Don't you love war threads?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc: Laws aren't always the most concrete thing. People say all's fair in love and war, but what if some soldier gets William Calley as their commander?

Tasty, laws are not perfect, which is why they can be changed.  But, more importantly, that's what they are there for, and we don't have anything better.

I believe it is the media's job (in regards to opinions/editorials) to make an effort to present both sides.

Actually, I think editorials are ok to not be both sides, they are just the opinions of the editors (or a letter he chose).  On the otherhand, when reporting things as flat news, I think opinions should be left out (as much as possible), and both sides given equal time.  This goes back to our conversation about the 100 pro Bush supporters getting the same amount of coverage as the 10,000 anti-war demonstrators.  In just the news, both sides should get equal time.

I also think that it is the duty of the media (or at least it should be) to question authority.

Why?  It's the right of the media.  It's the right of the people.  But why the duty.  If that's all they did, wouldn't it grind progress to a halt in some cases?  What if the government backed down to the UN, you would want the media pulling for war?  

I really don't think the media should question authority just for the sake of doing it.  I think editorials should do that when someone actually does question it.  Doing it just for the sake of doing it isn't really a stance at all.  It's just nay-saying all the time.  Eventually, people would catch on and it would be ignored in my opinion.

I use the word censorship because when the media does not present a point of view, that point of view essentially does not exist in the eyes of the public. The media plays a critical role in controlling public opinion about basically everything. Generally, people believe what they read in the newspaper. If they hear it all from one side and not the other, than there is no option or free thought, there is only that single media-reinforced point of view. Public point of view and media have a reciprocal relationship. Public opinion reflects the media. Therefore, the media cannot and should not be trying to reflect public opinion.

So make up your mind, should the media be neutral or should it question the government?  because it can't do both (what if public opinion is questioning?).

Really, you are using the word censorship too liberally there.  What I'm hearing more of is you wish the popular media reflected your opinions more, and not opinions that you oppose.  Again, I'm taking into account the previous conversation on media we had.  

More then anything, you have to look at news and editorials.  News, when reported as news, should be neutral.  Explaining both sides of an issue, but not taking one.  Not challenging authority for the sake of it, but not stopping with just what authority tells them either.  Editorials are the opinions of the writers.  And I'm sure you are finding it frustrating that most editorials are favoring the war, but since the people writing them are expressing their opinions, and there seem to be more opinions that are pro-war right now, that is to be expected.  

What I disagree with though is that there is any censorship going on.  If you look you will find opinions on both sides.  The media is not some sacred community, that is here to lead the American sheep (the ones that wont think for themselves).  The media is a subset of the nation.  With all the good and the bad that entails.  

Remember, you complained when Bush supporters got equal air time.  So it would be ok to "censor" those?  Why then?  I just think you are still frustrated that your side doesn't get more or better air time.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, if the US is in its rights to launch this war, then why is Kofi Annan saying it isn't justified?  Wouldn't he be the one to determine if an attack is internationally justified?  Anyway, I think I made myself clears saying that the US's domestically democratic decision to go to war holds no weight in international issues.  It would need to be democratically decided on an international stage to be democratically justified international action.

As for Bush not being able to force regime change, what I mean is there is no way Iraq could have disarmed enough to avoid the attack.  They most likely don't have some of the things the US claims they do because they did indeed destroy it, and the US wouldn't believe them so it would be impossible for them to prove they were disarmed.  Bush has shown great willingness to disregard anything Iraq says.

As for Saddam disarming, I find it a very Saddam like thing to do to destroy all his illegal weapons, then when the US rolls into town they won't find anything and they will lose all credibilty on the world stage.

As for my local paper...I know people who were there and, unlike what the paper made it seem, they were not failing to obey orders to leave the street, in fact they were off the street when the tear gas was used.  But the paper said basically that the people weren't leaving the street and were infact moving towards the police so it was used...first hand accounts in no way varify this pro-police account.

[[V] Silverblade]

hans blix himself said he is very curious what the americans  will find in iraq. from his point of view the americans didnt show enough patience, and he thinks they never intended to wait for the whole timespan the un gave iraq.

we will see what they will find...

[jn.loudnotes]

I guess my feeling is that the US is proposing to kill and completely remove Hussein.  If he finds himself in a position of such desperation that there is no hope of escape - which seems likely - he will probably start to care less about his reputation, his people, or much of anything at all.  At that point, if he still has control of WMD - what would prevent him from using them wherever possible?

