Enough people on the tv saying "There were no weapons&q

Discussion in 'More Serious Topics' started by Joeslogic, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Nursey I do try to be civil myself and stick to topics of debate and stick to criticizing only what I see as flawed opinion being posted. However I'm sure you can scour my posts and find a few times where I let my emotions get the better of me and took it to a personal level. Quite frankly I can see where Samantha would be inclined to take issue with things being posted here and take it personally. Also she seems to be soooo good at pulling your chain it is very amusing. Now the fact is she has made some good points only to be attacked at a personal level by you. So in other words your guilty of the same accusation.

    Smiley:
    Nobody is saying "Sorry we were wrong" that I know of except the Left to which I referred. And anyways you are correct the Media is a corporation and the more extreme left leaning networks are loosing viewer ship to the less biased. However it seems that they are willing to take that loss, they are hoping to gain some legitimacy if they can force the administrations hand to pull troops an act which would be catastrophic but the media knows that they simply need to convince the public that it must be done. Then after all the cards fall blame the bad situation on Bush. If this happens they win using the same strategy used with Vietnam.

    The evidence why we went there? Well that is the most compelling of all. There was a tyrant on charge of a country holding it in an iron grip of oppression. This dictator had threatened our country verbally on several occasions; he had the resources to pull off some sort of huge attack. There were terrorists that had attacked our country he was rumored to have conspired with and several believe this is more than just a rumor. He was under order by the rest of the world community to destroy his weapon cache he refused to provide any proof that he has done so choosing instead to play a spiteful game of hide and seek. Took the resources we were supplying him to feed his people and used it to bribe French and German diplomats as well as others. This went on for years. We simply could not allow under the circumstance for this to occur in light of the situation we were having with the terrorists.

    Your insistence that we went there on false pretense is exactly what I am talking about you are falling victim to the whole manipulation I am talking about. There were no lies told or exaggerations for that matter made to justify our going into Iraq. I am mature enough to see that as well as I’m mature enough to look into the events that occurred in the Balkans and see through the BS there also. Why can't you do the same Smiley.

    War is a very serious matter that should not be trivialized I hate the idea of war myself but there is a thing called self defense. Sure Americans were patriotic after the 911 situation. In my opinion a lot of it was a pathetic display of the whole personality cult disorder we have in this country and not totally genuine. But a lot of it was on the other hand. If it will make you feel better that was old hat 6 months after 911. The biggest fashion flop you could possibly commit right now would be to wear an American flag t-shirt. You want to get smirked at then go ahead and try wearing one in public now.

    Backlash? Where do you get that there is any backlash? There was resistance by the extreme left and the American haters from the beginning. There is some headway being made that I will acknowledge with convincing the general public that there were falsehoods being made. But I’m not buying it and that’s not a backlash.
     
  2. smiles

    smiles New Member

    Messages:
    1,323

    1) there was a tyrant... like there are many other tyrants all over the world that are oppressing their own people and even orchestrating massacres
    why not go after them?

    2) there are other nations, nations WITH WMD's that are threatening you, and that actually HAVE the capabilities to do so eg North Korea... why not go after them?

    3) none of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were iraqi, in fact saddam was hated by much of the arab world because he posed as much a threat to them as he did the US

    4) the resources u were giving him to feed his people were just that.... food, what did he do bribe the french with powdered milk?

    5) your own side said and i QUOTE

    6) there are political games being played here we will never understand the only thing I’m rejecting here is your notion that America has only international peace and national security as their motive behind any campaign in the last decade

    i mean how can you HONESTLY say that iraq was a threat to the US when Bushes National Security Advisor has said that they didnt!!!!!


    finally the backlash i was referring is only the RESCENT paradigm shift of the american people towards what you refer to as 'the left', the same rednecks that were chanting GO ARMY GO have now realized what war really is now that the coffins have started to roll back... that and the futility of the entire scenario
     
  3. smiles

    smiles New Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    bah 5 is 6 and 6 is 5
     
  4. Samanthasez

    Samanthasez New Member

    Messages:
    1,545




    The media has already done tremendous damage. I rage, but at whom, for this? For the idiots out there who can't think for themselves, or the very organization it reads from? The Left.

    We here in Seattle have two major newspapers, the P.I. and the Times: both are owned by the same company who owns the major network news, Belo subsidiary. It's utterly terrifying to me that this corporation spoon feeds it's lies to the masses every morning with their coffee and toast, and later, with the evening news... this isn't speculation on my part, either: The Times did a front page article actually admitting their personal and political stance (liberal) and have done nothing since the war started to spew inaccurate and damaging reports on the current government admin--and essentially all right winged groups--in general. When is enough enough? When will people learn to "read between the lines" ? That everything--EVERYTHING-- we see and hear on the television and read about is, in some form or another, a big, fat, fucking lie?

