Does CBS have morons working for them?

[ILovePapaSmurf]

Spencer Family 'Fed up' with Diana Images (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&ncid=762&e=3&u=/ap/20040422/ap_en_tv/britain_diana_pictures)

<font color="purple">Wow, didn't CBS learn a lesson with the 'boob' exposure?</font color>

[bwdial]

Is this a rhetorical question? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[jjcourtright]

You do know that CBS is the station that shows both "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Becker", right?

[Razorback]

It seems that it is ok to show a dead body on TV but not a live nipple.

[jjcourtright]

What does that say about a dead nipple then?

[KingBison]

Jesus Christ, WHO CARES!!! Diana's family is stupid for getting all worked up. CBS is stupid for doing a show on such an old topic. Why dont they give us some coverage on the war in Iraq. Some people still have family and friends out there fighting and instead of telling us how its going or reporting quality information, we are left with bullshit about a ENGLISH royalty/celebrity that died a long time ago. I DONT CARE.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

<font color="purple">Shows like this are not allowed to do in depth reports on Iraq at the moment. They could find something out that is really happening that the government wants to keep quiet. There are lots of things going on there, but the government is keeping a limit on what we can know. There are a lot of more killings and violence and such that is going on.

I think the palace has a right to get worked up over this. The show was bringing new evidence to the table regarding Diana's death.

I think the photographer who took those pictures went a little too far (hopefully I am not going Clooney), and who ever took those pictures needs to be taught that that is not proper journalism ethics.

I think a lot of people care about Diana because she was one of the only princess really who cared about other countries then her own. That shows a lot of dignity.</font color>

[Efexeye]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Shows like this are not allowed to do in depth reports on Iraq at the moment. They could find something out that is really happening that the government wants to keep quiet. There are lots of things going on there, but the government is keeping a limit on what we can know. There are a lot of more killings and violence and such that is going on.


[/ QUOTE ]

What proof of this do you have? Have Al Franken and Janean Garofolo gotten to you, too?

[KingBison]

I understand that she is loved. I like diana myself. But I think as a nation, our focus should be our war. We should be getting information about the war front. Casualties, battles that have happend. Interesting information. You can report the war and still keep it classified, they did it in WW Duece and they did it in nam. They can do it now. We are at war. War was declared by the US government on the Hussein Regime. I have family out there dieing, and the [censored] media feels that diana is more important cause the part of the war where reporters can tag along on the front is over. I think thats bullshit.

Im not really yelling at anyone(That means you smurfy) IM just upset by the fact that this is the topic of choice for a journalism show like 48 hours?? What the Hell is wrong with american media man.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Shows like this are not allowed to do in depth reports on Iraq at the moment. They could find something out that is really happening that the government wants to keep quiet. There are lots of things going on there, but the government is keeping a limit on what we can know. There are a lot of more killings and violence and such that is going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. The news reporters in Iraq are not being controlled by the government and they are more than happy to report EVERY killing in the country while ignoring all of the good that is happening there.

I doubt very much that there are many negative Iraq stories that the news media is not reporting. They make their money on negative stories.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What proof of this do you have? Have Al Franken and Janean Garofolo gotten to you, too?

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">A couple people I know are in Iraq. Most of the details on the news are very limited.</font color>

[KingBison]

So true dude, So true.

[Efexeye]

So what you are saying is that you truthfully and honestly believe that the American government has that much Gestapo-like control that they can stifle negative stories coming out of Iraq? Because that sounds a lot like Socialism or Nazism, not Democracy. Or the uninformed ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. I trust our government a lot more than a couple of people (who no doubt have personal agendas) who are in Iraq.

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
War was declared by the US government on the Hussein Regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

War has not been declared !

Look at THIS (http://www.progress.org/2003/fold293.htm) .

Even more relevant is this.


"Now the U.S. is at war again, and once more, there has been no declaration from Congress. Without a declaration of war by Congress, the war in Iraq violates the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, Congress should have declared war on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan if the members wished to send U.S. troops to fight there."

And

" The authors of the Constitution wanted to avoid executive wars. In the current War in Iraq, Congress abdicated its authority by letting the President decide whether to start hostilities. The October 2002 Resolution - House Joint Resolution 114 - is said to authorize the President to "use the Armed Forces" for national security and to enforce U.N. resolutions. After the war started, the President asked Congress for funds. This puts Congress in the bad position of either going along with the war or refusing to provide funds to U.S. troops already fighting. It is all backwards and rips the whole Constitution to shreds. "

[Razorback]

We have not legally declared war since WWII and probably never will again.

[Mighty_Wingman]

Which is pretty much what that article is all about.

It bugs me that one man has all the power to start a war when the constitution was deliberately set up so that could NOT happen. It circumvents the ideals and procedures our country was founded upon.

Wave goodbye to democracy everyone . It wont be around much longer.

[Efexeye]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Wave goodbye to democracy everyone . It wont be around much longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a load of crap.

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
That's a load of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right . Democracy is already gone when one man can start an oil war without congressional approval.

[Razorback]

While the CINC can moblize the military it is the Congress that allocates funds. So the CINC cannot do much without the approval of Congress, the representatives of the people. Your point is hyperbole.

[jjcourtright]

You have to somewhat agree with what that letter(article?) at progress.com said, nobody wants to be the [censored] that votes against funding the troops that are already there. That would make you, well, an [censored].

[JK]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
an oil war

[/ QUOTE ]

If we went to war a year ago just so we, the United States, could our hands on Iraqi oil, how come I'm still paying a buck seventy-five at the goddamn gas pump!?!?