And regarding the draft - my first recourse would be to do everything within legality.  I would probably be a conscientious objector if possible - and if that were rejected, I would voluntarily join a non-fighting branch of the military.  Only as an absolute last resort would I flee the country, or go to jail.  For example, I might play trumpet in the National Guard band, or something of the like.

[tasty]

Actually, I think editorials are ok to not be both sides, they are just the opinions of the editors (or a letter he chose).  

Well, an editorial has to take a side to be an editorial. A good editorial takes a strong stance. In an editorial section, typically there are two or three editorials written by the newspaper's staff and then five to ten editorials written by guest columnists or nationally syndicated columnists. The editorial staff has full license to pick whichever editorials they want out of a pretty diverse stack to fill this space, and when they pick 5 editorials that express the same opinion they are not doing their job in my opinion.

Why?  It's the right of the media.  It's the right of the people.  But why the duty.  If that's all they did, wouldn't it grind progress to a halt in some cases?  What if the government backed down to the UN, you would want the media pulling for war?  

It's their duty because leaders lie. Yet the truthfulness of our leaders is rarely questioned until after the fact, and even then it is usually swept under the rug. How would this grind progress to a halt? If that were true, than you would be rating the power of the media at a level even higher than I am. If the government backed down to the UN, the media should be there questioning "what if"? I don't think that people would ignore this stance either, because if the media was how I ideally pictured it there would  be editorials there to balance them.

So make up your mind, should the media be neutral or should it question the government?  because it can't do both (what if public opinion is questioning?).

Why can't it do both? How does questioning authority interfere with neutrality? As long as the appropriate editorials are there to balance it, it could easily be maintained.

Really, you are using the word censorship too liberally there.  What I'm hearing more of is you wish the popular media reflected your opinions more, and not opinions that you oppose.  Again, I'm taking into account the previous conversation on media we had.  

I don't expect them to stop printing opinions that I disagree with. I'd just like them to start printing more opinions that I do agree with. Our conversation about coverage of the protesters had nothing to do with supressing opinions; after all, this wasn't the editorial section we were arguing about. All news stories have varying degrees of importance, and I didn't think the importance of the different groups of protesters in this case was comparable due to the large difference in their size. It's like saying that a single homicide should get the same amount of coverage as Columbine. That's just not how news works. Newsmedia already set this standard of size and popularity for the things they reported in the past; if that's the standard that they want to go by, then I expect them to hold all news stories to that standard and not just news stories that are convenient to them. It's all about fairness and I don't think that the anti-war protesters were treated fairly in this incidence.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

A few things...first off some stats from this week's Newsweek which has a cover story about why American is facing such opposition.

It says that with our increased defence budget for the coming fiscal year, we will have a larger deffence budget then EVERY other country COMBINED.

It also said that only the US and Israel have majority public support for the war.

This next part was meant for the Debate Style thread but it was locked so since it does relate to this thread in part I'm putting it here.

It is one of my main concerns in the debates here is that I feel like I state my side of the case, and instead of having Bucc disagree by stating his side, he merely attacks my side.? I accept those who have differing opinions and I don't attack their viewpoints, my bulk of posting is merely in defending my own point from claims that it is ignorant, hypocritical, or just poorly argued.

I have at points been happy to have you debating Bucc.? Take for example our exchanges in the [this thread].? We manage to have an exchange without you getting into the overly condescending style.? There is a difference to pointing out a few mistakes politely in a general reply and browbeating a post phrase by phrase.? Point those few mistakes out in your quoting fashion if you will but what is needed is a show of civility and respect.? Try to ignore the fact that you are more schooled than us and avoid looking down on us.? You just have too high of a standard that you are setting for this forum that has high school and college kids as opposed to Masters graduate discussion.? Nobody has all the knowledge to make a completely factual based argument, nobody really has the time for finding every fact and reviewing every point of the argument to check that it is flawless.? You are expecting perfection where it isn't attainable.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, if the US is in its rights to launch this war, then why is Kofi Annan saying it isn't justified?  Wouldn't he be the one to determine if an attack is internationally justified?

No, he hasn't been given that authority.  He can give his opinion on it, and he has.  There's a difference between him saying it's not justified, and him saying that the USA has committed a crime, or over stepped it's rights.  Annan may think that the USA is wrong, but so what.  There's a difference between being unjustified and being criminal, isn't there?  