    The real danger, I believe, is that foreigners (Nursey, smiles, etc.) are actually BELIEVING all that is broadcast about America and in turn, I can't blame them for hating us, really. If that's the notion I was taught to believe about a certain culture ( greedy, corrupt, evil) and peoples, why I too would be apt to denigrate.

    What I think is that no one single person can be to blame. We all have a responsibility to open our damn eyes, before it's too late. Scratch that: it's already in motion and there's not much, at this point, that an everyday, right winger can do...or is there? your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
     
  5. smiles

    smiles New Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    heh i love how we ALL agree that the media is biased towards one side but we just can't agree on which side that is...
     
  6. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Oil for food program Saddam was using mullions to bribe the very countries who were holding out at the EU.

    Saddam was the greatest threat posed to the US at the time.

    Hadley was not the National Security Adviser, although the argument would sound better if you promoted him to a higher level. Besides the statement doesn't make since, however I understand where you’re going and its nowhere. At face value what he said does not indicate that there was any lie or misleading that took place. We as a statement refers no only to him and George but the information he received as well as several other intelligence communities in the world. He being a fool I admit tried to appease a the antagonist by moving on beyond the point of weather there were or not WMDs and go to the bigger point that there were reports of WMDs. The point is moot for a brainwashed group of people that seem to believe there never were any.

    By definition what you are referring to is not a backlash. I'm admitting that the technique has worked. For years the public school system has dumbed down the education system to where it really is a socialist mind control tool. I said the media has pounded home the lies repeatedly. Americans are yes shallow simple thinkers in general. That is not by definition a backlash. You simply have your terminology wrong.

    I'm not one of those brainwashed group speak types, my opinions are firmly planted in my years of observation. I do not hold my finger to the wind to see which way common thinking of the mass majority goes and then jump on the bandwagon. But the fact of the matter is when it comes to American culture 10% are brainwashed types that are blindly loyal to there side, and believe whatever means needed to accomplish there means is a righteous move. 30% have put deep thought into where there ideals come from and are mature and level headed that’s 40% each side. The other 20% are in the middle and are like smoke in a wind storm and get blown any which way the wind blows. And it’s the influences that are blowing the winds of ideology. The public schools, media, and higher education these are the forces that drive the winds of ideological thought.

    Polls drive polls if you took a real poll of people and asked them if shit taste good there would be that odd percent that would say : Yes I think so! If you publicized that poll with fake numbers and then published the results as a majority of sick types that said yes. Somewhere in America there would be a person shitting on a cereal bowl and pouring milk on it for breakfast. It’s sad but true but that truth does not change the bigger truth.
     
  7. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Smiley please read this, try looking at what you have been saying from a critical perspective. You are talking about the US doing a lot of thinks that would not be in its best interest. All are crimes that if a person who did this would deny. This brings out the emotional response of “Sure there denying it but there all a bunch of liars!” And it’s all so simple from there on US denies it but they are just lying again. What about motive? If we could win a battle without committing heinous war crimes why would we commit heinous war crimes? We have nothing to gain but everything to lose. Then flip it on the other side and look at motive. What is the motive of a person who hates our country and wants to undermine any efforts of the current administration in charge, to spread false albeit well documented and believable information?

    Take what is currently going on politically between the left as well as the right sides. People on the left are demanding that the current administration move out of Iraq. Imagine if one of these were privy to information that we very well intended to move out troops at a specific interval say by January a 50% reduction if Iraqi police forces were at a specific level. It would not be in the interest of the administration to let the public know what are plans were regardless of the political gain it would foil the whole operation. The terrorist would simply kick up there technique or terrorizing the Iraqi police forces and threatening the families of the Iraqi police. We would have to keep troops there. The left would have more ammo to use in the political fight against the administration. And the terrorist would call that a win on there side. No way to win with that strategy is it? At the same time the left can pound away with there discontent and if it so happens that the administration reaches its goal in January and pulls 50% of the troops the Democrats get to claim victory that the administration finally saw the wisdom in their way of thinking.

    The Dems will use the conflict as a means to gain back what they have lost cause their back is against the wall this technique will work on there behalf. The best interest of the country be damned they have nothing to loose but everything to gain. Don’t you see how it’s simply a catch 22 there involved in? The only safe guard against this type of thing is a properly and accurately informed electorate but that is not going to happen. The left controls the media, the school system. The socialist media controls all of it.

