mnealtx 0 #76 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteI appreciate the way this straight shooter details how the media bias and negativity undermines the allied efforts and describes in no uncertain terms how the media is aiding and abetting our enemies through their relentless bias and selectivity when relaying the news on Iraq. You seriously believe that the media is biased AGAINST the US military? The system of embedded reporters is one of the most shockingly effective press controls ever created, and barely a peep of outcry, either from press or public. That alone should be our first warning that freedom of the press is not in either the interest of the government or the reporters themselves most of whom are content to sacrifice their professionalism for personal safety. The individual reporters? I doubt it. Their parent companies? You bet your sweet ass they are...and doing anything they can to paint the troops, the job they are doing over there and the administration in a bad light. The mainstream media IS overwhelmingly liberal...as your tagline says: be a student of reality.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #77 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI appreciate the way this straight shooter details how the media bias and negativity undermines the allied efforts and describes in no uncertain terms how the media is aiding and abetting our enemies through their relentless bias and selectivity when relaying the news on Iraq. You seriously believe that the media is biased AGAINST the US military? The system of embedded reporters is one of the most shockingly effective press controls ever created, and barely a peep of outcry, either from press or public. That alone should be our first warning that freedom of the press is not in either the interest of the government or the reporters themselves most of whom are content to sacrifice their professionalism for personal safety. The individual reporters? I doubt it. Their parent companies? You bet your sweet ass they are...and doing anything they can to paint the troops, the job they are doing over there and the administration in a bad light. The mainstream media IS overwhelmingly liberal...as your tagline says: be a student of reality. Last time I checked the mainstream media were all owned by dedicated capitalists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #78 January 19, 2005 QuoteThe individual reporters? I doubt it. Their parent companies? You bet your sweet ass they are...and doing anything they can to paint the troops, the job they are doing over there and the administration in a bad light. The mainstream media IS overwhelmingly liberal...as your tagline says: be a student of reality. I disagree. I believe the individual reporter is definitely biased as well as the Editors. Have you read Bernard Goldbergs book "Biased"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #79 January 19, 2005 I think SOME reporters may be biased, but don't think it applies to all. In response to "capitalist owners" - so what? When the editorial staff is strongly liberal, the stories will be slanted in that direction. It's also been well-proven that the mainstream media is liberally biased.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #80 January 19, 2005 QuoteI think SOME reporters may be biased, but don't think it applies to all. In response to "capitalist owners" - so what? When the editorial staff is strongly liberal, the stories will be slanted in that direction. It's also been well-proven that the mainstream media is liberally biased. Well the owners hire the managers and the managers hire the editors and reporters. Ultimately the organization is run the way the owners want it to be run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think SOME reporters may be biased, but don't think it applies to all. In response to "capitalist owners" - so what? When the editorial staff is strongly liberal, the stories will be slanted in that direction. It's also been well-proven that the mainstream media is liberally biased. Well the owners hire the managers and the managers hire the editors and reporters. Ultimately the organization is run the way the owners want it to be run. And if the owners are liberal? Like, say...Ted Turner?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #82 January 19, 2005 QuoteWell the owners hire the managers and the managers hire the editors and reporters. Ultimately the organization is run the way the owners want it to be run. As a manager, I find that to be a hilarious statement. Thanks for the laugh. Maybe true 100 years ago, but today, not even close. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #83 January 19, 2005 >Whether I support them or not and what constitutes torture and whether > we should line illegal combatants up against a wall and shoot them . . . So you refuse to answer. So be it. >has nothing to do with you impugning the character of this soldier because >his first hand account of the war disagrees with your armchair theories. I neither impugned his character nor said that I disagreed with him. You really have to read stuff before replying to it. I pointed out that this guy has been implicated in the Abu Ghraib coverup. You may choose to take his actions into account when reading his words, or you may ignore his actions. Your choice. >so of course I know what you've been posting. Apparently not. I think we are at risk of bailing on Iraq too soon - following the old "declare victory, give everyone a medal and leave" path. