Mobile or what ever its name is todaydoes refining and they have subisdiaries and partners in europe) buy the legal stuff and process it here, but then it gets shipped to europe!
Lastly Im going to attack the UN AND the very concept of International Institutionalism. Ive got a guy here working on his Phd thesis in IR who's TRYING to keep his belief in International Institutionalism and the mechanisms of the UN but is failing hard.
If you look at the conduct of commitees and actions by the UN its a rather toothless body, the general assembly is mostly irrlevent, member nations often times ignore its resolutions, and when its not convient for all the big 5 even SC resolutions get ignored
Another disturbing trend is that the panels and bodies have taken lives of their own and are creating crazier and crazier language, that the member states are NEVER going to accept, like the one regarding womens rights? the panel that drafted is now trying to say that it means prostitution has to be legalized. The arab nations are ignoring it utterly and now so are alot of western countries.
If you look at the voting record, all the major states pursue realist objectives, and avoid implementing fully the demands of the UN while the smaller states do so hoping the UN can control the larger states from pushing them around, ultimatly itself a realist doctrine
Lastly the North Korean army. JohnD is right and semi wrong, the north Korean army is huge, and parts of it are highly, highly effective, fortunatly its NOT all 7.5 million men of their reserves. With the problems in Korea yove got about half a million men in units that are well equiped and trained, where as the rest have because of their need for domestic work had their traning cycles junked. Maintainace, rifle fire, menuver practice, you got to do those things ALOT to be good at it, and many NK units havent been doing so.
Attacking North Korea would be a massive blood bath, unless we have more cool toys then we are talking about, however if the PDRK troops tried invading the south, the ROK forces will probably hold, but alot of dying is going to happen.
Problem is, we CANT cave in to Kim Il Jong, we do that and he's going to constantly up his demands and rehtoric, he's got that kind of a complex, pacification will only end with a unified communist korea, that subsequently must be constantly subsidized by the outside world, and great expense to everybody because their own inherent inefficancies.
Lastly on the news thing, Im with A# on that one, Fox doesnt distort as much as everybody likes to think, what it does is point out the other side that the big boys typicly leave out.
Like the story that started this whole debate, more then half of the Human shields HAVE fled, and more are leaving, and the newest replacement group suddenly seems to be "stuck"in Lebanon. There is stuff going on there that nobody is talking about. This deal WAS arranged by the Iraqi government as part of a PR propoganda effort.
Look at alot of the stuff that was dismissed as "rightwing distortion and propoganda" during the cold war, a healthy chuck of it turned out to have more then a kernal of truth soon as we got the other sides story. IE the opening of the Communist International archives.
Frankly alot of the stuff I rember seeing put out by the far left in the 80's turned out to be manufactured KGB propaganda.. Rember the Sandinistas? How they are pretty much defunct in a more democratic Nicaragua? Cause they werent exactly the "hero's of the people" the media portrayed them to be?
[B]oh...just relized I used "bloody" in a sentance...been reading to much Wheel of Time... [/B][/QUOTE]
I read to much stuff written in commenwealth countries is my problem.. damn quick jotted notes, the words are infecting my Yank english!
I used to have an Aussie friend, she was in Melbourn, I havent talked to her in a long while. Ahh she was hot, had a nice voice and daaamn that accent ;)
ShadowBoxer! I say we arrange an exchange! our annoying women for yours! maybe we can work with something different! ;)
[B]I read to much stuff written in commenwealth countries is my problem.. damn quick jotted notes, the words are infecting my Yank english! [/B][/QUOTE]
I live in a commonwealth country. I use "bloody" all the time. :)
I will say this:
------
To the people who walked out of schools and classes on Tuesday I say - Education is often the answer to war - not gaining ignorance by skipping class. That was silly.
------
In my view, it's never displayed anything productive in any way, expecially in High Schools and Colleges, where many students would much rather *not* attend classes, and would gladly use a "protest walk-out" as a reason to leave.
What I think would be better would be a teacher walk-out, or perhaps using the class time to educate the students about the political situation.
True, a teacher walk-out would still leave the students without class, but it would be more powerful than if students alone were to leave.
On the other hand, using class time to educate the students on what appears to be the inevitable would be a perfect way to demonstrate an interest (whether for or against) the possible war. Better yet, having teachers coordinate their activities as to have the departments work together to fully educate the students would be the best idea, IMHO.
I just came across this article - very interesting. It is not for or against war, but rather what some consequences of the war that you normally wouldn't think of: International war crimes charges against Bush and Blair could be possible if they go to war without the UNSC backing.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2826331.stm[/url]
[B]
I just came across this article - very interesting. It is not for or against war, but rather what some consequences of the war that you normally wouldn't think of: International war crimes charges against Bush and Blair could be possible if they go to war without the UNSC backing.
[/B][/QUOTE]
And we all know how effective they are at rounding up war criminals... :rolleyes:
I'd hate to say this, but as much good as it's done in the past, the UN's been moving more and more into... well.. does the word "League of Nations" bring up anything in mind ?
"do you just want to bicker and waste time, or do you want to be like the REAL UN ?" -Mr. Skinner
China.
It's impossible to do anything about North Korea without involving China in some way or another. There's an article (slightly dated) by Orson Scott Card about it [url=http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-01-06-1.html]here[/url]. OSC tends to show a conservative bias with regards to international politics (I have no idea how he can call himself a Democrat), but I believe his analysis is essentially correct.
I love that quote.... I'd heard that they'd been sent to power stations and such, but couldn't find an article (the link posted on the first reply or something like that).
Morons.
[B]And we all know how effective they are at rounding up war criminals... :rolleyes:
I'd hate to say this, but as much good as it's done in the past, the UN's been moving more and more into... well.. does the word "League of Nations" bring up anything in mind ?
"do you just want to bicker and waste time, or do you want to be like the REAL UN ?" -Mr. Skinner [/B][/QUOTE]
That's it exactly... as sad as it is. Just because it's an international assembly doesn't give it some omnicient viewpoint into the future or an ability to understand and forsee the ills that will befall the world.
Just as some accuse the US government, more specifically President Bush, of playing internal agendas, just keep in mind that other governments play interal agendas as well. France, for instance, benifits the most from the Iraqi "Oil for Food" program. Wouldn't want to loose that now, would we? Anyone else see Ari Fleisher today say that the US would not touch Iraqi oil?
This whole situation, at least to me, also reminds me of the League of Nations right before WWII where it failed to recognize the threat that the rearmament of Germany (in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) posed to Europe.
Does history repeat itself, or have we just failed to realize the uncanny resemblance this circumstance reflects upon those in pre-WWII Europe.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]A2597:
I just came across this article - very interesting. It is not for or against war, but rather what some consequences of the war that you normally wouldn't think of: International war crimes charges against Bush and Blair could be possible if they go to war without the UNSC backing.[/B][/QUOTE]
This would never happen, it all depends on how you interpret UN resolution 1441. The wording of "serious consequences," apparently means different things to different people. I think the ambiguity of it would detract from any war crimes case that would, if ever, be leveled.