It amazes me how eagerly some people just suck down the shit that's being spoon-fed to them by a media machine hell-bent on tearing down the current administration.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So what you are saying is that you truthfully and honestly believe that the American government has that much Gestapo-like control that they can stifle negative stories coming out of Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">I think you are thinking way too much into what I was saying. They hide a lot of stuff that happens in Iraq from the American public. Why do you think we are having the Sept. 11th hearings...</font color>

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Because that sounds a lot like Socialism or Nazism, not Democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">Well, Mr. Bush is trying to make American believe in what he believes in as well as some other political figures. We are being pushed more into a direction that isn't very American.</font color>

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I trust our government a lot more than a couple of people (who no doubt have personal agendas) who are in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">I'm sure they do. They are people who are trying to limit what the US Public knows.</font color>

[Razorback]

You are making a comparison between news media access to events in Iraq (which are very open) and the 9/11 hearings that have nothing to do with media access.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Well, Mr. Bush is trying to make American believe in what he believes in as well as some other political figures. We are being pushed more into a direction that isn't very American.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't very American? Bush is forwarding an agenda in which he believes and at present he has the support of a majority of Americans.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I'm sure they do. They are people who are trying to limit what the US Public knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an ounce of proof that the media in Iraq is being kept from reporting anything. How would the American government be able to prevent world media services from reporting what they see? It would not just be impossible, it would be stupid to try.

[Matt1]

Well, in actuality the Coalition forces are exerting some control over the media, but it has less to do with keeping them from reporting and more to do with keeping them from getting killed.

As for whether the media should be trying to present a more "balanced" picture of what's going on over there, that's kind of a hard thing to do. If four US soldiers are killed they don't really have much of a choice in making that their lead story. Because it's important news. Frankly, I think the media has done a pretty decent job in balancing the coverage out of Iraq. Throughout the Shia uprisings in the South, practically every reporter I saw or read made the point that the insurgents only represented a small fraction of the Iraqi people.

[ratm1966]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Shows like this are not allowed to do in depth reports on Iraq at the moment. They could find something out that is really happening that the government wants to keep quiet. There are lots of things going on there, but the government is keeping a limit on what we can know. There are a lot of more killings and violence and such that is going on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I sure wish I had gotten into this conversation while it was happening. I am not gonna quote and reply to all of the messages in this thread I don't agree with, because I have like 2 1/2 pages of threads to get caught up on. I will just say this: As being a member in the military and having friends I am currently stationed with in Iraq, and friends I have been stationed with before in Iraq, the Bush administration isn't preventing the news media from reporting anything. The only type of control that is exerted over the media is when they want to report on a mission that is about to start. The military requires a slight delay in the reporting so as not to copromise the mission before it even has a chance to succeed.

If you really want to say there is an organization out there which prevents certain stories from making the news, it is the news corporations themselves. They will stifle stories that might not draw as much of an audience and just keep repeating one that they know will draw in the viewers. So, in short, it is just good business on their part to keep from showing every single thing that happens in Iraq.

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
If we went to war a year ago just so we, the United States, could our hands on Iraqi oil, how come I'm still paying a buck seventy-five at the goddamn gas pump!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now the (undeclared) war is costing us ( the American taxpayers) 4.7 Billion a month. The long-term effect will be adverse to us for years to come, but not to Bush and Cheneys buddies at Haliburton, and companies like them.

J.K. what did Bush do before politics ?
Who are Bush and Cheneys major campaign contributors ???
How could our government claim Iraq had WMDs without knowing where a single one of them is ?
Why are all these people , Republicans and Democrats alike, coming forward with stories about how Bush was planning an Iraq invasion way before 9-11 ?
North Korea admits to having WMDs but we're not invading them , What does Iraq have that North Korea doesn't ?
Syria ? Hmmm ?
Majority of the 9-11 terroists were Saudis, but we already get good oil prices from them . Why are we not worried about the atrocities happening their country ?
Why did the focus shift from Osama to Saddam ?

I could answer these questions but I want you to look it up yourself, and I want you to think carefully and tell me why you think we're in Iraq. Since it doesn't have anything to do with oil ?

Do you really believe invading countries and killing people prevents terrorism ?
C'mon . It just gives more people more reasons to hate us. For every terroist we kill or capture were creating ten more.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It amazes me how eagerly some people just suck down the shit that's being spoon-fed to them by a media machine hell-bent on tearing down the current administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me how eagerly some people will deny the obvious.

[ratm1966]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Who are Bush and Cheneys major campaign contributors???

[/ QUOTE ]
I will tell you one of them....the Heinz Corp. Yes, Kerry's wife is an heir to the Heinz fortune, yet the company itself is supporting Bush. True, the family doesn't have a major say in the company, but that must be saying something about what they think of Kerry.

[Mighty_Wingman]

I've got no love for Kerry.

I think alot republicans voted for him in the primaries so that Bush would face a weak opponent.

I'd have been happy with Clarke or Edwards.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think alot republicans voted for him in the primaries so that Bush would face a weak opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are you consumed by your DNC propaganda but you are also a conspiracy theorist? Ponderous...

[ratm1966]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Not only are you consumed by your DNC propaganda but you are also a conspiracy theorist? Ponderous..

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, all democrats are caught up in DNC propaganda and conspiracy theories. Why? Becuase that is all they have. They know that for our country to succeed, it needs to be run by the conservatives. They just can't admit it, so they come up with all of this bullshit to try and bring the conservatives down.

[JK]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Haliburton, and companies like them.



[/ QUOTE ]

There are in this world only six companies that can do what Haliburton does. I guess you'd prefer the French company. (By the way, Haliburton built the Iraqi oil infrastructure in the first f*cking place)


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
How could our government claim Iraq had WMDs without knowing where a single one of them is ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, have you ever looked at an effing map?!? Iraq is the size of California... We could send our entire military machine in there and search every nook and cranny and we could still be looking a year and half from now.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
North Korea admits to having WMDs but we're not invading them

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely you moron- would you invade a country that could wipe your's out with the push of a button? It's called diplomacy.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why did the focus shift from Osama to Saddam

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you ask the media who have all but stopped reporting on the military actions STILL GOING ON IN AFGHANISTAN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Do you really believe invading countries and killing people prevents terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

How many terror attacks have happended in the US since we started kicking the shit out of these assho1es..?


