Legion said:
Unlike what you have done post after post after post clashman? I do back it up through the article.
What article? Are you talking about that lame-ass website link you posted? That wasn't an article. And all it did was point out the "liberal" people involved in hollywood, (and a couple in mainstream TV), but did nothing to address the actual fact that the anti-war movement got ZERO coverage and ZERO inclusion in the debate.
More liberal rhetoric.
How much anthrax to you is a threat? How much VX nerve gas is a threat? Please describe to me in ton the magnitude of chemical and biological weapons that should be considered a threat. He has shown the capacity to use these weapons, hence the reason we were forcing him to get rid of them. He not only could be a threat to us but to our allies. This is more than a reason to do something about saddam. Unless of course you'd like to see more kurds die. But hell they aren't americans so why should the US care
?
Do you view the US as being draw into an iraqi civil war? You are quite the alarmist. This is not a solid reasoning for leaving a dangerous man as this in power. Would doing nothing cause Saddam to become less dangerous? Would doing nothing some how make him less future threat?
I actually meant guerrilla war, not civil war, but if
this article is anything to go by, that may be an option as well. And it's not a matter of doing nothing making the situation less dangerous, it's a matter of what we're doing making it MORE so. If you have a small, relatively contained fire, throwing gasoline on it because "well we HAD to do SOMETHING" doesn't exactly improve the situation.
Is there something wrong with establishing stable business control over the oil for now with future plans, as they suggested, to return the oil to control of the populace? I think they have made a safe decision to out source the oil control for now.
You obviously didn't read the article I attached to that. They are implementing changes to turn over all sectors of the Iraqi economy with the exception, (at least for now), of the oil industry to foreign, primarily U.S. companies. If that isn't an effort to maintain control over Iraq regardless of the will of it's people than I don't know what is.
From your words i am suspicious that you are, for some reason, accusing these invididuals of taking iraqi oil under the guise they will return it.
Yeah, that's kinda the idea. In formality, they probably will return ownership of the oil to Iraq, but that won't matter much to the people of Iraq when U.S. corporations control all other aspects of the Iraqi economy, including those who decide how the oil economy will function, (ie the banks).
That what would help terrorists? Giving the oil right back to the populace and doing nothing to establish and infrastructure? Hell yes it would. The terrorist would jump at the chance to get control over that oil.
That the U.S. would go in and attack a Muslim, (even if it is secular), state which was not overtly, (nor do I think covertly), threatening it, rip it to shreds, leave many areas of it to rot, and then appoint foreign companies to run the country. It's exactly what Osama and his pals have been saying all along, that the U.S. is trying to take over the Muslim world. When people see this happening, many who were on the fence get pushed over the edge, and some of them will end up becoming terrorists for Al Queda or start firing RPGs at U.S. troops. Which is exactly what "the terrorists" want to happen. They want fresh bodies so that they can inflict as much damage as possible on the United States.
So you are saying that do to some entities not existing then the overall out cry was not the same or completely nonexistant? Sounds like rather fallacious reasoning clashman.
That's nice, your point? I said "so many" not "all".
This has been pointed out many times before, but the reason why the outcry wasn't as big is because the scale of the conflict isn't as big. If we were sending 150,000 troops to Kosovo in 1999 to fight a war in which we'd be losing people on a daily basis you can bet your ass there'd be hundreds of thousands of people in the streets.
Must some one continue to address your inane bable Clashman? By now i think if i had not responded your post more than likely would have been ignored. Many of these issues you have discussed are seem or at least seem similiar to numerous conversations i have seen on this board and elsewhere. I have stated this thread appears to be nothing more than flamebait and would expect most to completely ignore it.
Replying is not the same as responding. You have provided no evidence to discredit the initial posts on this page, namely that U.S. war coverage was heavily biased in favor of the war, and that many right wingers are hypocritical in their categorization of dissent. IE, when it's against Clinton, then it's OK, when it's against Bush and there are much more significant likely consequences, then dissent is treason.
Really? I thought it was rather clear. I explained that exploitation of countries including iraq of the people in iraq during the years of Oil for food was rather profound. No one seemed willing to cease transactions even with the prior knowledge Saddam was using the money to fill his personal coffers. That much is obvious. Perhaps you should have listened a bit more to those protestors where you live instead of just passing them by?
