Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:30 pm
Let me first say that their have been some very good points made on both sides of this issue. As a former desert Marine in 90-91 I like Ingus am left with a feeling that we should have finished the job during that time, and I couldn't understand why. As it turns out that while the Russians publicly supported the Iraq war1. Behind the scenes it was negotiating on the behalf of Saddam , because of its extensive holdings and interests in Iraq. That led to the halting of the drive to Bagdad. 
Saddam surrendered
Unconditionally That means that he was agreeing to following anything that the UN wanted. Which he did not do completely.
This led to 10 years of ineffectual leadership both at home and in the UN. (17 resolutions) any which could have caused an imediate invasion. It wasn't until after 9-11 and we finally have a president that has enough sand to confront all threats to America. That we finally have acted in self defense. Has their been any major attacks in America since we started this war on terror? A good offense is a good defense. Saddam is no longer a threat. Which he surly would have been if we let him stay in power.
Saddam surrendered
Unconditionally That means that he was agreeing to following anything that the UN wanted. Which he did not do completely.
This led to 10 years of ineffectual leadership both at home and in the UN. (17 resolutions) any which could have caused an imediate invasion. It wasn't until after 9-11 and we finally have a president that has enough sand to confront all threats to America. That we finally have acted in self defense. Has their been any major attacks in America since we started this war on terror? A good offense is a good defense. Saddam is no longer a threat. Which he surly would have been if we let him stay in power.
Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:46 pm
-Havoc-We have found at least 2 mobil chemical vans. We have also found and destroyed many (Solumund) missles that also broke resolutions passed by the UN. We have also found Nulcear componets buried in the yard of a former scientists that has admitted to working on a team that was trying to build a nuc. You mentioned somthing about the corprate news channels not covering anything about how the administration is messing things up. If you watch any of the main news channels or big newspapers that is all that they they cover because they are all LIBERAl. I can also tell you another country that has declared war on Muslim terrorsts. Russia against the Chechaya muslims. Why dont we hear anything about that in the papers? That is not including the many countries that have joined our cause.
Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:25 pm
Gotta agree with Sgt DEVILDOG on that. I am neither liberal nor conservative but I see a HUGE liberal leaning in the media and always have. Earlier I mentioned the Iraqi field commander that states they had been issued CBR weapons. How many of you saw that report? I had to dig it up off of a website that had a link to a British newspaper. What the hell is that? Information like that is not newsworthy in the US?
How often are the headlines blasting SOLDIERS KILLED!. We lose over 50,000 a year in auto accidents alone in this country. Thats close to the total loses in the entire 11 years of the Viet Nam conflict! Granted I am sad that there are loses. I don't want to lose anyone. But realistically this is politically motivated newscasting.
Keep in mind even back when old farts DEVIL and I were in it was an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE! They make it clear to you when you join you may die. No one is forcing them to be there. They do it because they have pride and believe in what they are doing. And as a military force the United States boasts one of the most proffessional services ever seen and we are damn proud of it. I mourn the loses probably more than the average person but I am more bothered By some fuck like Rodriguez kidnapping, probably raping, and killing Dru Sjodin.
Why don't we see footage of the literally millions of Iraqi's that now have medical care? power? food? the rebuilding of the infrastructure of the country? An Iraqi police force that isn't based on sending parents videotapes of the rapes of their daughters? Hell they can even apply for the Olympic team now and not face execution for failing to win.
Now all I am really saying is get your news from more than one source. Its been proven without a doubt we did not support Iraq with CBR during the Iran/Iraq war but the mainstream media slams it out into you so often they are making it fact.
That kind of power is even scarier than the Department of Homeland Gestapo. Heinrich Himmler ran the SS and when you guys make cracks about DHS you are comparing it to him.
We had better be real careful though.
The media is the equivalent of Josef Goebbels and he was a bigger danger than Himmler.
How often are the headlines blasting SOLDIERS KILLED!. We lose over 50,000 a year in auto accidents alone in this country. Thats close to the total loses in the entire 11 years of the Viet Nam conflict! Granted I am sad that there are loses. I don't want to lose anyone. But realistically this is politically motivated newscasting.