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #84 January 19, 2005 Quote>Whether I support them or not and what constitutes torture and whether > we should line illegal combatants up against a wall and shoot them . . . So you refuse to answer. So be it. I refuse to get distracted by non sequiturs. If you want to discuss torture then start a thread on it, if you want to redefine torture you can try there. Implying that you have the moral high ground in attacking a serviceman because he disagrees on the success of the campaign by equating pointing out your unreasonable attacks to supporting torture is disgraceful. Quote >has nothing to do with you impugning the character of this soldier because >his first hand account of the war disagrees with your armchair theories. I neither impugned his character nor said that I disagreed with him. You really have to read stuff before replying to it. I pointed out that this guy has been implicated in the Abu Ghraib coverup. You may choose to take his actions into account when reading his words, or you may ignore his actions. Your choice. Yes you did and the post is there to prove it. Here you repeat the same accusation while denying that it impugns his character, I read your post and I read this one and you arguing that black is white doesn't alter your attempt to impugn this guy's character. Your conduct is shameful and pointing that out doesn't mean I support torture. Quote >so of course I know what you've been posting. Apparently not. I think we are at risk of bailing on Iraq too soon - following the old "declare victory, give everyone a medal and leave" path. Dude I know, you edited my post to delete the CBS reference again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #85 January 19, 2005 >Dude I know, you edited my post to delete the CBS reference again. Uh, serious question for just a second here - are you OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #86 January 19, 2005 Quote>Dude I know, you edited my post to delete the CBS reference again. Uh, serious question for just a second here - are you OK? Eh? I'm just fine, here's the quote in context (should have really said quoted out of context not edited my post): QuoteIt was a partial reference to CBS, w.r.t. what you've been posting we've had exchanges on this very issue so of course I know what you've been posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #87 January 19, 2005 QuoteTo see the good go there. Thank you for your service to your country And thank you for "cutting to the chase" and your straight-forward and succinct replyOh my,I didnt mean to hijack this threadMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #88 January 19, 2005 >Eh? I'm just fine . . . OK, good, you had me worried there. Back to our inane argument in progress - Apparently I'm shameful, disgusting, horrible etc because I made a reference to the fact that the author of the article has been implicated in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Whatever. If you think I'm horrible I'll still be able to sleep at night. I think military folks are pretty much like everyone else. A good friend of mine just got back and is disgusted by what we're doing to the Iraqis. Another friend of mine just went back over there voluntarily as a contractor after he was discharged. Yet another one took a bullet in the leg from an Afghani sniper. (It was a 13 year old girl, and he took her without killing her, which impressed me.) Some are very smart people who start companies, design plans of attack, manage aircraft wings - and some aren't so smart. Some think the use of force is wrong and some can't wait to "kick some Iraqi ass" (in their own words.) In other words, they are just like people anywhere else. Most are decent people. Some (a few) are criminals. Some are remarkable heroes. I tend to judge people on what they do, not what they say. Indeed, I filter what they say through what they do. I suspect you do too, and I suspect even you, who holds up his support of all our military as a badge of honor, would find it hard to take Charles Granger's opinion on human rights as seriously as you might take someone who had not been convicted of torturing prisoners. I support our military not because they are all gods, but because they are doing a good job in a shitty situation, and they are serving a function that is absolutely essential to our country's survival, often at great risk to themselves. Most of our soldiers are good people and worthy of our respect. The few that aren't have been making a lot of headlines lately, but are not representative of the rest of our military - although they are not "left wing media inventions" either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #89 January 20, 2005 The underlying point here is the reason you attacked this guy was to discredit his report and the only reason you wanted to discredit that report was it disagrees with your armchair thesis of Iraq = Vietnam. Because I pointed this out and supported him you implied that I support torture which even goes beyond the coverup you accused this guy of with no evidence. Your whole approach here is to throw enough mud and hope that it will stick so we'll just ignore the first hand account from a commander in the theatre & just watch the blow dried naysaying pundits on the gogglebox. