[quote="mattywuh"Well, if that's your opinion of your public let it be. Although, would that imply that the media controls the elections too?
I have a little more faith in the population of my own country.
[/quote]
First of you are just blind to your ignorance if you think that just because you are from the UK means that you are better and less susceptible to the lies people tell you. please...
And yes to a certain extent the media does control the elections. The not as rich parties likethe green party and the liberatrian party will never accomplish much because the media will not give them the time of day. If the media decided to endorse one of these candidates they will do 100x better then they would have without the media. Since the media only focuses on Democrats and Republicans they are the only two parties who will ever win.
Hoff there are people who run for office and don't spend millions of dollars. Have you ever heard of grassroots campaigns? They do work because the person actually makes an attempt to find the problems of that area and the people will respect them for that. It is true that ads might contribute, but on both sides they rely on attacking the other candidates credibility. Usually people will vote their party unless their candidate has a different view on issues like gun control or abortion. Why are you arguing about how the masses operate? Men in Black put it perfectly when the agent said "A person is smart. But people are stupid, scared en masse." The media does cover darfur btw, they've covered it for years but no one besides the African Union has acted to this date. Why would they want to talk of our failure, we didn't during rwanda. Maybe looking to something besides the television will help you understand.
And no matter how much you say the UN is meaningless won't make it true. Thank you Jucdor for pointing out the dual roles that NATO and the UN function. NATO no longer has to deal with a communist threat; that's why whenever the UN passes a mandate to send peacekeeping troops they turn to NATO first. UN is an international organization that is in place to preserve the legitimacy of nations. It provides nations to debate on an international scale that is crucial for a "world of democracy." If we just invaded whenever we wanted then we have no right to claim we are the greatest free nation in the world. The UN was approached with the most rediculous case ever. Colon Powell even admits that he felt like a fool for his presentation on the Iraq imminent threat. We basically told the UN to support us and invade Iraq within a few months, which is atypical, and told them to blow off when they refused.
That is not diplomacy.
"We spend as much effort on indifference as our parents spent in the war."
Oh everyone I would like to introduce the new state of america GB O.K Iraq war was stupid Tony Blair just went. <sarcasm>They Even found the weapons of mass destruction it was only a propaganda when they said they weren't there</sarcasm>
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
areon wrote:Hoff there are people who run for office and don't spend millions of dollars. Have you ever heard of grassroots campaigns? They do work
Are you kidding me? I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here, are you saying that grassroot campaigns help parties such as the green party and the libertarian party gain office? Well its not too affective, look at congress. They're are republicans and democrats and one independent who used to a democrat. I dont see anyone from the green party there?
Or are you saying that the media does not greatly affect how we vote. Are you seriously saying that if the media didnt mention democrats but rather talked about liberatrians that the libertarians wouldnt do better?
seriously now, think before you type.
The media does cover darfur btw, they've covered it for years but no one besides the African Union has acted to this date. Why would they want to talk of our failure, we didn't during rwanda. Maybe looking to something besides the television will help you understand.
If you actually read what I said you would see that i didnt say they didnt cover it at all. I said that they almost completely ignore. 99% of the time you are looking over whatever media source you choose, you will not see anything about Darfur. The media decides what the people think is important and the media decided that other things like immigration, terrorism, and Iraq are more important.
First of you are just blind to your ignorance if you think that just because you are from the UK means that you are better and less susceptible to the lies people tell you. please...
I don't think that my nation is better. I have never been to America and therefore cannot comment on how your public views it's own media outlets. As you live in America, I accepted your own judgement of your own nation, despite the fact that I personally feel it is likely to be wrong.
My statement only implied that I know from experience that much of the British public view the media with a degree of scepticism. That is all.
It is true that ads might contribute, but on both sides they rely on attacking the other candidates credibility. Usually people will vote their party unless their candidate has a different view on issues like gun control or abortion.
I never said anything about the independents or greens. Not all republican and democratic candidates have loads of money to run off of when they campaign in their primaries.
I don't know why you think they aren't covering darfur. I saw a program 2 weeks ago on the Jim Lehrer where they had the French Ambassador to the UN go over the European plans for sending troops there. A few days ago he talked with Koffe Annan about what he has been doing in Africa to gain support. This is a news program on PBS, so someone is covering it.
"We spend as much effort on indifference as our parents spent in the war."
areon wrote:Too bad I wrote some other stuff you ignored...
It is true that ads might contribute, but on both sides they rely on attacking the other candidates credibility. Usually people will vote their party unless their candidate has a different view on issues like gun control or abortion.
I never said anything about the independents or greens. Not all republican and democratic candidates have loads of money to run off of when they campaign in their primaries.
I don't know why you think they aren't covering darfur. I saw a program 2 weeks ago on the Jim Lehrer where they had the French Ambassador to the UN go over the European plans for sending troops there. A few days ago he talked with Koffe Annan about what he has been doing in Africa to gain support. This is a news program on PBS, so someone is covering it.
To bad you ignored everything I wrote. I know you never said anything about the independents and the greens I did to show how the media affects people's votes. If the media did spotlight democrats and republicans then they wouldnt be winning elections. I'm not saying anything about mulit-million dollar campaigns. Even grassroot campaigns would be nothing without the media. The media highlights democrats and republicans and as a result they are the one who wins the elections. What point are you trying to make? That you don't need millions of dollars to win? Ok, point made. First of all, it helps alot if you had millions of dollars to campaign. But the simple fact that the media focuses on asses and elephants affects how people vote. In a grassroot campaign you can slap a label on yourself as a democrat, and people will vote for you just because they are democrats and know what a democrat is. The reason they are or they know what one is, is because the media chooses to talk about democrats and republicans.