You also seem to keep confusing the UN as a governing body, instead of what it really is.  The UN isn't a government.  No country gave up their rights to join.  It isn't your fiction about a world government, it's a tool to try and avoid wars from happening.

Anyway, I think I made myself clears saying that the US's domestically democratic decision to go to war holds no weight in international issues.? It would need to be democratically decided on an international stage to be democratically justified international action.

Well that's a whole twist on my words, and what Tasty and I were talking about Bondo.  We were talking about internal American response, not if it was justified internationally.  So, your statement has no relevance on telling me I was wrong about it.  Way to go out of the country for context.

As for Bush not being able to force regime change, what I mean is there is no way Iraq could have disarmed enough to avoid the attack.? They most likely don't have some of the things the US claims they do because they did indeed destroy it, and the US wouldn't believe them so it would be impossible for them to prove they were disarmed.? Bush has shown great willingness to disregard anything Iraq says.

Just like you have shown great willingness to disregard anything the US government says.  Why?  What makes you think that Saddam is telling the truth and Bush (and Powell, etc) are not?  The UN report actually says Hans can't say either way, so what are you basing this on?

As for Saddam disarming, I find it a very Saddam like thing to do to destroy all his illegal weapons, then when the US rolls into town they won't find anything and they will lose all credibilty on the world stage.

You find it Saddam like to have actually disarmed?  If he had, why wouldn't he have supplied that information to the UN, as required.  Why would he have fought with UN inspectors until there was a gun to his head?  What are you finding Saddam like?

As for my local paper...I know people who were there and, unlike what the paper made it seem, they were not failing to obey orders to leave the street, in fact they were off the street when the tear gas was used.? But the paper said basically that the people weren't leaving the street and were infact moving towards the police so it was used...first hand accounts in no way varify this pro-police account.

First, that's not what you said before.

Second, that's known as "hearsay".  You are relying on just the perspective of few people, who certainly are not non-biased (since they were part of it).

Third, in our day of lawsuits and hand held video cameras, if the police overstepped their bounds, it would be all over the news (the news loves to publish those articles), and in the courts.

I find it much more likely that the opinions of your friends is different then those of the news because they were effected by it, involved in it.  If this was such a big demonstration, how could they know what all the protesters were doing?  How could they now if someone was approaching the cops or not out of their line of site?  It may not have happened right in front of them, and they just saw the cops that were by them start tear gassing (since once that starts, they are committed to dispersing the crowd).  

So, that's one account, how about something better?  You said they have been spouting propaganda since day one, you must have something better, more clear cut, something documented maybe?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

At that point, if he still has control of WMD - what would prevent him from using them wherever possible?

I don't think he has any real care for any of those things anyway Loudnotes.  There's nothing stopping him.  There was nothing stopping him last time.  But you want to apply logic rules to what you call a madman.  It doesn't work.  You can't say he's likely to do one or the other.  If he was logical, he would have avoided this in the first place.  You just can't get in his mind that way, he's proven himself to be too unpredictable.

And regarding the draft - my first recourse would be to do everything within legality.  I would probably be a conscientious objector if possible - and if that were rejected, I would voluntarily join a non-fighting branch of the military.  Only as an absolute last resort would I flee the country, or go to jail.  For example, I might play trumpet in the National Guard band, or something of the like.

Two small problems with that Loudnotes.  First, once you are drafted, you can't chose which branch.  If that's your route, you have to chose it before you get drafted.  Otherwise, the Coast Guard would have been bigger then the Navy in the 60's.  

Second, resorting to flee the country doesn't match with accepting the democratic application of law, even while trying to change it.  That is violating the law (and one hell of a prison sentence unless another draft dodger gets elected and issues a pardon).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The editorial staff has full license to pick whichever editorials they want out of a pretty diverse stack to fill this space, and when they pick 5 editorials that express the same opinion they are not doing their job in my opinion.

Two things.  One, you don't really know how diverse the stack was.  As far as you know (even if unlikely) the entire stack may have been "pro-war".  That possibility exists.  Two, that's your opinion, but not everyones.  The paper you are talking about has the right to express it's opinion in those editorials, with no obligation to editorialize on the opposite side.  Just as another paper, that fits your thinking, has the right to just editorialize on it's opinions.  