I don't need to "look" any of this up on a pamphlet issued by the DNC... I can formulate my own opinions and I can readily discern between fact and fiction unlike some people who aer more than willing to buy into a lie.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why did the focus shift from Osama to Saddam

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">I've been wondering that myself. Bush said in an interview before he was elected that he was not going to go after Saddam. Now, he is throwing it back into our faces that even know he lied, he still got him. The reason why Bush went for him was because his Daddy told him. When we elected Jr. Bush, we got Senior Bush. Double the boots, double the war.</font color>

[Matthew]

For all you pricks out there who say "Where are these WMD... remember he used them 10 years ago! How we soon forget that Scud missiles were chemical warfare, among other things he did (Agent Orange etc. )

Who we should go after next is North Korea, not only did they admit to having nukes, but they said they would use them too!


For the intelligent people here, why did we not finish the job in Afghanistan ?

EDIT:

Saddam knew in plenty of time that we were coming, so he had ample time to either hide or destroy his WMD. That is the reason why we find no trace yet.

[Matt1]

Actually, word is the older Bush crowd (Bush Sr., Skocrowft, Eagleburger, Baker) are at odds with the new one.

[Matthew]

Where is said "word" ?

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Dude, all democrats are caught up in DNC propaganda and conspiracy theories. Why? Becuase that is all they have.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like propaganda and a conspiracy theory to me. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
There are in this world only six companies that can do what Haliburton does.

[/ QUOTE ]
And how many of them contribute to the Bush/Cheney campaign ?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I guess you'd prefer the French company.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you'd prefer to make assumptions about people whose opinions differ from yours, than actually listen to the discussion.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Dude, have you ever looked at an effing map?!?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, what's a map ? Let's assume that everyone who disagrees with you opinions is an entirely, unedumacated Mooron.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
We could send our entire military machine in there and search every nook and cranny and we could still be looking a year and half from now.

[/ QUOTE ]
We could still be looking decades from now . Hard to find something that doesn't exist.

They found Saddam in a three foot hole , they can't find something the size a scud missle that that emits radiation from depleted uranium. Check.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Precisely you moron- would you invade a country that could wipe your's out with the push of a button? It's called diplomacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Saddam supposedly had those same weapons . He didn't use them, like in "Gulf War " part one, and we didn't seem too afraid he'd "wipe out our army with the push of a button" if he could've why didn't he ? Please, listen to your own argument , what you just said makes no sense.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why don't you ask the media who have all but stopped reporting on the military actions STILL GOING ON IN AFGHANISTAN.

[/ QUOTE ]

The media focus shifted because the White House focus shifted.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
How many terror attacks have happended in the US since we started kicking the shit out of these assho1es..?


[/ QUOTE ]
How many happened in the U.S. in the past decade ?

Since 9-11 Domestic and airport security have been tightened. I think that has alot more to with it.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I don't need to "look" any of this up on a pamphlet issued by the DNC... I can formulate my own opinions and I can readily discern between fact and fiction unlike some people who aer more than willing to buy into a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah ! really ! We should take everyone who disagrees with the war and imperialism and call 'em unpatriotic and put 'em little camps. And we should assume that they are uneducated morons that don't know what map is. And we should assume they get all info from DNC propaganda. Because anyone who belives the war is bad, and fought for profit must be DNC brainwashed idiot. Let's make assumptions about all these people and fit them into a nice neat little group to make them easier to hate. And let's assume that countries we don't like have weapons they're not supposed to, and use that as a pretext for invasion so we can "Kick their ass and take their gas"

That's the new American way !
Don't it make ya proud ?

[jjcourtright]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
If you really want to say there is an organization out there which prevents certain stories from making the news, it is the news corporations themselves. They will stifle stories that might not draw as much of an audience and just keep repeating one that they know will draw in the viewers. So, in short, it is just good business on their part to keep from showing every single thing that happens in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is, I think, the first time that I have read a statement from a conservative about the media that didn't just throw out the term "liberal bias". Good work. I hate when people just bust out the liberal bias crap. Are there liberal media sources? Of course. Are there conservative media sources? Of course. But, like you say, the news that gets reported is the news that draws the viewers.

[JK]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Yeah ! really ! We should take everyone who disagrees with the war and imperialism and call 'em unpatriotic and put 'em little camps. And we should assume that they are uneducated morons that don't know what map is. And we should assume they get all info from DNC propaganda. Because anyone who belives the war is bad, and fought for profit must be DNC brainwashed idiot. Let's make assumptions about all these people and fit them into a nice neat little group to make them easier to hate. And let's assume that countries we don't like have weapons they're not supposed to, and use that as a pretext for invasion so we can "Kick their ass and take their gas"



[/ QUOTE ]