I was basing that off of the statement "As i see it, there is mounting evidence for complete political corruption involved in the support of Iraq as a nation" in isolation, which made no sense. Put together with the sentence immediately preceding it, it makes sense but it's wrong. "Leftists" haven't been in favor of the sanctions since fairly early on into their inception, when it became obvious that regardless of what Iraq did they would not be lifted and the Iraqi people would continue to suffer. It should be noted that it wasn't just the Clinton administration, (although Clinton and especially Albright share much of the blame), that shored up the sanctions but also the Republican Senate majority that existed throughout Clinton's terms.
Lol i am doing this because that infact IS the outcome Clashman! The protesting type are a crowd of do nothing leftist without a single plan as how to address the issue.
Here's one that was thrown around in leftist circles quite a bit: how about formally ending the crushing economic sanctions which helped Hussein build up a circle of support by creating an elite that depended solely on him and a populace that was convinced that Americans were not interested in helping them? Simultaneously, erect a tight weapons embargo, countries that sell to the regime will be fined or face economic sanctions that far outweigh any possible financial gain of doing business with the regime. Hell, the U.S. could have paid the Russians double what Hussein did just to destroy the weapons they sold to him and we still would have saved a fortune compared to what we'll be spending in Iraq now. With that, we will have neutralized the threat that Iraq posed to us, and at the same time will have opened the way for the Iraqi people to think about more than simply day-to-day survival, and may eventually move to have their own popular revolution, which we could support, should it happen.
Much like those who supported the Oil for food actin the first place.
Namely Republicans, right-wing democrats, and centrist Europeans.
You conveniently forget that Hussein did most of his dirty deeds when Rumsfeld wasn't denouncing him but shaking his hand. Who gave him the technical know-how to make those weapons? [not that I expect a civil answer from you]
Lol are you still going on with that bs about us giving them the ability to make VX nerve gas? BTW you don't create anthrax from Dupont chemicals
.
Prove to me that we gave him the know how to make all the chemical weapons he has and likewise supplied him with all the agents. On top of that give me dates and times as well as explanations as to why the chemicals were provided. Don't hand me the leftist bs stating the US sold Iraq pesticides they turned into mustard gas. You can make mustard gas from mixing bleach and chlorine - rather typical cleaning chemicals. You can make Ricin gas from fxcking kidney beans.
How about we discuss who gave them scud guidance technology to start with. THen discuss who gave them rocket technologies and jet engines for their planes. Then we can move on to fire arms and tanks. After that we can discuss continuing violations during the oil for food act which involved further sales of ak47s and russian tanks to Iraq and french rolland missles. Does that sound fair enough to you?
Sure. Here's a couple, to start. The first one comes as a sworn affadavit from one of Reagan's National Security Advizers:
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
http://lampresource.tripod.com/readlamp/10_02.htm
Notice that the second one, even though it's from a "leftist", was written in 1998, and was an attack on Clinton's foreign policy, not W's.
seems that it has bill clinton all over it. WHy do so many leftist of america blame america for leftist's decisions? Why can't we blame the administration of 1996 for the problems in iraq and not the whole Red, WHite and Blue? Just curious.
As I mentioned before, there was a Republican majority in the Senate and the House at the time, and so they are just as guilty.
Actually i think its rather clear that even after reading the article the core of the problem was saddam. The US alone didn't have the responsibility to clean up the iraqi problem. All of the health problems we see in Iraq are directly related to the poor spending choices Saddam has made. The author of this peace practically skirts the funding Saddam received entirely. The author clearly refuses to igknowledge suffering would not have occurd if not for saddam's actions. Saddam clearly withheld great portions of that money he received for himself which could have gone to aiding the populace. This of course did not happen. Saddam should not have been allowed to remain in power in the first place.
There was also no incentive for the Iraqi government to cooperate, as it was being made painfully clear that no matter what they did, their actions wouldn't be reciprocated.
all because i disagree with you correct? I do not liken them to nazis. I merely suggest they are apathetic. WHich they are.
No, because you've likened me and my actions to those of Nazis on numerous occasions.
You know, you aren't the first person to suggest to me that a perceived silence is really silent condolence. Many of the people from this board alone have debated with you. I am sure that even you yourself can admit you haven't won all your debates. You might even venture to say, if you are confident enough, that much of what you have debated has come to bit of stale mate.
Which is why it should be all the more puzzling why it was so bloody absent in the MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS.