What you are dealing with is that there is no good one source of information.  Everything has perspective.  If you want the complete picture, you have to diversify your sources.  There's absolutely no way around this.  There just is no possible way to have one source give all points of view accurately, because reporters are human, with opinions of their own.  What you need to do is a) find a source that is pretty moderate in it's views and b) find a couple that are extreme (but accurate, not like Rush) and at opposite ends.  It's the only way to get the complete picture.

No matter what, if you rely on one source, you will be missing some of the picture.  It's not censorship, it's human nature.

It's their duty because leaders lie. Yet the truthfulness of our leaders is rarely questioned until after the fact, and even then it is usually swept under the rug.

Leaders lie, that makes it the duty of all Americans to question, not the media.  And I'm not advocating that they follow the government's words blindly, but I'm also not advocating that they question just to question it.  That serves no purpose.  You can do that all day long and get nowhere.  

And I really have to call bullshit on your opinion about the truthfulness of our leaders not being questioned.  I see it questioned every single day.  How you don't amazes me.  You are old enough to have followed the news in this and the Clinton administrations.  You don't remember the media questioning the statements of both Bush and Clinton?  They are all over Bush about his motives, and with Clinton I can just say Star Report, Whitewater, and Monica.  Shit, there was even a vote to impeach Clinton.  How the hell you can say that the truthfulness of the leaders isn't questioned is a mystery to me.  Really, what are you basing that opinion on?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Our conversation about coverage of the protesters had nothing to do with supressing opinions; after all, this wasn't the editorial section we were arguing about. All news stories have varying degrees of importance, and I didn't think the importance of the different groups of protesters in this case was comparable due to the large difference in their size. It's like saying that a single homicide should get the same amount of coverage as Columbine.

Tasty, editorials are for opinions, news is about telling both sides of the story.

So the news by all means should have given equal time to both sides of that protest.  Your Columbine analogy holds no water, because it's talking about two different stories.  The protest was one story, and both sides should have had equal weight.  If there were a 10,000 person protest on one day, and a 100 person rally on the next, I would expect that the 100 would get less coverage (unless it was a slow day for news).  

But, when interviewing any protesters, any at all, you have to give the other side equal time to respond if they want.  I don't care if it's 1 million protesting against one, if the news gives the 1 million 5 minutes of interviews, the 1 should have 5 minutes to voice his side too.  That's fair journalism.  That's news.  Editorials are something different.  Those are the paper's (or whatever media) own opinions.  Not news, but opinion.  

This is why some news channels get blasted for over editorializing (and rightfully so in many cases).  They give too much opinion while presenting it as fact.

I don't expect them to stop printing opinions that I disagree with. I'd just like them to start printing more opinions that I do agree with.

Then read a different paper.  I'll bet a large sum of money you can find one that prints most of what you agree with.  All you have to do is look.  If that's all you want.

But I think what you want is for your opinion to be shouted from the rooftops.  Ok, that's over the top.  What I think you want is for more people to be exposed to your opinion.  If that's the case, publish.  I'm not kidding.  Publish.  Start sending those letters to the editor out.  Start your own media (start a new online paper, it's cheap).  Because that's the only way you'll get it.  That's how it works.  That's why people buy and start papers.  

You can't install controls on the media to make it all perfect, you really can't.  Media will always be imperfect, and even if controls are installed, they'll just be twisted to fit the opinions of whoever has the power, which would make it even worse.

The worst and best thing about the media in America is that it can say anything.  If you expose yourself to enough of it, you'll probably get most of the facts right.  You can't take the responsibility away from the people to seek out information.  They are stuck with it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It says that with our increased defence budget for the coming fiscal year, we will have a larger deffence budget then EVERY other country COMBINED.

And I say, so what?  Is that supposed to bother me?  Our GNP is oh so much higher, and we have been shown to be a target.  And, like I've said before, if other countries didn't rely on NATO, and specifically the USA to back them up if they were invaded, they'd be spending more.

It also said that only the US and Israel have majority public support for the war.

Ok.  And that is supposed to be important why?

One thing you seem to have as an underlying theme.  You seem to think that the rest of the world has to think it's right.  You disregard the soverign rights of nations, over public opinion of the world.  Not only that, but you disregard that governments support it even where public opinion doesn't.

So here is a big question for you.  What makes you think public opinion knows more about this situation then our government?  I'm going to give you a few things to focus on in your thinking.