Now you're putting words in my mouth. Did I say any of that? I didn't even imply any of that! What I am saying is that a lot of America is tired of the "war for oil" arguement. I never said a goddamn thing about being unAmerican or unpatriotic or putting anyone in a f*cking internment camp. I gave up several years of my life as well some body parts so you and everyone else could enjoy the freedoms you so dearly love. We are at war against terrorism, an enemy that despises the fact that we have so much and they have so little. Is that the fault of the US? I don't think so. Just like it's not my fault the guy down the street doesn't have a pot to piss in. People have to learn to do for themselves. And if the government and the church and whoever else it may be is holding them down- fuck, man... 1776. If that's too obtuse, too bad.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Since 9-11 Domestic and airport security have been tightened. I think that has alot more to with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I don't think airport screeners are doing all that much to stem the tide of terrorist activities, seeing how they'll strip-search my fiancee and let an Osama-look-a-like waltz right through. I'm guessing it's because they're so scared that they'll be accused of profiling if they even ask for a f*cking ticket! It's not petite 30 year old women being recruited by Allah to slay the great Satan, nor is it grandmothers or grandfathers- And before you accuse me of calling for profiling, let me say hell yeah profile. If it was 30 year old white males with tattoos hijacking airplanes, search my f*cking bags. And I don't have clue what kind of domestic security you're talking about. Stepped up police patrols? A couple more guys on the night watch out in the harbor? If you really looked at the big picture you'd realize just how vulnerable to attack we are right now. But thankfully, Al Quida has been utterly decimated, the Taliban has been all but wiped out. Saddam Hussein is gone and can no longer fund terrorists. And again, big picture time- a free, democratic Iraq will have a free market. A free market means a better economy over time. A better economy means less people feel "disinfranchised" (whatever namby-pamby twit came up with that piece of PC garbage should be spanked- hard) The more freedoms the people have, the less likely they are to strap on 15 pounds of dynamite and blow up a pizzaria so their parents can get $25,000, which before the free market meant they were pretty much millionaires. You drop a free market in the middle of a region that is rife with poverty and hatred towards those who have it better and it will spread. Over time things will improve and then with their freedom they can achieve whatever it is they desire. And with their freedom, they won't be as likely to join some radical fundamentalist crusade against the 21st century. Again, if it's too obtuse, too bad.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Saddam supposedly had those same weapons . He didn't use them, like in "Gulf War " part one, and we didn't seem too afraid he'd "wipe out our army with the push of a button" if he could've why didn't he ? Please, listen to your own argument , what you just said makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said made perfect sense, because no one ever said Saddam had long-range tactical nukes. Saddam never said he had tactical nukes. Bush never said Saddam had tactical nukes. Powell never said Saddam had tactical nukes. Iraqi informants, however, said that Saddam was working towards tactical nukes. Were we supposed to wait for Saddam to have them? North Korea claims to have them, and the evidence says that in all likelyhood they do. As the troops are landing on the beaches and swarming through the DMZ, they can watch the pretty contrails of the ICBMs rocketing on their way to Mighty Wingman's hometown, my hometown, or someother place here at home. So what I said makes perfect sense. Diplomacy.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I guess you'd prefer to make assumptions about people whose opinions differ from yours, than actually listen to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not too much of an assumption when it's right out o' the ol' DNC playbook.

Maybe I shouldn't have replied to this right after getting out of bed. In closing, all I really have to say is "piss off". The sun is shining and it's payday.

[Matt1]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Where is said "word"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, from Skocrowft and Eagleburger the "word" came right out of their mouths. As for Bush and Baker, well that comes from the usual unnamed sources.

I'm sure that Bush Sr. supports his son morally, as any father would. Ideologically however, who's to say?

[jjcourtright]

So the thing that I don't get is that you rail on MW for his comments being right out of the "DNC playbook", yet your comments are directly out of the "military playbook".

[Matt1]

I can't believe I spelled Scowcrowft wrong. Oh well.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The New York Times
August 16, 2002, Friday, Late Edition

Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.

These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.

At the same time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who summoned Mr. Kissinger for a meeting on Tuesday, and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein -- not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war, which many in the department oppose.

"For those of us who don't see an invasion as an article of faith but as simply a policy option, there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," one senior administration official involved in foreign policy said today.

In an opinion article published today in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft, who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.

His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's term and has maintained close relations with the former president.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska said that Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, had recently told President Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military campaign against Iraq, especially without broad international support. But senior White House and State Department officials said they were unaware of any such meeting.

Also today, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state for Mr. Bush's father, told ABC News that unless Mr. Hussein "has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it."

Last week, Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader, raised similar concerns.

The comments by Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy establishment appeared to be a loosely coordinated effort. Mr. Scowcroft first spoke out publicly 10 days ago on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."

In an opinion article published on Monday in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument about the international complications of any military campaign, writing that American policy "will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically," a statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.

"Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed," he added. Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.

Through his office in New York, Mr. Kissinger relayed a message that his meeting with Secretary Powell had been scheduled before the publication of his article and was unrelated. But a State Department official said Secretary Powell had wanted Mr. Kissinger's advice on how to influence administration thinking on both Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft wrote that if the United States "were seen to be turning our backs" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute "in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us."

He added: "There is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive."

Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naive.

"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."

Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naive to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."

Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.

He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.

"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."

He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."

For months, the State Department's approach has been to focus on how to build a government in Iraq.

After meetings here last week involving Iraqi opposition groups and administration officials, one official said today that there was now consensus in the State Department that if more discussion was focused on the challenge of creating a post-Hussein government, "that would start broaching the question of what kind of assistance you are going to need from the international community to assure this structure endures -- read between the lines, how long the occupation will have to be."

Such discussions, the official added, would have a sobering effect on the war-planners.

Republicans are in fact divided, both over the way Mr. Bush is preparing for the possibility of war and over whether the United States should attack Iraq. Mr. Scowcroft wrote in a recent opinion article that he opposes an attack because it could undermine or destroy a global antiterror campaign and might also set off attacks by Iraq against Israel or lead to a wider regional war.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Razorback]

Are you telling me that republicans are turning against the president because he hasn't paid enough attention to their personal agendas? Come on! That can't be true. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Matt1]

Care to elaborate on that statement?

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Did I say any of that? I didn't even imply any of that!

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked you a series of questions, I only wanted you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. You responded by insulting my knowledge of geography calling me a moron and accusing me sucking propaganda from the DNCs ass in so many words. You ASSUME all these things about me, and then accuse me putting words in your mouth ?