    If you do not think this is true then consider weather or not it is or is not newsworthy that thousands of Jordanians marched in the street in protest of AlZarcowi (I know I spelled that wrong but I’m to lazy to look up the correct spelling and you know what I mean) for the bombing of the Jordanians during a wedding. Do you not think it is news worthy that he has been denounced by his own tribe? Do you not think it is newsworthy that he may very well be dead? Do you not find it interesting that in light of all of this good news what we instead hear is that another suicide bomber killed X number of children, troops, and people in general?
     
  8. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    So you up there in the Northwest Samantha didn't the left steal another election there. By pulling there recount stunt? What was that the governors election? God there so disgusting they will stoop to any level. And to boot all along convince the naive types that frequent this forum that it is the right that cannot be trusted.
     
  9. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    MrLogic

    The assumption that US media is left-leaning is spurious. Probably spin from the "no-spin zone".
    USA as a nation , is under threat from the rightwing. Both those Industrialists that use the mechanism of capitalism to outsource and the media to controll the consumers. And allso those rightwing "Christians" that seem to forget the main caracter in their book of choice. During the cold war, a strict media-policy might have been neccesary. Nowadays it is counterproductive. You need a vibrant debate, and less of that sloganslinging. "This is not American", "Defending thsi great country of ours" JEEZ ! We havent heard that kind of language in european political theatres since that austrian with his silly little moustache !
     
  10. smiles

    smiles New Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    this is the VERY last time i post this link i've done it about 5 times yet for no good reason you choose to dissregard the most basics of concepts it represents


    xerxesx I find it most inevitable that people will push their opinions regardless of how misinformed they truly are........ they haven’t seen a war zone, haven’t lost a child to politics and people whose only contribution to such conflicts is through their wallets...Samantha would you send your children to iraq? do you believe in it that much? if they both died there would you for years to come feel pride in your heart that they were doing their duty to their nation to defend it against an actual threat, or would you curse the idiots that promised you WMD's only later to confirm that they were wrong?

    it's funny that joe would actually talk abut stolen elections ... that's a whole other thread that doesn’t need to be brought here... THIS thread was about if Iraq had WMD's bush’s NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR says they were wrong….. what more do you need? That’s not the leftist media…. That’s them,…. YOUR GUYS

    look at the words themselves Weapons of Mass Destruction…. So non-specific they can seemingly be applied to anything…. It’s a way of saying “Hey they got something” then whatever you find you can say “Hey we told you they had it!”

    as far as an American pullout…. Are you joking me? Although they might pull out half their troops they’re going to be there for decades….. America still having bases in germany, japan, italy, as well as my favorite yugoslavia decades after the original conflict….. do you know what you made us sign so you’d stop bombing radio stations and passenger trains? Does any Americans actually know what the terms of Serbian surrender were and why we were so reluctant to sign it? If the case in Iraq is anything like that of my native country both of you rightists need to give yourself a good ol’ pat on the back.

    about the media.... what would you think is more newsworthy that 50 people got blown up or that alZaraqwi doesn;t get along with his tribesmen? as far as the jordanian bombing protests it is widely an american misconception that all arabs support suicide bombings and muslim fundamentalism, don’t try to pin your stereotypes on the rest of the world
     
  11. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Smiles the fact that you posted that quote justifies everything I said about the media and how naive you are. Hadley was the assistant to that post. Or deputy. However you want to look at it.

    Xerxs you apparently decided not to read my post at all simply to argue it meaninglessly I gave you examples you gave me rhetoric.

    As for wmds you simple minded fool you still do not see what I am saying. If the article was pathetic enough to confuse the Deputy National Security Advisor to the actual security advisor then why do you give them so much credit on not misrepresenting the facts of what was said. You post that quote with total blind faith that since you saw it in print then it is true. I repeat Hadley was not the National Security Adviser he was the Deputy to that position. And the nature to with that statement was made was also a misrepresentation. The argument of weather Saddam had WMDs is a moot argument. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

    ANYONE WHO READS MY LAST TO POSTS CAN SEE THE REAL POINT OF THIS THREAD.

    Even if you do bury it in mindless repeated crap that has been proven wrong time and time again. A lot of people put a lot of faith in our media but the Dan Rather types are all over the place and there are meek, kind, pleasant, regular Joe types that people tend to like to believe but they are liars plain and simple.

    50 people being blown up are news worthy? On one hand I say not if giving the terrorists a voice in the news by showing it only makes it worse. On the other hand the news should report the truth and if that is part of it then it should be reported. But in the same idea giving no media coverage to the fact that Zarquowi is loosing his popularity among the Arab world is huge news very huge news. For you to not acknowledge this surprise me, I mean I understand you are extremely close minded. But this once again goes into my misunderstanding of this mysterious past you claim gives you such great knowledge and insight but which you refuse to discuss. You seem to be very sympathetic with the terrorists. I'll get to the point are you one of them Smiley? Or in the least are you a Muslim with there extreme fundamentalist belief system? Would you admit that if it were the case? Or would you keep it to your self like a coward?
     
