Just a thought...

[Agentic]

I've spent the past half hour or so reading through the posts on this thread (most of which are completely biased, unsupported crap) and noticed that no one had brought this little tidbit up. So enjoy.

Roughly 75% of the American population support the war with Iraq.

As reported by the NY times, roughly 50% of the US population believes that Saddam had something to do directly with the 9/11 attacks.

Outside of the US, no sane person believes that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Therefore the general sentiment of the populations of other countries is a great disaproval to the war.

Scary...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Agentic

As reported by the NY times, roughly 50% of the US population believes that Saddam had something to do directly with the 9/11 attacks.

Outside of the US, no sane person believes that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Therefore the general sentiment of the populations of other countries is a great disaproval to the war.

Scary...

One question to you, the sane individual, what proof do you have or no of that can prove he had no proof?

And most countries are against the war because they have no or very little knowledge of what saddums rule was like, no middle eastern country has a free press, and most european counrties have state owned media, so that are not able to get many facts. Do you think any of the French citizens have a fucking clue as to why there gov. is opposed to this war? NO, because the gov. run media wont let them know, so of course there against it.


Also support for the war, the last poll i saw, was at 82% now.

[blaarg]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
One question to you, the sane individual, what proof do you have or no of that can prove he had no proof?

And most countries are against the war because they have no or very little knowledge of what saddums rule was like, no middle eastern country has a free press, and most european counrties have state owned media, so that are not able to get many facts. Do you think any of the French citizens have a fucking clue as to why there gov. is opposed to this war? NO, because the gov. run media wont let them know, so of course there against it.


Also support for the war, the last poll i saw, was at 82% now.
yea, we all know america always does it's best to make sure there are no cruel dictators in the world and to make sure human rights are never, ever violated... cough-saudi arabia, iraq, columbia, cuba (batista),cambodia, yemen-cough.
and america's media is so independent, especially the coverage of "operation: iraqi freedom" and all the pro-war propaganda from the fox network.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Agentic
I've spent the past half hour or so reading through the posts on this thread (most of which are completely biased, unsupported crap) and noticed that no one had brought this little tidbit up. So enjoy.

Roughly 75% of the American population support the war with Iraq.

As reported by the NY times, roughly 50% of the US population believes that Saddam had something to do directly with the 9/11 attacks.

Outside of the US, no sane person believes that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Therefore the general sentiment of the populations of other countries is a great disaproval to the war.

Scary...

something like 80% of middle easterners think the CIA commited the 9/11 attacks. Statistics only prove that people are stupid.

[evil zach]

you can make statistics say whatever you want.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by blaarg

and america's media is so independent, especially the coverage of "operation: iraqi freedom" and all the pro-war propaganda from the fox network.

American media is one HUNDRED percent free, unlike just about every where else in the world.

That is why we have like ten anti-war news agencies (cnn, pbs, msn, abc, ect.) and one pro-war site (fox).

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by evil zach
you can make statistics say whatever you want.

Whatever I want, eh...... hmm........

[day in paradise]

it is statistacally shown that people who like pop-punk are more likely to participate in beastility.

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by day in paradise
it is statistacally shown that people who like pop-punk are more likely to participate in beastility.

Dont diss on beasteality, beasteality owns

[day in paradise]

Originally posted by Stompemplay
Dont diss on beasteality, beasteality owns

youre attempt at funny has failed, please kill yourself.

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by blaarg
yea, we all know america always does it's best to make sure there are no cruel dictators in the world and to make sure human rights are never, ever violated... cough-saudi arabia, iraq, columbia, cuba (batista),cambodia, yemen-cough.

Saudi Arabia and Yemen dont have a dictator... not sure about cambodia-- but Cuba does

and Columbia, Cuba, Cambodia, and Yemen are not suspected- with understanding proof that they have WMD.

Do you think French coverage of the war shows Iraqi's celebrating in the streets... or Americans firing on an Iraqi truck that has not stopped at a checkpoint?

All news is slightly biased.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by blaarg
yea, we all know america always does it's best to make sure there are no cruel dictators in the world and to make sure human rights are never, ever violated... cough-saudi arabia, iraq, columbia, cuba (batista),cambodia, yemen-cough.
and america's media is so independent, especially the coverage of "operation: iraqi freedom" and all the pro-war propaganda from the fox network.

So what should we just give up tring to stop dictators or human rights violations, is that the liberal/socialist way, just ignore it and hope it wont become an issue?