And no where did I say that the media wasnt covering Darfur. I was simply using it to show how the media controls the issues. The average american would think Darfur was some place in Iraq. Iraq is whats on American's minds, not Darfur. Why? Because the media focuses on Iraq. You said two weeks ago you saw a show about Darfur? Ok, every night you can find somethign about Iraq. Point made.
thegrimsleeper wrote:Oh right, because so many people watch PBS...
You should they don't have ads except inbetween programs. Meh they used to show red dwarf but stopped. I mentioned it because it's something all around the country.
I only watch it occasionally and they have a nice spread of news stories. Like I said before that the major television networks aren't very useful because they show hype. Not all the media does this, and Iraq is generating a lot of coverage because it is really important.
I mentioned the money because any media venture that we are talking about affecting peoples opinion will be done through ads and lots of cash. If you are implying that the population just listens to talk show hosts or specific reporters and believes them, I disagree. The media isn't some control mechanism, it's just another forum for people to speak out. Just because some people don't bother to check their facts doesn't make it into what you are saying.
Grassroots is just a way that people running go directly to their districts/area/etc to campaign and then those people go tell everyone they know. Not much media involved.
"We spend as much effort on indifference as our parents spent in the war."
this may be weird, but my dad got a newleaf saying that weapons of mass destruction have been found in iraq. no nuclear bombs, but other weapons of mass destruction
If common sense was so common, wouldn't everyone have it?
The one thing we have learned from history is that we don't learn from history.
The more time passes since 9/11 the more we forget.
Bush said the war on terror would be against terrorist and those who harbor terrorist.
Gas prices are insane.
Iraq had terrorist training camps.
Gas prices are insane.
Saddam sponcered terrorism.
Gas prices are insane.
Saddam had 14 months to hide or relocate WMD's before we invaded.
The war was NOT about oil ( or gas prices would not be insane)
Right or wrong...it has been done. Withdraw now? Hardly the answer.
Securing our boarders would be nice.... but lust of the illegal vote and workers for buisness all but omit that as an option.
Maybe after we are attacked again (and I believe we will) The govornment will wake up and put their power hungry agendas aside and do what's necissary to protect THE PEOPLE.
I've seen the beheadings ...... the enemy has no conscience nor common decency toward human life.
but I digress......
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Not that anybody will call them on these quotes now.
__________________________
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
_____
.... That should clear things up a bit. How soon we forget!
... And don't forget, war is good for business. And that's true regardless of party affiliation.
Seriously though - can we please stop confusing Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussain...
Ossama Bin Laden despised Saddam Hussain's secular state. If Saddam had not such a ruthless and strong secret police they probably would have had him killed through terrorism.
Sure - justify a war because he was evil, because he tortured thousands. Even justify a war because of the existence of WMD's. I will accept them as valid points to argue over.
But please don't assume just because there is more than one enemy that they automatically work together... Come on...
Jay do you honestly belive we live in a "free world" like f*ck we do.
9/11 as got absolutly nowt to do with Saddam or Iraq.
I want to know why you (well we but lets be honest not many of us want to be assoicated with the US on this issue unfortunatly Blair was a fuckin pussy) have not yet attacked Saudi Arabia when the terroists on the planes were from there, would it happen to be because your frienmds with their king and you would never want to upset an oil rich nation like Saudia Arbia.
howie wrote:Jay do you honestly belive we live in a "free world" like f*ck we do.
9/11 as got absolutly nowt to do with Saddam or Iraq.
I want to know why you (well we but lets be honest not many of us want to be assoicated with the US on this issue unfortunatly Blair was a fuckin pussy) have not yet attacked Saudi Arabia when the terroists on the planes were from there, would it happen to be because your frienmds with their king and you would never want to upset an oil rich nation like Saudia Arbia.
No doubt there are "secret" motives behind who we attack and who we don't. Personally I think they (those in power) are setting the stage for the NWO (new world order).
I heard somewhere that Saudi Arabia has nuclear devices rigged on all their oil fields so if they were invaded...BOOM! Noone would be able to use the oil. But that is mere rumor.
Solution: we find a alternative fuel sorce and tell saudi, iran and the lot to keep their oil. The US should be self sufficiant as much as possible.
But as with things like cancer, they probably have a cure but would never release it cause of all the $$$$$$$$$ the cancer drugs make and doctors are making. If we turn to another fuel sorce the US oil industry would be devistated. Its all about profits and greed!
9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq per say....but an ounce of prevention outweighs a pound of cure. Iraq trained terrorists and yes common sense dictates you take out saudi.... unless under the cover of darkness there is a hidden reason not to.
CORUPTION.... greed, power and control...thats what runs the world.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
just something for the thing about the media, it is f***ed up
they lie at every little thing. plus, they all support those who support them. wikinews all the way! they say what's happening everywhere. and i believe someone said something about darfur? what about the genocide in uganda?
If common sense was so common, wouldn't everyone have it?
The one thing we have learned from history is that we don't learn from history.
And we return to my two favourite topics on this thread.
The only camps in Iraq where terrorists were trained were in Kurdistan - which was an autonomous region. Saddam had no control there. They were our allies in the war...
And again about the media - they are all pushing their own agenda. You cannot argue they promote lies and falsities on the one hand then state an argument which is clearly to have come from the right-wing press. (This is directed at earlier posts...)
Yeah - the media distorts and will even lie. You just have to expect it to. I don't pick up a Murdoch owned paper and expect it to give me left wing news. I don't pick up the Socialist Worker and expect a list of the benefits of a Capitalist state.
The media is like anything. Don't take it at face value. From reading my posts you would think that I was trying to persuade people. Seriously, I don't give a shit what anyone on this forum thinks. I'll never meet any of you. I just want my f***ing turn...