1) Our government knows a hell of a lot more about Iraq, what it has and what it doesn't then any private citizen.

2) Our government can't reveal all that knowledge, because if it does, it risks losing that source of information.

3) If the USA could give up some sources to the UN, don't you think they have even more that they are still protecting?

4) Do you think anyone else in the world has better information on what Iraq is doing other then the USA Government (and of course, the Iraqi government)?

5) Do you think that other governments would support the USA, in the face of public decent, if they also didn't have more information?

Now, I know that we shouldn't accept anything blindly.  And I don't.  But we endow rights and responsibilities onto our leaders.  We chose them to trust in making the right decisions on things we can't know everything about.  That is at the core of a Republic.  We pay these people to be experts on it.

Short form, I put more faith in our government and some other governments then I do in pure uninformed public opinion.  Especially when some of them would never care what Iraq did, but are just anit-USA or "peace at any price" closed minded fools.

So, while questioning Bush and his motives is not wrong at all.  To have zero trust in our government is just as wrong, isn't it?  If our whole government is evil and corrupt, why wouldn't we be looking to overthrow it?  

I accept those who have differing opinions and I don't attack their viewpoints, my bulk of posting is merely in defending my own point from claims that it is ignorant, hypocritical, or just poorly argued.

Bullshit.  You don't accept differing opinions well at all.  You've attacked others viewpoints and insulted and called names as much as anyone Bondo.  Just get off it.  You are just as bad as anyone about this shit.  You are a hypocrite because you do it, but then bitch when others do.  Get over yourself.  

And stop telling me how to post.  You are nobody to judge, to put it in your own words.  God, you just have to keep it up and keep being the asshole, don't you?  Bring it into yet another thread.  Why not?  Asshole.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

How did I take tasty and your argument out of context, I wasn't talking about your argument specifically.  I understand that nationally the war is justified, but I was expanding it to an international level, and Annan has stated that the US war is in violation of the UN charter.  That to me seems like it lacks justification internationally.  Also, the US's rights as a soverign nation don't give it the right to pre-emptively attack another.

Bucc, European intelligence isn't as inferior to the US as you seem to think.  I think the French and Germans know what is going on just as much, they choose the other way.  Plus, there is tons of evidence of the US lying to try and convince the UN to support it, but those lies have been exposed.  As the US has been proven to lie now while others have not, I trust them more.  I don't doubt that Iraq has some illegal weaponry...nor does Hans Blix as far as I've seen, but Hans Blix has built my trust by being truthful in what he's found while not rushing to either side.

As for why it would be Saddam like to disarm...because he hates the US and would love do do something that would damage the US greatly.  By disarming completely now the US would not find anything and the war would look much worse.  Mind you he's shot some illegal Squds off so I guess that isn't happening.  I merely said it was Saddam-like, not that it would happen.

Bucc, no, actually I don't attack people's views that are different then me, I merely defend my position.  You on the other hand take no real positions but merely attack other people's views.  You can say that is bullshit or that I'm a hypocrite, but you won't be correct.

One thing I've noticed, of everyone I know (although a good number disagree) only you attack my viewpoints.  Here is how I see it, either I'm not making bad arguments, or they aren't assholes.  Or in the other side, you are either an asshole or wrong.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this is supposed to be a friendly forum, so being an asshole isn't acceptable.

For example...I read my local paper every day, you don't, yet you feel the need to say I'm wrong about it.  You aren't doing this out of a position of knowing...no, you do it simply because you are an asshole who must disagree.  For the record, the police did have to go in front of the city council to defend their actions, and while they weren't punished, some council members did say that it was excessive.  Plus, I didn't hear from just protesters, I heard from people who were in the area for other reasons and just witnessed it.  Try not to assume that I don't have a good point because you know what happens to people that assume too much...

[tasty]

Bucc, I read plenty of different sources... The Nation, Adbusters, Mother Jones, Utne Reader, Dissent, etc. The problem is those are all magazines and not newspapers. If anyone wants a lefty newspaper, all there is are shitty propaganda machines like the Socialist Worker that don't represent the views of most liberals. The right has plenty of mainstream news sources, like the Wall Street Journal and cable TV. Don't say that liberals have the New York Times, because I hardly consider them to be liberal. Plus, do you really think that most people are going to seek out other sources to find other types of opinion? No, they are going to read their local paper and be happy with whatever they say.