[blaarg]

Originally posted by EmoMoose86
Saudi Arabia and Yemen dont have a dictator... not sure about cambodia-- but Cuba does

and Columbia, Cuba, Cambodia, and Yemen are not suspected- with understanding proof that they have WMD.
they were all run by dictatorships once, back in the late1800's to early 1900's it think, cambodia was run by a dictator who died recently, and all of them were supposrted by america while they were dictatorships.
and i wonder why they aren't suspected of having weapons of mass destruction... maybe cuz america didn't give any to them like they did with iraq.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by blaarg
they were all run by dictatorships once, back in the late1800's to early 1900's it think,

Actually that would have put them under BRITISH and FRENCH control/influence not american.

[decisionpending]

if Bush is so worried about dictators and human rights violations, may i ask what he is going to do about zimbabwe?

[decisionpending]

and statistics can be used to prove anything. 47% of people know that

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by decisionpending
if Bush is so worried about dictators and human rights violations, may i ask what he is going to do about... <INSERT OPPRESSED COUNTRY HERE?>

my thoughts exactly.

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by decisionpending
if Bush is so worried about dictators and human rights violations, may i ask what he is going to do about zimbabwe?

What kind of question is that?

I doubt Bush has ever heard of Zimbabwe

[decisionpending]

i guess, he never would have heard of iraq if not for his father... either way

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by blaarg
they were all run by dictatorships once, back in the late1800's to early 1900's it think, cambodia was run by a dictator who died recently, and all of them were supposrted by america while they were dictatorships.
and i wonder why they aren't suspected of having weapons of mass destruction... maybe cuz america didn't give any to them like they did with iraq.

America was going to give Iraq the smallest amount of chemical weapondry... (not proven they did)... Saddam has unaccounted for TONS AND TONS AND TONS... like 20,000 lbs of Mustard gas - I really really really dont think USA gave Iraq that.

Iraq made weapons - the USA didn't give it to them.

aaaaaand Justin is right- American had not TOUCHED the middle east till just after WWII. It was all British or French after WWI... and Saudi Arabia never had a dictatorship I don't think.

Saddam is a mad man. Yes. There are many mad leaders in this world... but we aren't going to attack them because of that sole purpose. This war hits many threats with one stone. Here are all reasons:

1) taking out a regime that supports terrorism
2) taking out a regime that does not abide by the UN weapons expectors
3) taking out a regime that has suspected WMD
4) taking out a regime that threatens the US and the World Community
5) taking out a regime that has a dictatorship
6) taking out a regime that has a long long long record of human rights violations

Overall- this war will benifit Iraq.
Overall- this war will benifit the USA.
Overall- this war will benifit the World.

Why wouldn't it?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by decisionpending
if Bush is so worried about dictators and human rights violations, may i ask what he is going to do about zimbabwe?

So your saying is that theres just to much oppression in the world to worry about any of it and because we can't stop it all we shoudl just ignore it, right? Is that the selfish piont of view your tring to get acrossed?
Do you ever stop to think about the freedoms your allowed and what it would be like to live with out them?

[decisionpending]

i implied nothing of the kind!
i was just wondering when Bush is going to come after Mugabe? or maybe is he going to turn on australia because of our stupid laws regarding 'refugees'?
or what about North Korea? it seems diplomacy has failed up there as well? if Bush is going to take on one he is going to have to take on all otherwise he will seem a coward and those opressive states will win.
wasnt there an easier, less bloody, way a coup could have been achieved.
i know this point is getting tired but if Bush is going to invade one he is going to have to 'liberate' them all

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by decisionpending
i implied nothing of the kind!
i was just wondering when Bush is going to come after Mugabe? or maybe is he going to turn on australia because of our stupid laws regarding 'refugees'?
or what about North Korea? it seems diplomacy has failed up there as well? if Bush is going to take on one he is going to have to take on all otherwise he will seem a coward and those opressive states will win.
wasnt there an easier, less bloody, way a coup could have been achieved.
i know this point is getting tired but if Bush is going to invade one he is going to have to 'liberate' them all

No, there allows has to be a starting point. And hopefully something like this will inpower others to stand up to there opressive governments.

And sometimes you can't get them all, meaning dictators, so you have to go after the ones that pose the biggest threat to the world.

And there wasn't another way. Can you come up with one we didn't try.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by blaarg
they were all run by dictatorships once, back in the late1800's to early 1900's it think, cambodia was run by a dictator who died recently, and all of them were supposrted by america while they were dictatorships.
and i wonder why they aren't suspected of having weapons of mass destruction... maybe cuz america didn't give any to them like they did with iraq.


you want to know why cambodia was ruled by a dictator that killed millions of his own people? its because of the french. the french bailed out of Indo-china and let these dictatorships take over. he was actually not supported by america.