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #90 January 20, 2005 QuoteThey were buried because they were in contravention of the ceasefire agreement. Can you provide some evidence to back up this statement? QuoteI know about the missiles, but these were actually discovered before the invasion at the 11th hour. Saddam made some show of disclosing them after they were found... And this one? QuoteIt's also telling the way you split hairs to defend Saddam's actions even when theyre' no hairs to be split, the missiles were illegal, yet you stretch legal definitions in an attempt to indict Bush, for example w.r.t (and it's just one of many instances) illegal combatants and the Geneva Convention. You confuse my criticism of the invasion with support for Saddam. Let me clarify my position: The guy is a total shit-head and it is a good thing that he is gone, but the end (if it ever comes) does not justify the means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #91 January 20, 2005 Are you saying that the missiles weren't found before the invasion? They were mentioned in Hans Blix's report to the UN before the invasion. I specifically remember the news reports and video of tours of additional missiles (and their manufacturing facilities - form memory) as Saddam & the French scrambled to avert an invasion. The whole thing rang hollow for me because it was a smoking gun with no way of telling if there were more. What issue do you have with this? It was all over the news at the time. As for the ends justifying the means, the means were justified and the ends are good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #92 January 20, 2005 QuoteAre you saying that the missiles weren't found before the invasion? No, all I'm saying is that SH admitted he had them (as opposed to them being discovered), as you say - in an attempt to avert invasion at the 11th hour. I still can't find anything that made owning those Migs a crime though... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #93 January 20, 2005 QuoteI specifically remember the news reports and video of tours of additional missiles (and their manufacturing facilities - form memory) as Saddam & the French scrambled to avert an invasion. You're funny, dude! The French were indeed the only ones in the world trying to avoid the war. Actually, i suspect a good number of the insurgents are French. Probably the same ones who shot Kennedy! "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #94 January 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteI specifically remember the news reports and video of tours of additional missiles (and their manufacturing facilities - form memory) as Saddam & the French scrambled to avert an invasion. You're funny, dude! The French were indeed the only ones in the world trying to avoid the war. Actually, i suspect a good number of the insurgents are French. Probably the same ones who shot Kennedy! Well the TotalFinaElf oil concessions gave them a good reason to avoid war at any cost because they stood to lose a lot. As for your bizarre connections it's difficult to tell where your comments stop and your sarcasm begins. You're the guy who thinks Saddam was starting a subterranian submarine fleet when he burried the MiGs so I know exactly how to rate your opinion on serious issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #95 January 20, 2005 QuoteWell the TotalFinaElf oil concessions gave them a good reason to avoid war at any cost because they stood to lose a lot Of course. You're right. But if you want to look at it from a cynical angle, and if you are assuming that the only motivation behind the French's opposition to the war was driven by pure financial interests, then the same could be said about te US and England. Some French investors had lots to lose with an invasion; some US and British investors had lots to gain with such an invasion. Claiming that the French opposition was solely driven by financial gains, and the the US and the UK were driven by pure humanitarian motives is, in my view, hypocritical. There were other motivations, on both sides, to want to either avert or encounter this conflict. Quote You're the guy who thinks Saddam was starting a subterranian submarine fleet when he burried the MiGs Are you trying to tell me he wasn't? Go do another Google search! He had stockpiles of subterranian MIGs and underground torpedos QuoteI know exactly how to rate your opinion on serious issues. Good. Enlighten me then! Now, my French evilness is overtaking me, and I have the urge to go and mug an old lady. I'll be right back... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #96 January 20, 2005 QuoteAre you trying to tell me he wasn't? Go do another Google search! He had stockpiles of subterranian MIGs and underground torpedos LOL. i was having a depressing afternoon until I read this. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,114 #88 January 19, 2005 >Eh? I'm just fine . . . OK, good, you had me worried there. Back to our inane argument in progress - Apparently I'm shameful, disgusting, horrible etc because I made a reference to the fact that the author of the article has been implicated in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Whatever. If you think I'm horrible I'll still be able to sleep at night. I think military folks are pretty much like everyone else. A good friend of mine just got back and is disgusted by what we're doing to the Iraqis. Another friend of mine just went back over there voluntarily as a contractor after he was discharged. Yet another one took a bullet in the leg from an Afghani sniper. (It was a 13 year old girl, and he took her without killing her, which impressed me.) Some are very smart people who start companies, design plans of attack, manage aircraft wings - and some aren't so smart. Some think the use of force is wrong and some can't wait to "kick some Iraqi ass" (in their own words.) In other words, they are just like people anywhere else. Most are decent people. Some (a few) are criminals. Some are remarkable heroes. I tend to judge people on what they do, not what they say. Indeed, I filter what they say through what they do. I suspect you do too, and I suspect even you, who holds up his support of all our military as a badge of honor, would find it hard to take Charles Granger's opinion on human rights as seriously as you might take someone who had not been convicted of torturing prisoners. I support our military not because they are all gods, but because they are doing a good job in a shitty situation, and they are serving a function that is absolutely essential to our country's survival, often