Keep in mind even back when old farts DEVIL and I were in it was an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE! They make it clear to you when you join you may die. No one is forcing them to be there. They do it because they have pride and believe in what they are doing. And as a military force the United States boasts one of the most proffessional services ever seen and we are damn proud of it. I mourn the loses probably more than the average person but I am more bothered By some fuck like Rodriguez kidnapping, probably raping, and killing Dru Sjodin.
Why don't we see footage of the literally millions of Iraqi's that now have medical care? power? food? the rebuilding of the infrastructure of the country? An Iraqi police force that isn't based on sending parents videotapes of the rapes of their daughters? Hell they can even apply for the Olympic team now and not face execution for failing to win.
Now all I am really saying is get your news from more than one source. Its been proven without a doubt we did not support Iraq with CBR during the Iran/Iraq war but the mainstream media slams it out into you so often they are making it fact.
That kind of power is even scarier than the Department of Homeland Gestapo. Heinrich Himmler ran the SS and when you guys make cracks about DHS you are comparing it to him.
We had better be real careful though.
The media is the equivalent of Josef Goebbels and he was a bigger danger than Himmler.
Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:55 pm
Here's a little story to illustrate how good propaganda works.
I have a buddy who was a Lcpl in the Marine Corp (props to DEVILDOG!) during the first Gulf war. He was temporarily assigned to guarding a bunch of prisoners during the ground phase of the war when the Iraqi's were surrendering in droves.
They had the Iraqi's in a fenced compound and the marines were outside the fencline standing guard. My buddy was there with an interpreter. He noticed all the Iraqi's were sitting on the ground in orderly rows and not making any noise whatsoever. Granted they were prisoners of war and in a stockade but he thought they were unusually quiet and subservient.
He asked the interpreter about it and why they were acting like this. This is pretty much what the interpreter said.
Interpreter:"You are a U.S. Marine correct?" to which my friend replied "Yes"
Interpreter:"You are the ones they call the Devil Dogs correct?" to which my friend replied "Yes"
Interper:"They have heard of the Devil Dogs and are afraid of you very much"
To which my friend asks "Why is that?"
Interpreter: "Because we are told that to even become one of you Devil Dogs you must kill a member of your family"
Now at this point my friend became a typical marine and says something like "Who the hell told you that!? I had to kill my entire family!"
Now yes my buddy is a smartass (Jarheads!) but thats the kind of image they were instilling into their troops to get them to fear us and fight us.
This is the type of thing the media tries subtle to do to us. The media likes to say things about true democracy being a well-informed populace. Unfortunately they decide what you are to be informed about and there is a definite bias in mainstream media. You know how many young ignorant girls
I heard this week saying they felt sorry for that "Poor old Grandpa" Saddam when they saw him on TV?
I have a buddy who was a Lcpl in the Marine Corp (props to DEVILDOG!) during the first Gulf war. He was temporarily assigned to guarding a bunch of prisoners during the ground phase of the war when the Iraqi's were surrendering in droves.
They had the Iraqi's in a fenced compound and the marines were outside the fencline standing guard. My buddy was there with an interpreter. He noticed all the Iraqi's were sitting on the ground in orderly rows and not making any noise whatsoever. Granted they were prisoners of war and in a stockade but he thought they were unusually quiet and subservient.
He asked the interpreter about it and why they were acting like this. This is pretty much what the interpreter said.
Interpreter:"You are a U.S. Marine correct?" to which my friend replied "Yes"
Interpreter:"You are the ones they call the Devil Dogs correct?" to which my friend replied "Yes"
Interper:"They have heard of the Devil Dogs and are afraid of you very much"
To which my friend asks "Why is that?"
Interpreter: "Because we are told that to even become one of you Devil Dogs you must kill a member of your family"
Now at this point my friend became a typical marine and says something like "Who the hell told you that!? I had to kill my entire family!"
Now yes my buddy is a smartass (Jarheads!) but thats the kind of image they were instilling into their troops to get them to fear us and fight us.