[decisionpending]

i completly agree with the first two paragraphs of your last comment, justin_stacy. and i may sound completly uninformed here but since the kurds had quite a fair bit of control over northern iraq. there could have been a US backed attack by the Kurds or something. i'm not fully againist the war but nor do i whole-heartedly agree with Bush's intentions. But as you said, i do hope this empowers others to stage their own uprisings

[yeat182]

Originally posted by decisionpending
if Bush is so worried about dictators and human rights violations, may i ask what he is going to do about zimbabwe?


so if the US went into Zimbabwe, you wouldn't have a problem with that? but you do have a problem with us going into Iraq?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by decisionpending
i completly agree with the first two paragraphs of your last comment, justin_stacy. and i may sound completly uninformed here but since the kurds had quite a fair bit of control over northern iraq. there could have been a US backed attack by the Kurds or something. i'm not fully againist the war but nor do i whole-heartedly agree with Bush's intentions. But as you said, i do hope this empowers others to stage their own uprisings

We did back the kurds who do you think is taking over northern iraq right now? Also with the kurds you have to be careful becasue the Turks hate the kurds and have masicure(im sorry its late) over the years and have said before that if they get there own country turkey will invade it. So we couldn't let them start ther own war with out us, seeing as Turkey is in the un, nato, and almost in the EU.

[blaarg]

Originally posted by EmoMoose86
America was going to give Iraq the smallest amount of chemical weapondry... (not proven they did)... Saddam has unaccounted for TONS AND TONS AND TONS... like 20,000 lbs of Mustard gas - I really really really dont think USA gave Iraq that.

Iraq made weapons - the USA didn't give it to them.

aaaaaand Justin is right- American had not TOUCHED the middle east till just after WWII. It was all British or French after WWI... and Saudi Arabia never had a dictatorship I don't think.


i was wrong about the date but i know america supported all of those one time or another.
and as i said before: the amount doesn't matter, it's the principal we (i use that term very loosely) gave iraq chem/bio weapons then accused them of having chem/bio weapons. but i guess that works on the same grounds as bush working at harkin then talking tough about enron and corporate fraud.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by blaarg
i was wrong about the date but i know america supported all of those one time or another.
and as i said before: the amount doesn't matter, it's the principal we (i use that term very loosely) gave iraq chem/bio weapons then accused them of having chem/bio weapons. but i guess that works on the same grounds as bush working at harkin then talking tough about enron and corporate fraud.

first of all, we accused them of not destroying the chem/bio weapons when the UN ordered them to, we didn't accuse them of having them. their destruction was part of the terms of the cease fire after the first gulf war.

secondly, everytime you say the US gave them weapons, you conveinently leave out the fact that so did France, Germany and Russia...

[blaarg]

Originally posted by yeat182
secondly, everytime you say the US gave them weapons, you conveinently leave out the fact that so did France, Germany and Russia...
i leave that fact out because (as i have said before) france germany and russia aren't at war with iraq over the weapons they gave them. if germany was fighting this war instead of america i would say germany gave them chem/bio weapons. and russia was the soviet union at the time so they can't really be held accountable for it now.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by blaarg
i leave that fact out because (as i have said before) france germany and russia aren't at war with iraq over the weapons they gave them. if germany was fighting this war instead of america i would say germany gave them chem/bio weapons. and russia was the soviet union at the time so they can't really be held accountable for it now.

But doesn't it matter that there NOT fighting becasue of the things they gave him or the trade partners they made out of him.

[blaarg]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
But doesn't it matter that there NOT fighting becasue of the things they gave him or the trade partners they made out of him.
that was kinda hard to read, but here's an attempted response to what i thought you meant:
they gsve them weapons and suported them once, realized it's wrong and no longer give iraq chem/bio weapons. they didn't go to war with iraq for giving iraq weapons.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by blaarg
that was kinda hard to read, but here's an attempted response to what i thought you meant:
they gsve them weapons and suported them once, realized it's wrong and no longer give iraq chem/bio weapons. they didn't go to war with iraq for giving iraq weapons.


france, germany and russia STILL give them weapons

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
france, germany and russia STILL give them weapons

and military training.

[Areyouthewalrus]

American media is one HUNDRED percent free, unlike just about every where else in the world.

Thats why there was pentagon officials in the CNN news rooms during the first gulf war scripting and editing all of CNN's stories dealing with the war. Its proven that CNN is scripted by other agencies. so no americas medi isn't ONE HUNDRED % Free.