at great risk to themselves. Most of our soldiers are good people and worthy of our respect. The few that aren't have been making a lot of headlines lately, but are not representative of the rest of our military - although they are not "left wing media inventions" either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #89 January 20, 2005 The underlying point here is the reason you attacked this guy was to discredit his report and the only reason you wanted to discredit that report was it disagrees with your armchair thesis of Iraq = Vietnam. Because I pointed this out and supported him you implied that I support torture which even goes beyond the coverup you accused this guy of with no evidence. Your whole approach here is to throw enough mud and hope that it will stick so we'll just ignore the first hand account from a commander in the theatre & just watch the blow dried naysaying pundits on the gogglebox. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #90 January 20, 2005 QuoteThey were buried because they were in contravention of the ceasefire agreement. Can you provide some evidence to back up this statement? QuoteI know about the missiles, but these were actually discovered before the invasion at the 11th hour. Saddam made some show of disclosing them after they were found... And this one? QuoteIt's also telling the way you split hairs to defend Saddam's actions even when theyre' no hairs to be split, the missiles were illegal, yet you stretch legal definitions in an attempt to indict Bush, for example w.r.t (and it's just one of many instances) illegal combatants and the Geneva Convention. You confuse my criticism of the invasion with support for Saddam. Let me clarify my position: The guy is a total shit-head and it is a good thing that he is gone, but the end (if it ever comes) does not justify the means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #91 January 20, 2005 Are you saying that the missiles weren't found before the invasion? They were mentioned in Hans Blix's report to the UN before the invasion. I specifically remember the news reports and video of tours of additional missiles (and their manufacturing facilities - form memory) as Saddam & the French scrambled to avert an invasion. The whole thing rang hollow for me because it was a smoking gun with no way of telling if there were more. What issue do you have with this? It was all over the news at the time. As for the ends justifying the means, the means were justified and the ends are good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #92 January 20, 2005 QuoteAre you saying that the missiles weren't found before the invasion? No, all I'm saying is that SH admitted he had them (as opposed to them being discovered), as you say - in an attempt to avert invasion at the 11th hour. I still can't find anything that made owning those Migs a crime though... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #93 January 20, 2005 QuoteI specifically remember the news reports and video of tours of additional missiles (and their manufacturing facilities - form memory) as Saddam & the French scrambled to avert an invasion. You're funny, dude! The French were indeed the only ones in the world trying to avoid the war. Actually, i suspect a good number of the insurgents are French. Probably the same ones who shot Kennedy! "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #94 January 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteI specifically remember the news reports and video of tours of additional missiles (and their manufacturing facilities - form memory) as Saddam & the French scrambled to avert an invasion. You're funny, dude! The French were indeed the only ones in the world trying to avoid the war. Actually, i suspect a good number of the insurgents are French. Probably the same ones who shot Kennedy! Well the TotalFinaElf oil concessions gave them a good reason to avoid war at any cost because they stood to lose a lot. As for your bizarre connections it's difficult to tell where your comments stop and your sarcasm begins. You're the guy who thinks Saddam was starting a subterranian submarine fleet when he burried the MiGs so I know exactly how to rate your opinion on serious issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #95 January 20, 2005 QuoteWell the TotalFinaElf oil concessions gave them a good reason to avoid war at any cost because they stood to lose a lot Of course. You're right. But if you want to look at it from a cynical angle, and if you are assuming that the only motivation behind the French's opposition to the war was driven by pure financial interests, then the same could be said about te US and England. Some French investors had lots to lose with an invasion; some US and British investors had lots to gain with such an invasion. Claiming that the French opposition was solely driven by financial gains, and the the US and the UK were driven by pure humanitarian motives is, in my view, hypocritical. There were other motivations, on both sides, to want to either avert or encounter this conflict. Quote You're the guy who thinks Saddam was starting a subterranian submarine fleet when he burried the MiGs Are you trying to tell me he wasn't? Go do another Google search! He had stockpiles of subterranian MIGs and underground torpedos QuoteI know exactly how to rate your opinion on serious issues. Good. Enlighten me then! Now, my French evilness is overtaking me, and I have the urge to go and mug an old lady. I'll be right back... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #96 January 20, 2005 QuoteAre you trying to tell me he wasn't? Go do another Google search! He had stockpiles of subterranian MIGs and underground torpedos LOL. i was having a depressing afternoon until I read this. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