UmmmKaaaay.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What I am saying is that a lot of America is tired of the "war for oil" arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the unanswered questions I asked you was " What did Bush do before politics ? "

Bush comes from a family of rich Texas oil men . He was, essentially, a rich Texas oil man. As any trial lawyer would tell you, " this goes to motive ". Bush believes in an “oil economy ” Look where his money comes from . Look where his biscuits are buttered. And I’m supposed to believe it’s coincidence when Haliburton gets the big fat contract . Or , that they deserved to get it because they installed it way back when ?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I never said a goddamn thing about being unAmerican or unpatriotic or putting anyone in a f*cking internment camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not, but many republicans are complaining about being tired of hearing certain arguments ( Bush stole election , Bushs’ oil war etc. ) I’m tired of hearing about how the media is supposedly " Liberal controlled " I guess they should be saying " HEIL BUSHLER !" all the time and explaining how the liberals are rat-like and should be dealt with as common vermin.

If the media is liberally controlled why does Bush have three times as much money for campaign ads as his opponent ? Oh right , OIL money !


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
And I don't think airport screeners are doing all that much to stem the tide of terrorist activities, seeing how they'll strip-search my fiancee and let an Osama-look-a-like waltz right through. I'm guessing it's because they're so scared that they'll be accused of profiling if they even ask for a f*cking ticket! It's not petite 30 year old women being recruited by Allah to slay the great Satan, nor is it grandmothers or grandfathers- And before you accuse me of calling for profiling, let me say hell yeah profile. If it was 30 year old white males with tattoos hijacking airplanes, search my f*cking bags

[/ QUOTE ]


That, I can mostly agree with . It’s scary, funny and true all at the same time. But that’s not what I meant . I was talking about making it harder to get student and work visas and more scrutiny towards those already here on such visas, tightening up border patrols and more thorough background checks. And before you get all behind racial profiling , do remember, that Timothy McVeigh WAS A WHITE AMERICAN WHO SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES and before 9-11 that was deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

Let me state for the record that I don’t hate anyone for their political beliefs. How you vote is your business , and with your service to our country, you may well have more right to vote and express your opinions than most of the rest of us. But when you say things like this. You just sound angry and closed-minded. Which is the way most republicans come off when put to task or asked questions.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Maybe I shouldn't have replied to this right after getting out of bed. In closing, all I really have to say is "piss off".

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn’t assume that everyone who is anti-Bush is a liberal or a Democrat. Maybe , just maybe , you should try to have a respectful discussion with someone whose opinions differ from yours instead of calling them a " shit sucker " or a "moron " . Maybe you shouldn’t assume that because someone believes a certain thing or votes a certain way , they are like an a$$hole supervisor you once had . You might actually win them over to your way of thinking. But since you and the others here who share your type of beliefs often resort to these tactics instead of answering questions.… Yeah Well….

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Maybe you shouldn’t assume that everyone who is anti-Bush is a liberal or a Democrat

[/ QUOTE ]

You are both.

[JK]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You just sound angry and closed-minded. Which is the way most republicans come off when put to task or asked questions.



[/ QUOTE ]


That's the pot calling the kettle black...


Who said I was Republican?


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
calling them a " shit sucker "

[/ QUOTE ]

I KNOW I never said that.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Bush believes in an “oil economy ”

[/ QUOTE ]

...as do 99% of the world's population. Sad but true, the world runs on gasoline. Without oil, you don't get gas. Without gas, trucks don't roll down the highway and tractors don't plow the fields. Trucks don't roll down the highway and tractors don't plow the fields, you don't get your groceries and you starve. I dunno, maybe we should all move into communes and wear Berkenstocks and smoke dope and grow our own food and revert back to the 18th century. F*ck modern healthcare, we should go back to using leeches and Dr. McGruger's Magic Snake Oil- Damn! There's that "o" word again.

As far as Haliburton getting a lot of the contracts, who besides the Libs [censored] CARE? There are thousands of people with families that work for Haliburton who ARE able to feed their kids because of the contracts- NOT the President. Not the Vice President. (Libs keep complaining about a down economy, I'm starting to wonder if they ever want it to get any better.) As far as I'm concerned, they're the best for the job. And I can say that because I've got family that has worked for Haliburton (Brown&amp;Root) since the company was founded! Haliburton has been the military's main contractor since- I know for certain, WWII. If you hire a man to come in and service your septic system and he's done a good job for years and years are you gonna fire him because someone might see it as unfair or favoritism? I know the issue with Haliburton is not that simple, but honestly- there are men and women fighting and dying to defend this country from terrorists and those who harbor them and some people want to get into a pissing match over who gets what contract. Back to the oil economy that one might deduce you can't stand- until you or someone else comes up with a clean efficient, low cost, alternative fuel that can readily replace the world's need for oil, the world is going to be driven by oil. Otherwise, you're SOL.

Geography- You complained that we haven't found any WMDs yet. My reply was that the country is huge. A lot of the chemical weapons we're looking for can be stored in a [censored] suitcase. You take yourself, 10,000 of your friends, and start searching California for one specific suitcase and see how long it takes. I don't know how much more blunt I can be... I mean, I keep giving you an answer but you keep complaining that I'm not. I'm guessing because it's not the answer you want.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
and with your service to our country, you may well have more right to vote and express your opinions than most of the rest of us

[/ QUOTE ]

That is most definitely NOT the case. And any other individual who has served this country will tell you exactly the same. I served and I served proudly because I personally felt it was my duty and my honor to give back something to my fore-fathers and -mothers who gave all of us the freedom we take for granted. I never asked for anything in return. Hell, I won't even get the 'Disabled Vet' license plates for my vehicle. I don't deserve the right to express my own opinions anymore than you do.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You just sound angry and closed-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I've been listening to the same played out arguements for years now and I've just about had it. A man can only listen to so much of it before he gets downright angry or becomes so numb he could not care less. And sometimes now, I just don't see the need for rational discourse (or any other kind for that matter) because 90% of the arguement is founded in far-flung conspiracy theories.