This is the type of thing the media tries subtle to do to us. The media likes to say things about true democracy being a well-informed populace. Unfortunately they decide what you are to be informed about and there is a definite bias in mainstream media. You know how many young ignorant girls
I heard this week saying they felt sorry for that "Poor old Grandpa" Saddam when they saw him on TV?
Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:43 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
but I see a HUGE liberal leaning in the media and always have.
Totally Agree with Colonel Ingus 100% to very last drop!!!. Your entire post was in the same tangent as my ideals.
I suggest: Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Great Book. Eye opening and informative. I consider myself a moderate but the media will and will always be Bias b/c we all have our own opinion and have the natural urge to express it. In addition, It HAS to be political. The media and politics have a symbiotic relationship- One cannot live w/o the other now. This all became quite a conclusive understanding when television was first introduced for political motives and millions upon millions owned one.
Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:29 am
I saw a Dan Rather piece on the following......." The conseravties are concerned because they feel that we the media are only concentraiting on the negitive of the war, and not the re-building and economic progress that we have made in IRAQ" .......... The story he ran was about the 85 millon dollars spent by the military to American companies to build bomb barriers around Bagdad. Thanks for that bit of good news. That is not biased at all is it ?????
Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:54 am
Originally posted by SGT DEVILDOG
-Havoc-We have found at least 2 mobil chemical vans. We have also found and destroyed many (Solumund) missles that also broke resolutions passed by the UN. We have also found Nulcear componets buried in the yard of a former scientists that has admitted to working on a team that was trying to build a nuc. You mentioned somthing about the corprate news channels not covering anything about how the administration is messing things up. If you watch any of the main news channels or big newspapers that is all that they they cover because they are all LIBERAl. I can also tell you another country that has declared war on Muslim terrorsts. Russia against the Chechaya muslims. Why dont we hear anything about that in the papers? That is not including the many countries that have joined our cause.
Thank you for your service. All of you.
I watch and listen to as much as I can as it seems many of us here do. We have a right radio network up here and others that give thier side. We also have the left. I feel they both slant it. I don't see either side reporting the TRUTH, just thier slant on the truth. I have to run to work and wish I could read the remaining posts here, but I would like to say it looks like you guys have gone where I wanted this to go.
To a discussion on the media and were we get our information. I will read the remaining posts after I get home. Thanks all for the input.
Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Originally posted by -HaVoC-
Thank you for your service. All of you.
I watch and listen to as much as I can as it seems many of us here do. We have a right radio network up here and others that give thier side. We also have the left. I feel they both slant it. I don't see either side reporting the TRUTH, just thier slant on the truth. I have to run to work and wish I could read the remaining posts here, but I would like to say it looks like you guys have gone where I wanted this to go.
To a discussion on the media and were we get our information. I will read the remaining posts after I get home. Thanks all for the input.
Very good point HaVoc. I think you are right about both sides reporting on what they want. It just seems to me that the left seems to be a little more slanted about what it reports. I think that we have to gather all the information we can and make up our own minds
Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:28 pm
Roger that Havoc.
Nobody gives us the plain old simple truth. I am just as leery of Rush Limbaugh as I am of Peter Jennings (and no I am not bashing Peter because hes Canadian).
If we do a quick demographic we have the following.
Major Newspapers: Predominantly Liberal. I can't even think of a Major US Publisher that is NOT liberal. Sad, very sad.
Talk Radio/radio:many local conservative shows, many local liberal shows. National Level we've got Rush (Arrggh! I HATE this guy! I refer to him as a succesful graduate of the Josef Goebbels school of broadcasting! Won't let a little thing like the truth get in the way!) And NPR! What a deal! we can spew a leftist liberal philosophy down your throat all day long! and as an ADDED BONUS! our tax money supports it!
TV (cable and normal)
Liberal news:ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNN Headline
Conservative: FOX
Not going to touch the internet as you can find anything you want from any part of the political spectrum. Any idiot with a keyboard can put whatever he wants up there (maybe this is a case in point?