Also, I don't think the protesters are the same story since they were different people protesting different things in different locations, so your claim that they should have the same coverage does not hold up.

Also, you provided three obvious examples of how the press questioned Clinton, but didn't ever provide specific examples of how they were questioning Bush. I know that they have questioned aspects of his foreign policy, like his lack of multilateralism, but I think there is a lot more that they could have questioned that they did not (especially pre-election), like his corporate ties, his family's ties to Nazi Germany, and his poor job on domestic issues.

[cookie]

Any Iraqi civillians killed because of Iraqi action go on the US's responsibility since the action was a result of the US attack.

I beg to differ. I would rather blame Hussein, because he's the one not taking care of his people, he's the one hiding in his shelters while his people are fighting and dying outside, he's the one setting fire to the oil fields that are their only way of sustaining themselves. He's the one , by refusing to cooperate, who is subjecting his people to this. The Iraqi people have gotten almost nothing but blood from him while he lives in his palaces with his billions, and it's going to go on his head if anyone dies because he didn't do what was best for his people.

[jn.loudnotes]

Cookie, that's a nice way to rationalize war for yourself.  However, while Saddam bears responsibility for his people's suffering, only the Bush administration seems to feel that he's bringing this on himself.  That's nothing more than propaganda - with most of the world protesting - the UN providing alternatives - and the command of US forces in US hands, even the most ardent war supporter can hardly call war the only recourse.  If the US chooses to kill Iraqis in its quest to remove Hussein, they hold full responsibility for their deaths.

And Bucc - if it became apparent that I would be drafted soon - i.e. if I were not granted CO status and I had a low number, that is when I would choose the role of a non-combatant.  If for some reason that were unviable, that is when I would flee the country (jail would only be the case if I were caught - which is still the scope of the law, however undesirable).  In a sense, flight is within the law, because that would in effect be a renunciation of my citizenship - in which case I would no longer be subject to fight for this country.  I believe Pres. Ford pardoned the Vietnam draft-dodgers - that's not an unreasonable amount of time to have to live in another country - assuming one would want to return.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, obviously I would go to another country because I'd be in another country.  I don't feel an obligation to serve the war effort of the country other than in a voluntary fashion.  Besides, my vision sucks, I wouldn't qualify to fight.

[cookie]

how is it not his fault? sure, the US is the attacker but it's conditional. hussein was given the option to take exile in tons of countries, he refused, and in doing so screwed his country over. where is the logic there? none. he's made the bad decisions in that situation, not us. Lets say, theoretically, the US is a small, devout country full of ethnic conflict and stringent gender restrictions, ruled by the tyrannical and cruel gwb. Large superpower Iraq, headed by democratically elected saddam hussein, is attacking to depose gwb and take hold of the oppressed america. They say in order to avoid attack, however, GWB can leave and a new leader will take office. GWB refuses due to his own egotism and lust for power.. Iraq bombs and there are casualties. Who is more responsible for the nations problems and the deaths of the people, despot GWB or Iraq? Even though it was Iraq that actually killed the people, GWB was more RESPONSIBLE for the deaths.

as for the rest, i understand that right now in the world, propaganda is rampant and exists just about everywhere. however, i really can't say i've been exposed to much. I haven't listened to any bush/powell speeches in great length, at most a minute. I haven't read any notoriously biased sources. I mostly read books of all persuasions, I go to seminars, I like www.realclearpolitics.com, and i try to form opinions for myself. Please stop accusing me of being "propagandized", I merely have different, but not necessarily wrong, views on things.
also, you mentioned the world protesting, etc. Perhaps i've mentioned this before, but I have a problem with people trusting every countries' voice in this matter. For one, not every country is being affected by this, thus we should concentrate on how the important, affected ones feel. Secondly, not every country is right, sadly. The politics of today, the corruption.. they all keep us from reaching a true and just consensus on things (don't interpret this as me saying the US is always right, it's just a general statement) and you have to try and see through the motives of some people. Turkey, for example, has every damn right to not want in on this because they'd have to take refugees, and could be targeted in the future. France, yeesh, we all know the story on whats going on there. Germany.. who knows, perhaps they just don't like us. It doesn't mean they're right, it doesn't mean we're right. - In short, I don't believe that we can trust the "world" to always be right, because even though the majority may be the dominator, it doesn't mean it's the right way to go. I'm trusting my intuition and sources on this, not the world to make the choices for me.

about the UN.. i think most people know my thoughts on it. Basically, I think it's ineffective with inadaquate representation. Sure, they're giving "alternatives" but the fact that hussein has been violating their charters, human rights laws, treaties, etc for about 12 years now without reprisal shows that something is wrong. Their "alternatives" involve giving him more time but what does that constitute? 12 more years? more time to hide the weapons and bulldoze the facilities? They need to seriously crack down and live up to their policies and promises. I like Kofi Annan though, they should keep him if they reform  

[kami]

Just one thing cookie, when they reinstated the UN inspections, I don't think anyone would expect them to complete their job in 3 months, therefore it's pretty clear that the US never intended to wait...