And maybe Bush has been able to raise more campaign money because, oh I don't know- most people think Kerry's fink?


Whatever.

[Mighty_Wingman]

From your first response to me on this thread:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It amazes me how eagerly some people just suck down the shit that's being spoon-fed to them by a media machine hell-bent on tearing down the current administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

calling them a " shit sucker "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I KNOW I never said that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess someone else is using your profile to make responses to me ? Or did you mean you just typed it instead of actually saying it ?

"Who said I was Republican?" YOU DID ! In a past thread, you mentioned telling your liberal supervisor that you vote Republican and him being an A$$hole about it. I can look it up and link it, if you want me to.

I guess voting republican without even looking at the candidiates themselves doesn't necessarily make you a party member.

Oh, my bad.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
as do 99% of the world's population. Sad but true, the world runs on gasoline. Without oil, you don't get gas. Without gas, trucks don't roll down the highway and tractors don't plow the fields. Trucks don't roll down the highway and tractors don't plow the fields, you don't get your groceries and you starve.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit that oil controls our economy and yet deny it has anything to do with the war in Iraq.

Check.

Here's my point : Oil is a NON-renewable resource. Demand has already outgrown supply and that gap will only widen until the worlds supply of oil is utterly depleted.

If we spend 4.7 billion a month ( what we're spending on Iraq right now) on research and development of natural gas, electric , solar power. We wont be so dependant on oil and we wont have to make up excuses to invade countries that have it.

The transition will not be an easy one . But IMO a much better one than spending money and lives on a futile and ultimately pointless war in Iraq. If bush would spend half of the money per month he's spending in Iraq , we'd have viable options to an oil economy in less than a year , and the world would follow suit.

Unfortunately Bush's background causes his short-sightedness, believing Oil is the only - or the best way, will only cause further problems down the road.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
My reply was that the country is huge. A lot of the chemical weapons we're looking for can be stored in a [censored] suitcase. You take yourself, 10,000 of your friends, and start searching California for one specific suitcase and see how long it takes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying we invaded Iraq for one item the size of a suitcase ? That's not what I was lead to believe.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
And maybe Bush has been able to raise more campaign money because, oh I don't know- most people think Kerry's fink?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't speak in Kerrys' defense I think he is a fink and a liar. ALL POLITICIANS ARE ! The sooner you realize that, the more balanced your arguments will become.

Check out Fact Check (http://www.factcheck.org/) Just read a few of the articles, see how both sides bend the truth to make a point. This is not a propaganda site their agenda is the truth. Which doesn't exists on the left or the right but somewhere in the middle.

[JK]

I vote for the candidate, not the party. In the same election wherein I voted for Bush (which is what set off my former employer) I also voted for a Democrat for senator.

Right now, the demand side of the market is driving the need for oil. Until the consumers create a greater need for an alternative fuel source, oil is what is going to be driving the world's economy. And demand has not grown larger than supply, if you consider what is in the ground rather than what OPEC releases from the spigots they control. There is still a lot of fossil fuel in the ground. The fact is that until a fuel crunch really starts to bite the world in the ass, oil is going to drive the world's economy. Not just the United States, but every modern nation. The current war in Iraq is a direct response to Saddam Hussein's repeated "fuck you" to the United Nation's attempts at unrestricted weapon's inspections. Every mandate stated that noncompliance would be met with force. After FOURTEEN resolutions, The United States and sixty other nations finally got the balls to go in and enforce it. And like I stated in a previous post, a free Iraq will eventually bring stabilty to the Middle East which will in turn eliminate the climate that breeds terrorists. But in your opinion, that is a pointless objective.

People feel so insulated here in America and their daily lives are largely spent in ignorance of the larger world around them. A lot of those people have never even left the county or parish they were born in. The nightly news is their only window to the world beyond their own horizons. And when the reports finally reach these people, all they get out of it is that Bush went to war for oil, Dick Cheney still runs Haliburton and is making billions, and we're hopelessly stuck in a pointless quagmire akin to Vietnam. They also hear that Bush was to eager to go to war, that he just jumped right in there with no regard whatsoever for the rest of the world's concerns, and that we should never have gone it alone. Have I hit all the talking points yet? That is the "shit" being spoon fed. And those people are the suckers. There's one born every minute.

I've already hit the first talking point- oil is not why we went to war. I've already touched on the Haliburton thing in another post. The quagmire line is a bunch of crap- I know from friends of mine that the media will not report on the progress that is most definitely being made. Several months ago, when the Army and Seabees held a red ribbon cutting ceremony for a brand new water treatment plant. Even though there were a hundred or so people in attendence, there asn't a single news camera in attendence. They were somewhere else, shooting video of a devasted group of Bathist hardliners, pining for there fallen leader. I've worked in the media for six years- human interests stories are fluff, feel-good filler reserved for a Saturday show that might be running light. What does lead the headlines is the bloodshed and whatever else the news director decides. And of all the news directors I've worked with- and there have been eight- not a single one of them was not biased in someway against conservative view points and more often than not, the stories they approved were mostly opinion pieces condemming anything even remotely to the right.
As far as going into this too fast- it's been brewing ever since the G.H.W. Bush stopped our tanks at the Iraqi border in 1991. Fourteen resolutions over twelve years. I for one am glad that we finally made good on those. For so long, the world has been walking all over the US and many Americans are tired of it.

Oh, and the suitcase thing- I didn't say we went to war for suitcase full of WMDs. I said that many of the WMDs could be fit in a suitcase. A teaspoon of serin can wipe out a hundred thousand people. I doubt very seriously there is an oil tanker full of the shit. Hell, it could be in milk jugs, sitting on a shelf in some guy's toolshed. How easy do you think it would be to find that?