So basically you are saying that do to the fact that conservatives in the media aren't debating with every leftist anywhere they are some how admitting fault? This is logically fallacious. I have found forums an excellent place to debate such issues. As you can see these are not place short of argumentation on any side. Since you have challenged me though i will give you a special task. If you will debate with myself and others on a forum called strategy page (
www.strategypage.com) i am more than sure you will have all the responses you are look for.
Once again I'm not referring to, nor is the original study I linked, to online discussions on message boards. I am referring specifically to MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS. You know, Television and Radio? Those things where 95% of Americans get their day to day news? Yeah, those things. Why is there no debate THERE, when clearly our society has not come to anything approaching a consensus? By the way, I did try to go to that site, but the link was dead.
Does it really? Or does it lend credence to the suggestion that i made that much of what you have written has already been addressed. That you post this crap over and over again simply to gratify yourself knowing eventually people will grow tired of responding to you?
Well, then bring out the evidence showing how the Anti-War movement was well represented in public, (Read: MAJOR MEDIA OUTLET) debates.
Then exactly what was he? A conservative?
He's a centrist populist who managed to outflank the right through much of his term by outflanking them and going even further to the right than the Reagan Administration had managed to take the country. Welfare reform? Throwing away national health care? Escalating the drug war and pushing the prison-industrial-complex? NAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA? Stagnating environmental standards? Yeah, the guy is a pinko.
And yet there are millions more who didn't. Ad popullum fallacy.
How many people marched for it?
This is not evidence of over whelming support.
But surely it should be enough to warrant more than 3 percent of U.S. sources at a time when a minimum level of domestic opposition was at least 7 times that, shouldn't it?
really? Prove this statement.
How about you try and point out to me the difference between the statements you have made and the ones they have. As I'm having a difficult time discerning the difference. I don't think I'm the only one.
In other words you rather obtusely came to a conclusion prior to your "research" then later concluded your prior conclusion to be correct. It is blatantly idiotic of you to claim Rush and Savage are some how representative of all the opposing arguments as a whole. Furthermore you have not addressed their argumentation nor provided any sollutions to the problem yourself. You are no different from the rest of your ilk.
You're acting as if I'm brand new to this board. I've been coming here since it was a PowerVR site and have gotten an impression of the political leanings of the board members. I didn't assume anything. I made the observation based on interactions with these board members, my experiences at PRO-war rallies and counter-protests, personal conversations, etc. When you said that their statements were not representative of the right I went back and took examples from your own testimony. Numerous times already in this thread you have equated being anti-war with being anti-american. How is this any different from what Savage and Limbaugh were saying?
Since you have made the allegation i would like for you to prove i am some how anticanadian. You seem to believe i am some how revolted by canadian nationalism. Now back it up. Please do not repeat this comment as a form of circuituous reasoning to back your claim.
No, there's plenty more in here:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6955&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40
As you have suggested above your real interest in this media discussion is to find ways of merely lumping people into categories you can simply right off. In essence engaging in the same behavior you claim my ilk are doing.
No, the point of this thread was to refute the idea that the corporate owned and controlled media are somehow a "tool of the left".
I think you have me wrong. We have not spoken before. I am one subject to sardonic humor. I think you could have come to that conclusion if you hadn't filtered your research to anything other than something you could misconstrue as hate speach.
This coming two sentances after you accuse me of being anti-american? What the hell do you expect?
Are you claiming that as a whole they represent such? that is nonesense. I wouldn't turn to Rush or Savage for a proper view of the opposing position. You have admitted they are extremists. That is rather diseginuous clashman.
There's two types of extremists: Those how are part of an incredibly tiny and uninfluential portion of the population, (this can be a fairly objective observation), and those whose viewpoints are for the most part diametrically opposed to mine, (this is fairly subjective, and varies from person to person). Rush, Savage, and yourself tend to fit into the latter, but unfortunately not the former, categories on THESE PARTICULAR ISSURES, namely "left-wing media" and "treasonous anti-war protestors". In THESE PARTICULAR CATEGORIES, your stances are indistinguishable from one another.
If you are up for the challenge the invitation to
www.strategypage.com is still open. I am more than sure you will find what you are looking for there.
As I've already stated my gripe was with mainstream media portrayals of the war "debate" as well as your ability to actually address the points I'm trying to make. I have no difficulty in finding right-wing nutjobs to scream at me. Believe it or not, I've actually had numerous instances of them calling me up early in the morning to bitch and scream at me.