)
Really hard to find anything out there that doesn't give a biased viewpoint. Anyone got any suggestions for sites that are even mildly attempting to be somewhat fair in their coverage. Think its a pretty fair question and maybe I can learn something myself. I have found the History Channel to be probably the most accurate and impartial but not so hot on current events, duh!
Nobody gives us the plain old simple truth. I am just as leery of Rush Limbaugh as I am of Peter Jennings (and no I am not bashing Peter because hes Canadian).
If we do a quick demographic we have the following.
Major Newspapers: Predominantly Liberal. I can't even think of a Major US Publisher that is NOT liberal. Sad, very sad.
Talk Radio/radio:many local conservative shows, many local liberal shows. National Level we've got Rush (Arrggh! I HATE this guy! I refer to him as a succesful graduate of the Josef Goebbels school of broadcasting! Won't let a little thing like the truth get in the way!) And NPR! What a deal! we can spew a leftist liberal philosophy down your throat all day long! and as an ADDED BONUS! our tax money supports it!
TV (cable and normal)
Liberal news:ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNN Headline
Conservative: FOX
Not going to touch the internet as you can find anything you want from any part of the political spectrum. Any idiot with a keyboard can put whatever he wants up there (maybe this is a case in point?
)
Really hard to find anything out there that doesn't give a biased viewpoint. Anyone got any suggestions for sites that are even mildly attempting to be somewhat fair in their coverage. Think its a pretty fair question and maybe I can learn something myself. I have found the History Channel to be probably the most accurate and impartial but not so hot on current events, duh!
Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:08 am
http://www.fark.com
Best source for news around the globe there is, biased only towards naked women(in a good way) and idiots
There's no unbiased news source out there, so the best you can do is simply gather stories from as many different sources as possible and find the middle ground between the differences. Therein usually lies the truth, if you take enough time to dig through the 20 different versions of the same story.
As for finding WMD of in Iraq, it's a rather large country with a lot of hiding spots we CAN see, no telling how many we can't see. Recently here in Oklahoma, we had a rather nasty man escape from the local police and head into some woods. This occurred less then an hour's drive from where I am right now(approx 50 miles away). After WEEKS of searching, they had no clue where this one single man without anything but a prison jumper on was, but they were PRETTY sure he was still somewhere in these woods. Mind you, they had a lot of people and dogs and choppers and whatnot out searching these woods every single day for weeks straight. He was caught by someone he tried to kidnap a state away who shot him. So, we got a few thousand people looking for a single man in an area of only a few miles on a side, and he gets clean away on foot without any help.
Now, we've got how many people in Iraq who's mission it is to find these WMD..1600 isn't it(correct me if I'm wrong, I read that somewhere just recently), searching an entire COUNTRY for items that range in size from a baseball to a semitruck. Now, IF those items were sitting on the surface, not hidden or camoflaged, it would take a rather long time to find the biggest of them, provided there was NO interference from locals in the search. We could safely expect them to have found perhaps 4 of the largest size items by this time, maybe 5. Instead, they are searching for items that have been hidden, locals who interfere, and they aren't even sure WHAT the items may look like if they see them. Keep that in mind, you can alter the outward appearance of a weapon to such an extent that you have to dismantle it to discover just what it really is, yet it will STILL be functional.
THIS is the little job our people in Iraq are having to deal with right now, while trying to not get ambushed, carbombed, etc, in areas where the native population isn't always friendly and open.
Tell ya what, I'll go hide a 50 gallon drum full of water in Tulsa, Okla, and you, any of you, come find it if you can. While you waste the next few years of your life seaching for that drum of water, you can consider the problems inherent in the search for WMD in a country the size of Iraq
Best source for news around the globe there is, biased only towards naked women(in a good way) and idiots
There's no unbiased news source out there, so the best you can do is simply gather stories from as many different sources as possible and find the middle ground between the differences. Therein usually lies the truth, if you take enough time to dig through the 20 different versions of the same story.