  12. Nursey

    Nursey Super Moderator

    Messages:
    7,378
    Really? Where? Are you referring to the post on the previous page? If so, i stated what my problem was with that. But if she is willing to withhold her personal grudge in the cold sober topics, then we can both discuss matters without the issues being clouded by irrelevant nonsense which then gets matched tit-for-tat. I'm quite satisfied with that.
     
  13. smiles

    smiles New Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    hahahah joe god bless you.... is this some sort of freudian tactic where if i deny something it just means that i'm hiding it? The VAST majority of muslims I have met (keep in mind where i come from) are no more fanatical about their faith than any christian, they're all normal people with a slightly different set of beliefs.... they dont support terrorism no more than you support the Ku Klux Klan....

    as far as the argument over the AP article i'm more inclined to trust a news source as to the stature of that individual than i am your word... if you can provide a source that disputes his position i will consider that..

    blind faith is all we have to rely on....... all of the statistics you claim can easily be refuted by myself simply by following your example and saying "That's not true THEY'RE IDIOTS"... you don’t formulate any real arguments you just refuse to hear anything anyone else has to say.... every statistic i have ever quoted i posted the source..... i can't recall you doing this once.... it's quite easy to make up impressive sounding statistics.... yet i have chosen not to call you out on it simply because i believed this to be a good natured debate where credible sources would be taken into consideration.... but if the associated press and CNN aren't satisfactory to you then we have nothing to discuss
     
  14. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    I'm to tired for this. .... Just look it up find out foryourself I guess. Apparently you do not trust me so simply look it up.

    Now I'm real curious about Xerxesx, am I to understand that you are in Europe? If so what area and is this where you are from?
     
  15. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    Hi Joe !
    I have now read most of your postings and , yes, there are facts there. These, however, come within a narrow frame, and consentrate on a few spesifics within a short timeframe.
    I you go further back, you will see that Saddam was "our" bad-guy. Just like BinLaden. Does not mean i like them. Its a FACT that USA continued to support Saddams war against Iran ( Even after Iraqi migs killing 37 USsailors) because after the Shah was disposed, Iran went from US-ally to Neutral with sovjet trade and sympathy.
    I am not going to "google" the net for simple history. If you doubt me, just check the times and frames yourself. And again. The assertion that USmedia is "leftist" is simply spurious. USA is probably the most rightwing nation on the face of the planet.
    The reason for this ofcourse, is that you have much to defend. Thus "conservatism" From 50% of the world gross production in 45 you have sunk to maybe 25%? It is telling that your defensebudgett is at 45% of the worlds total.
    I hope you can see the difference between knowledge without "link" and rethoric.

    Demonizing ones enemy is a prime rethoric tactic. The "covardly" attacks versus our "brave" soldiers. Their "terrorists" versus our "freedomfighters". Etc. Get it ? Quite easy really. Rethoric and logic.
     
  16. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    An Joe ! You are right. An alliance between Iran and iraq and backed by china would be a threat to American and western global dominance. Personally I prefer to be dominated by the US. Its close as can be to my own culture and all that. But the lies about how we perform our domination. Thats the part that bugs me.

    Chomsky was shouting for an end to the Iraqi terror-regime back in the 80s. The left does NOT want the "end" of america. We are just sick and tired of being ruled by cavemen, wanking off on a pile of gold and corpses.
     
  17. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Well said...... If I am guilty of using generalizations far too rhetorically then please accept my apologies. The point that I refer to the opposition in the Iraq as terrorists I believe is valid. While I find you’re civilized insightful as well as thoughtful opinion as refreshing. I can barely hold my eyes open at this time. Thank God I get off work in one min. I will go to bed and look forward possibly to continue this diatribe at a later time.
     
  18. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    And most people want peace anyway. The term "terrorist" seems apropriate. The struggle within Islam. Conservatives vs progressives is probably hampered by the western progress last 350 or so, years. Progress is not necesarily a bad thing though. How about the apparent link between war and progress ?
     
  19. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    But i think your points are valid. As for rethorics. I think i ended that post with "a pile of gold and corpses", and that is probably not a literal truth.
     
  20. smiles

    smiles New Member

    Messages:
    1,323
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/hadleybio.html


    Stephen J. Hadley was sworn in as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor) on January 26, 2005. During President George W. Bush's first term, Mr. Hadley served as the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor.


    unless... the Whitehouse has been spreading propaganda about itself....

    this post is.... for corrective purposes purely
     

Share This Page