Not to different of the stereotypical american bashing left is it?
No, there are significant differences. For one, while the left is often protested by right wingers, it does not, in general, refer to them as being treasonous for doing so.
No you are being willing ignorant. Bisexuality does not fit with the stereotypical mold of a conservative does it? No, not at all. It has much to do with the moral out look of many conservatives. One does not have to look to far to find liberals avoiding civil discourse through accussations of gay or other lifestyle bashing.
No I wasn't. There is no inherent contradiction between having a bisexual sexual orientation and having neo-fascist leanings on foreign relations. Hence my reason for specifying RIGHT-WING and NOT CONSERVATIVE. Being conservative carries with it certain cultural connotations of Christian fundamentalism that do not exist with being right-wing. It's kind of a square and rectangle thing. A CONSERVATIVE is generally pretty RIGHT-WING, but a right-winger is not necessarily conservative, so to speak. You can be sexually liberal and still be very right wing on foreign policy issues. There is nothing in being sexually liberal that suggests that you can't be politically right wing, except for the possibility that RIGHT_WING CONSERVATIVES won't want to deal with you.
Much like how you assumed because liberals aren't conversing with conservatives that conservatives are some how avoiding conversation.
No. I made the assertion that the media in general, (which I have classified as right-wing based on their actions), made an effort to avoid inclusion of left dialogue into the "debate" on the war. This was done, IMO, with the intention of ensuring certain policy was enacted. Because if you had leftists actually debating rightists on the television, instead of seeing government official after government officail, there is a fair chance that the anti-war movement would have grown much larger than it already had. This may have impeded the push for war.
You clearly had no idea of that until after the fact. This is a post hoc fallcy. Iraqi WMDs are still unaccounted for which has no barings on your assertions before the war of whether or not Iraq was a threat or for that matter if the missing WMD still is.
No, these are precisely the things people like Scott Ritter and Dennis Halliday have been saying for years, and people like Hans Blix and intelligence officials are now finally starting to admit were true.
So you are suggesting that do to the line of conflict not being in the line of order concurrent with your post hoc assertions they were some how originally illogical? Does that some how refute the reasoning behind the war in general? If we attacked SA now would be be some how less justified?
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that by your own logic there are better targets than Iraq, and that the whole idea of the U.S. attacking Iraq for security and "freedom" purposes should be suspect. That is NOT saying that I'd support that action, should it be taken, because I believe the underlying logic on which you are operating is fallacious, ie it is impossible to win a "war on terror".
Much like the question of intentions i have made concerning the clinton admin and the obvious disenguous leftist opposition to the war.
In case you haven't noticed, I haven't been standing up for Clinton. And so in light of that your second sentence makes even less sense. What are the true motivations for the left? Anti-Americanism? Communism? Pro-Saddam? Gimme a break. It coudn't possibly have anything to do with concern for the thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who have been killed by this conflict, the long-term health effects of depleted Uranium on the Iraqi populace, or future American security in the face of increased anti-American sentiment abroad, could it?
It should have been to begin with. The entire purpose of the thread was flaimbate centered around your wantingness to justify your generalizations about the right.
I have provided numerous sources that point to very similar conclusions with regards to right-wing foreign policy opinion. If you show me real, concrete differences in foreign policy among the right wingers, (not counting the Pat Buchanon anti-war types), I will make an exception.
Only because i have problem with you correct? Perhaps you haven't read my many other threads debating sexuality etc.
You have made it painfully obvious that you are wanting to promot your personal bias at the expense of others while comdeming anyone who disagrees with you.
I haven't condemned. I've merely asked for sources to back up what you say. Even references to events or previous threads would do. If you consider that small of a request to be an unreasonable condemnation then I wonder what requirements one must meet in order to post something you disagree with without having you label it "flaimebait".
You have not provided any sollutions to the problems. All you wish to do is rant about your supposed accurate information and justify your neocon prejudice.
This topic was meant to address one area of debate, namely accurate media portrayals. My "solutions" to the world's problems can be addressed separately at other times. Hence my "this has no relevance to the topic at hand" statements. For now, however, I'd like to have a reasonable discussion of the issues at hand. If that's too much for you, than enough of this crap.
Goddam it, it's after 2 again and I have to work in the morning.