As for finding WMD of in Iraq, it's a rather large country with a lot of hiding spots we CAN see, no telling how many we can't see. Recently here in Oklahoma, we had a rather nasty man escape from the local police and head into some woods. This occurred less then an hour's drive from where I am right now(approx 50 miles away). After WEEKS of searching, they had no clue where this one single man without anything but a prison jumper on was, but they were PRETTY sure he was still somewhere in these woods. Mind you, they had a lot of people and dogs and choppers and whatnot out searching these woods every single day for weeks straight. He was caught by someone he tried to kidnap a state away who shot him. So, we got a few thousand people looking for a single man in an area of only a few miles on a side, and he gets clean away on foot without any help.
Now, we've got how many people in Iraq who's mission it is to find these WMD..1600 isn't it(correct me if I'm wrong, I read that somewhere just recently), searching an entire COUNTRY for items that range in size from a baseball to a semitruck. Now, IF those items were sitting on the surface, not hidden or camoflaged, it would take a rather long time to find the biggest of them, provided there was NO interference from locals in the search. We could safely expect them to have found perhaps 4 of the largest size items by this time, maybe 5. Instead, they are searching for items that have been hidden, locals who interfere, and they aren't even sure WHAT the items may look like if they see them. Keep that in mind, you can alter the outward appearance of a weapon to such an extent that you have to dismantle it to discover just what it really is, yet it will STILL be functional.
THIS is the little job our people in Iraq are having to deal with right now, while trying to not get ambushed, carbombed, etc, in areas where the native population isn't always friendly and open.
Tell ya what, I'll go hide a 50 gallon drum full of water in Tulsa, Okla, and you, any of you, come find it if you can. While you waste the next few years of your life seaching for that drum of water, you can consider the problems inherent in the search for WMD in a country the size of Iraq
Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:03 am
Saddam should have hidden with the WMDs.
Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:15 am
I think maybe we should check Canada (quebec?) for those pesky WMDs... we all KNOW that those guys are up to no good... 
Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:32 am
I really hate how people claim the news is liberal. It is not. It just seems that way. It seems that way because the news in our country wants ratings, and ratings are brought with tear jerking story's, ones that make you feel good for someone, feel sorry for someone, etc. These stories are generally associated with 'bleeding heart' Democrats.
It has nothing to do with political affiliations, it has everything to do with ratings, which means MONEY.
When it comes down to political views, I always see both sides equally. Just last night i watched a debate on either MSNBC or CNBC about the WMD where the host was generally siding with the conservative.
The only news source I see that tries to show one side is Fox, which does it on purpose.
It is much like how people will not watch Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine because it is all about 'gun being bad' from that stupid 'liberal.' Try watching it. It is so far from it.
If our politicans took a fraction of the time they dedicate to crying about the media being 'liberal' and finger pointing at the other political side for the cause of the problems in this country, this country might actually get on tack for fixing those same problems.
It has nothing to do with political affiliations, it has everything to do with ratings, which means MONEY.
When it comes down to political views, I always see both sides equally. Just last night i watched a debate on either MSNBC or CNBC about the WMD where the host was generally siding with the conservative.
The only news source I see that tries to show one side is Fox, which does it on purpose.
It is much like how people will not watch Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine because it is all about 'gun being bad' from that stupid 'liberal.' Try watching it. It is so far from it.
If our politicans took a fraction of the time they dedicate to crying about the media being 'liberal' and finger pointing at the other political side for the cause of the problems in this country, this country might actually get on tack for fixing those same problems.
Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:55 pm
How to phrase this correctly without ripping Jimmy?
Most of us are middle of the road and are just trying to find the truth.
I don't even watch FOX but I can see that you seem to be bothered by the fact they admit they are conservative. At least I could go into their news with a grain of salt unlike all the other networks that don't admit it. I guess I would thank FOX for at least being intelectually honest with me if I used them as a source of information.
Your little pal Moore is just as bad if not worse than Limbaugh himself! There are so many ways to rip Moore's viewpoints that we don't have enough webspace to list them. How about that scene in Bowling for Columbine when he shows how easy it is to go into a store and buy a gun? They already exposed that he had his production crew in a month a head of time to set that scene up!
Check out that book Bias that =Viper= referenced. This is a guy IN the media who admits it!