Anyway- to re-enfore what I said at first- a free Iraq will eventually bring stabilty to the Middle East which will in turn eliminate the climate that breeds terrorists. But you believe that is a futile and ultimately pointless objective. About as pointless as this thread.

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
About as pointless as this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I stopped reading right there.


/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[marksiwel]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The transition will not be an easy one . But IMO a much better one than spending money and lives on a futile and ultimately pointless war in Iraq. If bush would spend half of the money per month he's spending in Iraq , we'd have viable options to an oil economy in less than a year , and the world would follow suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

...wait, You think we dont already have tons of R&amp;D on alt. Fuel Sources. WE DO! But the Oil Industry is repressing this knowledge. And when we do get a safe clean fuel source do you think its going to come from some random company? No its going to come from the Oil Industry. They just have a good thing going on right now, so they arent going to screw it up. No matter how much it pullotes the earth.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
for oil. Until the consumers create a greater need for an alternative fuel source, oil is what is going to be driving the world's economy. And demand has not grown larger than supply, if you consider what is in the ground rather than what OPEC releases from the spigots they control

[/ QUOTE ]

How am I supposed to create a need for a new fuel source. I have paying nearly 2.00 a gallon for reg. unleaded Fuel. What am I supposed to do? Start shooting? Please tell me how to create a demand for a Hydrogen Powered car!?! I would love to know, because damn i want a cleaner cheaper fuel source.

And 3rd what does this Thread have ANYTHING TO DO WITH CBS?

[Dr3vil]

hmmm... well it seems I should have some contribution to a thread this politically charged, I have an MO to live up to after all, so here goes:

blah blah blah oil. blah blah blah dead people. blah blah blah good stock market. blah blah blah poor job market. blah blah blah Iraq. blah blah blah $8 billion a month. blah blah blah you can't finance an army with post-it notes, which is why you have to pull money in with taxes when spending big, something every president, Republican or Democrat, has understood except Bush.

As for the news, my conservative friends complain about the "liberal media" while my liberal friends claim the media is owned by the same major corporations that have bought the republican party, I just think people don't like to watch the news.

EDIT: Actually read some of this shit.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
RB:
Give me an ounce of proof that the media in Iraq is being kept from reporting anything. How would the American government be able to prevent world media services from reporting what they see? It would not just be impossible, it would be stupid to try.

[/ QUOTE ] http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/04/23/image613397x.jpg
You're right, and they still tried.

[Razorback]

The discussion was about battles in Iraq not being reported, not pictures of American dead being transported to the US. So my statement stands, the US government has no control over what the media reports in Iraq. They may have some control over what they show to the media, but then so does every government in the world.

[marksiwel]

Mr. Razorback has thus proven why it is important for others to read a post,and then understand in what context the person was posting about, before quoting them, and trying to make a point.

And thanks for restating what this thread was about. I thought it was because CBS canceled "Touched by an Angel"

-Sometimes I want to be Touched by Angel, but in a purely sexual way

[Dr3vil]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The discussion was about battles in Iraq not being reported

[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
KingBison:
They could find something out that is really happening that the government wants to keep quiet. There are lots of things going on there, but the government is keeping a limit on what we can know. There are a lot of more killings and violence and such that is going on.

[/ QUOTE ]Now to me that seems to refer to a very general sort of information, not battles specifically, and the example was to show that the ineffectiveness of censorship itself isn't always enough to keep them from doing it, and it wasn't in reference to the censorship of anything specific, but to illustrate how the military handles it.

I'm far from thinking there's any conspiracy in Iraq, but the politcal climate seems to have made the Army paranoid, especially since those pictures weren't even detrimental at all. Just because it wouldn't work doesn't mean I wouldn't put attempts at censorship above them, but then as you said, their control thus far has been pretty standard.

[Razorback]

The spirit of her conspiracy theory was never based on any solid knowledge of a cover-up so how could we read anymore than the most obvious into her point? Also:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
They could find something out that is really happening that the government wants to keep quiet

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they keeping quiet the death-toll? We know what it is, that is REALLY happening and the coffins only support the facts. So in that respect how is the government hiding something that is "really happening?"

Were these pictures of American dead that the government had not told us about? Were they really aliens? Come on, I expect better from you, being one of a dozen who post around here with some original thought.

[KingBison]

I know this seems pety, but Im a dude. Thank you.

[Bob_Cat]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
jkhulon73: How many terror attacks have happended in the US since we started kicking the shit out of these assho1es..?

[/ QUOTE ]
To paraphrase the Simpsons, I have a rock that keeps away tigers, I'll sell it to you for $40. How many terror attacks has the US ever seen? Oh, and before you answer that look at the rest of the world: before and after 'that day' for the past 20-30 years. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Razorback: Give me an ounce of proof that the media in Iraq is being kept from reporting anything. How would the American government be able to prevent world media services from reporting what they see? It would not just be impossible, it would be stupid to try.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh if only you could see what I see, working intimately with most of the major news companies gives me some insight and I can tell you that storys are both fabricated, fluffed up and suppressed. I sat there one day watching news footage come in from Afghanistan for a major US network and thought "That'll be headline news" and it just dissappeared. Most likely dropped in exchange for something less worrying and more juicy. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

For the person who said that Iraq is the size of California to quote the CIA ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Geo ) Iraq is "slightly more than twice the size of Idaho" with an area of 437,072 sq km. How pendantic can I be? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Is the question is not about politics, but about morons? </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[/ QUOTE ] /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

Just putting my oar in because I didn't expect to see this kind of debate here. By the way, just to get some mud thrown my way, I refuse to vote on principle that I don't want to pick the 'lesser of two evils'. Politicians and Journalists, no matter what people may say about lawyers are far worse, at least most lawyers know they do it for the money. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif Also to throw in a nerd quote "Trust no one..."

Bob

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I know this seems pety, but Im a dude. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought he was quoting Smurfy.