[jn.loudnotes]

Iraq has had reprisals.  For the past 12 years, Iraq has had a no-fly zone, frequent bombings, and economic sanctions.  That's a big reason also why Iraq doesn't compare to Nazi Germany.  With all the imposition on the country, I find it hard to see them as a legitimate threat - especially with the inspectors complicating any weapons program.

And sorry, but it sounded a lot like some of Rumsfeld's speeches to blame Saddam for the war.  If Saddam is told unilaterally that he must leave - without any real provocation - it's hard to blame him for not giving up everything in his world.  No matter what Saddam does, the US has never been FORCED to cause Iraqi deaths.  The fact that they are doing so freely cannot absolve them of responsibility.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Don't say that liberals have the New York Times, because I hardly consider them to be liberal.

Actually, I would have said the Washington Post before I said the Times.  I think the post is actually the more liberal of the two, but that' just my opinion.

Plus, do you really think that most people are going to seek out other sources to find other types of opinion? No, they are going to read their local paper and be happy with whatever they say.

People being sheep doesn't make it the media's responsibility to fix.  If people wanted to see nothing but the best efforts in journalism (best being fair and unbiased with all sides represented), then all the news would be in the format of Nightline and Frontline.  It's not the case.  You can't force your opinion of it down their throats.  That's where fascism often begins.

Like I said before, you can't regulate the news, once you start you've limited freedom of speech.  That's a slippery slope.  

Also, I don't think the protesters are the same story since they were different people protesting different things in different locations, so your claim that they should have the same coverage does not hold up.

When you told me about those, I believe it was under the context that they were related.  That one demonstration was in direct response to the other.  If that's true, my analogy does hold up, if it's not, then we have a miscommunication about it.

I know that they have questioned aspects of his foreign policy, like his lack of multilateralism, but I think there is a lot more that they could have questioned that they did not (especially pre-election), like his corporate ties, his family's ties to Nazi Germany, and his poor job on domestic issues.

Ok, news may suck in the corn fields Tasty, but in the papers here, and in cable news (tv) there were shitloads of stories about problems with Texas while he was Governor there.  His corporate ties and his damage to the ecology were all over the news.  That was all pre-election.  

As for family ties with Nazi Germany, you go too far there.  That's just spite talking because you still hate the fact that he was elected.  Family ties with no direct tie to GWB is nothing but mud slinging.  Mud slinging isn't good journalism.

More, yes, my examples are so obvious because they can be.  I find it hard to believe you don't see where Bush is questioned in the media everyday.  You mentioned that the press/media doesn't question the President, I think you are clearly wrong, since there are so many obvious exceptions.  And you can go back and find them about all of them, Nixon, JFK, FDR, Lincoln.  Even them.  

The press questions the office and person of the President all the time.  I think your statement about them was just colored by your deep lothing of Bush.  You have to face it Tasty, the majority of the country just doesn't agree with you.  I would guess that I know as much bad that he as done as you do (different things to be sure, but as much volume), and I don't have the deep hate you seem to have.  So spreading the information isn't going to change it.  Hell, if the information wasn't there, how would you and I know about it?  

No Tasty, you are making my point about why the press/media shouldn't be forced to report in any specific way.  If you were given control, it would just have your slant instead of another's.  

If anyone wants a lefty newspaper, all there is are shitty propaganda machines like the Socialist Worker that don't represent the views of most liberals.

Then you hear your calling.  Start a leftist paper with fair journalistic practices.  Start it online, grow it to a business.  That's the American way.  I honestly encourage you to do it if you feel that strongly.  While I don't agree with your conclusions, I'd take the time to read it, assuming you do follow those fair and unbiased practices talked about.  If there is a demand for what you assume, it will be successful, if not, not.