Go watch CNN.
Its a reliable source.
ha.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Agentic
I've spent the past half hour or so reading through the posts on this thread (most of which are completely biased, unsupported crap) and noticed that no one had brought this little tidbit up. So enjoy.

Roughly 75% of the American population support the war with Iraq.

As reported by the NY times, roughly 50% of the US population believes that Saddam had something to do directly with the 9/11 attacks.

Outside of the US, no sane person believes that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Therefore the general sentiment of the populations of other countries is a great disaproval to the war.

Scary...


I believe I have said that several times.

Speak no evil. Hear No evil. this is cnn.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by Areyouthewalrus
Thats why there was pentagon officials in the CNN news rooms during the first gulf war scripting and editing all of CNN's stories dealing with the war. Its proven that CNN is scripted by other agencies. so no americas medi isn't ONE HUNDRED % Free.

Go watch CNN.
Its a reliable source.
ha.

I would never say CNN is a reliable source, but it is free to report any story it wants, any way it wants.

What i ment by 100% free, was that its not state run or state funded (except pbs or npr which are both 100% liberal)

As for your story i've never heard that, link might be nice, i also find it hard to believe that a liberal news agency would allow a republican to censor there news cast, but i could be wrong.




also welcome to the site, its nice to have a new face.:)

[xTSTLx]

there is no such thing as a reliable source anymore, there is not such thing as an unbiased source

[MCRfan7]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
American media is one HUNDRED percent free, unlike just about every where else in the world.

That is why we have like ten anti-war news agencies (cnn, pbs, msn, abc, ect.) and one pro-war site (fox).

any and every kind of media has an agenda and bias weather is "free" or not

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
there is no such thing as a reliable source anymore, there is not such thing as an unbiased source

Anymore?

When was there EVER?

[yeat182]

why do you say that CNN isn't a reliable source?

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by yeat182
why do you say that CNN isn't a reliable source?

Well what i meant was when was there ever a non biased at all news source?

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Stompemplay
Anymore?

When was there EVER?



very true!

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by yeat182
why do you say that CNN isn't a reliable source?


this is why CNN is not a reliable source....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84118,00.html

[BrandNewRock05]

burn

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
this is why CNN is not a reliable source....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84118,00.html

Haha

and the ironic thing is that that story is also biased because foxnews competes with CNN

[yeat182]

"So, for example, when Saddam's son Uday told him he planned to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected to neighboring Jordan and to kill Jordan's King Hussein CNN could not report that because it might have gotten CNN's translator killed. So CNN did not report it, though it did warn King Hussein, who dismissed the information."


that doesn't make them an unreliable source...they would be unreliable if they consistantly reported facts that weren't true.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by Stompemplay
Haha

and the ironic thing is that that story is also biased because foxnews competes with CNN

How is it bias because they compete? I was under the idea that ALL news agencies compete for viewers.

I'm not really sure you understand what bias is. The only bias part of that story was CNN's ignorance. Fox posting the story was good journalism, how many other agencies do you thing covered the story heavy. And it wasn't like Fox went digging for this story either, CNN themselves brought it up in an article in the New York Times.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by yeat182
"So, for example, when Saddam's son Uday told him he planned to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected to neighboring Jordan and to kill Jordan's King Hussein CNN could not report that because it might have gotten CNN's translator killed. So CNN did not report it, though it did warn King Hussein, who dismissed the information."


that doesn't make them an unreliable source...they would be unreliable if they consistantly reported facts that weren't true.


i retract what i said earlier, i was unaware of the entire story, i apologize, i was talking to my roommate about it and filled me in, the people from CNN were just doing there job, if they didnt withhold info, they would have been killed, i would rather get parts of the story, than get nothing at all

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
i retract what i said earlier, i was unaware of the entire story, i apologize, i was talking to my roommate about it and filled me in, the people from CNN were just doing there job, if they didnt withhold info, they would have been killed, i would rather get parts of the story, than get nothing at all

its not really that they would have been killed (which was an option for there non american crew), but that they would have been banned from baghdad, so whats more important location or truth?

[yeat182]

by reporting this story they would have put themselves in physical jeopardy, and would aslo jeopardize their ability to report any important future news from baghdad, they weighed their options and thought it was better to not put the crew in harms way, and remain on location to report future events. they would most likely have been killed if they reported it, so i have no problem with them protecting their reporters.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
by reporting this story they would have put themselves in physical jeopardy, and would aslo jeopardize their ability to report any important future news from baghdad, they weighed their options and thought it was better to not put the crew in harms way, and remain on location to report future events. they would most likely have been killed if they reported it, so i have no problem with them protecting their reporters.