[KingBison]

Its cool, just didnt want people associating me with a female. What would that do to my credability.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Oh if only you could see what I see, working intimately with most of the major news companies gives me some insight and I can tell you that storys are both fabricated, fluffed up and suppressed. I sat there one day watching news footage come in from Afghanistan for a major US network and thought "That'll be headline news" and it just dissappeared. Most likely dropped in exchange for something less worrying and more juicy

[/ QUOTE ]

Again (how come people make no effort whatsoever to stick within the context of a response) we are talking about the US government preventing world news media from reporting specific news. It is just not happening. It is news editors that decide what is news worthy. It is not as if European news is any more honest in its reporting of the war. The same goes for the news media in the middle-east. It is just that in the US the news media cares more about the juicy story than the substantive one.

[Bob_Cat]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It is just not happening. It is news editors that decide what is news worthy. It is not as if European news is any more honest in its reporting of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Erm, its not happening? Well I won't say what went missing, but I doubt an editor would have sat on it. It was also going directly to the US, nothing done in Europe, of all the output I see the only time I've known of an outright fake a story has been a well known US news anchor. But its not my place to point fingers and grass them up. Heck its more than my jobs worth to mess with a multi-national and confidentiality agreements.

Hey, none of them are clean American/European/MEA/Asia, they are all after all just journalists.

Bob

[Razorback]

Ahhh... you are a conspiracy nut. Check.

Of course, if you have information to provide about fake news by all means reveal it. We are all anonymous here. The only thing preventing you from telling us is your imagination.

[Bob_Cat]

In order to be a consipricy nut I would have to imagine that everyone was against me. I would also have to be basing my belief on things I read in my cornflakes or told to me on an internet forum. Plus I don't believe its personal against me, mainly because it really doesn't keep me awake at night. I once told someone I knew about what we do here and she said my company was morally corrupt just for providing some of the services.

I'll have to plead the 5th on revealing information, because if I said what company was involved then it wouldn't take much for someone with the right knowledge to put together where I might work.

Your right, I'm not very good with my imagination to come up with elaborate stories, but your simply kidding yourself if you believe the world of politics isn't corrupt and that journalists don't lie.

Bob

[ratm1966]

I don't think that he ever said politics wasn't corrupt or that journalists don't lie. He just said that the U.S. Government isn't preventing the news media from reporting on Iraq. If anything is edited from public viewing, it is the news agencies themselves who drop one story over another. Sheesh, it sn't as if they don't have 24 hours in a day to report more than just one major story at a time. Wait, they do, but they just don't use them, because they know which stories are the cash cows and ignore the others.

A prime example of how the government isn't really trying to hide anything is the story of the accidental shootings of civilians a few weeks ago. The soldiers on scene were taking one of the injured to a medic while a reporter was attempting to film and report the incident. Those on scene did try to keep the news reporter from filming what was going on, but then another one came up and allowed the reporter in with the camera man. He knew it was better to allow the full disclosure as opposed to trying to hide it.

One thing you have to remember is that in the military, a soldier isn't allowed to talk to the press unless it has been cleared through Public Affairs first. Due to this, most are wary of talking to reporters, because they don't want to violate any regulations. Yes it can make for a adversarial relationship, like in the civilian shooting, but as soon as someone with authority stepped in, everything was allowed.

[Razorback]

Why is it that you seem to be one of maybe two people actually reading what I am saying? The rest clearly just skim over a word or two and then think they know what I have said.

[Dr3vil]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
ratm:
If anything is edited from public viewing, it is the news agencies themselves who drop one story over another.

[/ QUOTE ] True. I never said they were hiding something from us, if they did, we'd know it, because they couldn't. I just don't think they're above attempting censorship, considering their paranoia about the release of something as harmless as casket pictures.

[Razorback]

Well, then we agree. I was very moved by those pictures.

[ratm1966]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why is it that you seem to be one of maybe two people actually reading what I am saying? The rest clearly just skim over a word or two and then think they know what I have said.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I actually agree on a lot of things that you talk about here, so I generally try to read the entire post before making a judgement call. But then, if it is a topic I am really interested in, I will also thoroughly read the views of those that I don't agree with. Why? Becuase you reallly need to understand where they are coming from if you want any chance at not looking like a moron when you reply to them. Oh, and this is also a topic that I am interested in.

As far as the caskets go, I can see where the current administration might have reservations in letting them be shown on the news. If too many are being shown, it could turn the public's opinion about the war against them. However, I for one have no problem with it. I am in the military and I think it honors those who have died serving their country. It isn't like we are in a Vietnam situation where hundreds or thousands of caskets are returning every day and being shown on the news in an attempt to stir the public. No, I believe the majority of people today are more patriotic and supportive of the war than they were back in the 60's and 70's, and this news footage won't sway them. As a matter of fact, I think it would sway more people into supporting the war as to opposing it. Not that I condone using the footage for that sole purpose. No, footage of the caskets should only be shown as a way of paying respect for the service and sacrafice of the soildiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.

[jjcourtright]

It seems that the showing of the caskets is just as polarizing as is George Bush. Anti-Bush people can say "look, look more and more of our children are dying." While pro-Bush people can say "we are honoring the sacrifice that these soldiers have made to fight terror." It is amazing how many things are shaping up that way in this election.

Kerry fought in Vietnam = war hero.
Kerry was against the war when he got back = traitor.

Bush joined the National Guard = Daddy got him out of fighting
Bush volunteered to fly in National Guard = heroic for choosing a dangerous job

It seems that anything can be spun the way that you like.

Person 1: "Don't vote for him he kills babies."
Person 2: "What if that kid would have grown up to be a murderer? He's just saving other people from dying."

It's quite ridiculous.

[Mighty_Wingman]

Thanks for making that point J.J.

It's all about perspective.