[edit]
When I asked for possible references to possibly less biased news soucres I was not referring to Hollywood. Theres a place that makes their living on pretending to be other people and getting us to believe in lies. Not what i was looking for thanks.
Most of us are middle of the road and are just trying to find the truth.
I don't even watch FOX but I can see that you seem to be bothered by the fact they admit they are conservative. At least I could go into their news with a grain of salt unlike all the other networks that don't admit it. I guess I would thank FOX for at least being intelectually honest with me if I used them as a source of information.
Your little pal Moore is just as bad if not worse than Limbaugh himself! There are so many ways to rip Moore's viewpoints that we don't have enough webspace to list them. How about that scene in Bowling for Columbine when he shows how easy it is to go into a store and buy a gun? They already exposed that he had his production crew in a month a head of time to set that scene up!
Check out that book Bias that =Viper= referenced. This is a guy IN the media who admits it!
[edit]
When I asked for possible references to possibly less biased news soucres I was not referring to Hollywood. Theres a place that makes their living on pretending to be other people and getting us to believe in lies. Not what i was looking for thanks.
Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:47 am
I am confused by your response. My little pal Moore? because I mentioned his one movie, and how it is not what people think it is, I now believe eveything he has said and he is my pal?
You obviously missed the whole point of that movie. It has nothing to do with gun control, how easy it is to get guns in the US, etc. Of course his film crew has to scout locations. Do you think they look in a phone book for numbers to call in the 'easy access to guns that will be good for a documentary' section? He brings up these points because everyone else does. He goes through a check list of excuses that are thrown around. He goes about it in his usual satirical way. Then, towards the end, he brings up his own. It deals American's mindsets and what we as Amercians see everyday ont he TV, especially venues like the news.
I never brought Moore's movie up as a reference to you asking for other 'less biased news sources.' In fact, I was not even replying to you specificly at all, but the general posts of the media being liberal over the last page or two.
And gee, thanks for phrasing it without 'ripping' me.
So, because one guy IN the media thinks the media is liberal, they are? Sorry, doesn't add up. Guess what? I was IN the media at one time, too. Little thing called journalism. Guess what the first thing you learn is? You write to the intelligence of a child. The second thing? You want to tug at someone's heart, because that is what sells. That is where all the 'liberal' media is, just trying to make a sale.
'Look, the poor animals, we can not drill for oil here, back to you Bob.'
"Oh no, how liberal of the media.'
Mean while, Ed, Sandy, and little Elliot are wiping away tears at poor little thumper, for being driven away for oil. They watched the whole thing, without turning the channel. That means more money for the station broadcasting it. It has nothing to do with their views, just what people will watch, and that is heart tugging stories.
You obviously missed the whole point of that movie. It has nothing to do with gun control, how easy it is to get guns in the US, etc. Of course his film crew has to scout locations. Do you think they look in a phone book for numbers to call in the 'easy access to guns that will be good for a documentary' section? He brings up these points because everyone else does. He goes through a check list of excuses that are thrown around. He goes about it in his usual satirical way. Then, towards the end, he brings up his own. It deals American's mindsets and what we as Amercians see everyday ont he TV, especially venues like the news.
I never brought Moore's movie up as a reference to you asking for other 'less biased news sources.' In fact, I was not even replying to you specificly at all, but the general posts of the media being liberal over the last page or two.
And gee, thanks for phrasing it without 'ripping' me.
So, because one guy IN the media thinks the media is liberal, they are? Sorry, doesn't add up. Guess what? I was IN the media at one time, too. Little thing called journalism. Guess what the first thing you learn is? You write to the intelligence of a child. The second thing? You want to tug at someone's heart, because that is what sells. That is where all the 'liberal' media is, just trying to make a sale.
'Look, the poor animals, we can not drill for oil here, back to you Bob.'
"Oh no, how liberal of the media.'
Mean while, Ed, Sandy, and little Elliot are wiping away tears at poor little thumper, for being driven away for oil. They watched the whole thing, without turning the channel. That means more money for the station broadcasting it. It has nothing to do with their views, just what people will watch, and that is heart tugging stories.