What makes you think they would have had the ability to broadcast "important" news in the future, would n't they have been killed then too.

Also i see rape rooms, mass murder, starvation, torture, assult on children, abuse of UN charities and regulations, oppression, ect, as "important" news.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
What makes you think they would have had the ability to broadcast "important" news in the future, would n't they have been killed then too.

Also i see rape rooms, mass murder, starvation, torture, assult on children, abuse of UN charities and regulations, oppression, ect, as "important" news.
good call, who does give you the straigt facts then....?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
good call, who does give you the straigt facts then....?

what about iraq?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
what about iraq?
yeah

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#

Also i see rape rooms, mass murder, starvation, torture, assult on children, abuse of UN charities and regulations, oppression, ect, as "important" news.


all of which were reported...

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
all of which were reported...

nope, not before war was threatened, they stated in the news paper and following that they had known these kinds of things were going on for yrs.
But yet in there news reports they said it was just "suspected".


In Saturday's New York Post, columnist Eric Fettmann wrote: ''It's like saying that the best interests of journalism would have justified suppressing stories on the Holocaust in order to keep a U.S. news bureau in Berlin to tell Nazi Germany's side.''

[xTSTLx]

would you rather have no story.....or bits of it.....personally, i would like to have some idea of what is going on

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
would you rather have no story.....or bits of it.....personally, i would like to have some idea of what is going on

but how do you know whats the truth and what isn't?

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
but how do you know whats the truth and what isn't?


you are assuming that all news is truthful, that is just part of the media....that is another argument

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
you are assuming that all news is truthful, that is just part of the media....that is another argument

No what i was getting at, was that you said you'd rather hear a bit of the news instead of nothing, but is it really news if it is produced by a government for them to look good, wouldn't it be better to hear nothing then something that isn't true? That CNN knew wasn't true.

[xTSTLx]

this could be me being misinformed, but i thought that CNN just withheld certian bits of information, i didnt think they changed stories

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
this could be me being misinformed, but i thought that CNN just withheld certian bits of information, i didnt think they changed stories

Oh, what they were printing is what the office of propaganda told them to and it checked over there stories before they were aired.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Oh, what they were printing is what the office of propaganda told them to and it checked over there stories before they were aired.

hmm...i going to have to think about this one

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Oh, what they were printing is what the office of propaganda told them to and it checked over there stories before they were aired.

i think that you may be mislead...in an interview with Eason Jordan, he said he just withheld information, he didnt change it


http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=55;t =000990

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
i think that you may be mislead...in an interview with Eason Jordan, he said he just withheld information, he didnt change it


http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=55;t =000990

I dont know how to put this...............The reason people are getting mad at them is cause they stayed in Iraq even though they weren't free to report what they wanted.
I didn't mean that "they" changed the news to make iraq look good they just printed more of what they were told to print rather then the truth.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
I dont know how to put this...............The reason people are getting mad at them is cause they stayed in Iraq even though they weren't free to report what they wanted.
I didn't mean that "they" changed the news to make iraq look good they just printed more of what they were told to print rather then the truth.

isnt that what you meant when you said.....

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Oh, what they were printing is what the office of propaganda told them to and it checked over there stories before they were aired.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
isnt that what you meant when you said.....

No, because they were printing what the office (and they didn't call it propaganda but i dont know the name they used) told them to, and they weren't allowed to air it or post it to CNN (america) until it had first been checked by officers of the gov., is that better.

Its not really changing a story, if it wasn't your story to begin with.

[xTSTLx]

alright...i see what ya meant...dont get mad!...im just trying to justify my opinion

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
alright...i see what ya meant...dont get mad!...im just trying to justify my opinion
no, i wasn't getting mad, see i think faster then i can type so sometimes (most of the time) what i want to say comes out bad.:D

[xTSTLx]

its all good....i enjoy arguing with ya!!

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
its all good....i enjoy arguing with ya!!

start a new thread then, boy!

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
start a new thread then, boy!



hahah....your on!!...let me think of something

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
hahah....your on!!...let me think of something

good cause im out of ideas

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
nope, not before war was threatened, they stated in the news paper and following that they had known these kinds of things were going on for yrs.
But yet in there news reports they said it was just "suspected".


In Saturday's New York Post, columnist Eric Fettmann wrote: ''It's like saying that the best interests of journalism would have justified suppressing stories on the Holocaust in order to keep a U.S. news bureau in Berlin to tell Nazi Germany's side.''


it was well known before the war ever started that saddam had rape rooms, starved and tortured his citizens, abused of UN charities and regulations, oppressied his people....