Did this make your local news?

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
Seeker
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:35 am
Location: Australia

Postby Seeker » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:05 pm

Don't trust everything you see in the media about war. All of that comes from the government, it's everything the government wants you to hear. In war, the only way to get information as a journalist is to become imbedded in the war. Embedded journalists get little choice about where they want to film, the government tells them to go with one group and they stay with one group. The government then makes sure that all the material they giver to the TV stations is "appropriate". Notice how we never get the news that used to come through during the Vietnam war? Has war really just stopped being so horrible? And is everything perfect? What happened to the footage that used to be around in the Vietnam war, the street executions and the killings of innocents?

The government needs the population's support before it can do anything, and that's all it's doing. It makes the public fear something (for example, these weapons of mass destruction) and then suddenly they have an excuse to invade a country.
WWFSMD?
BATBYGOBSTOPL!
User avatar
The Sociologist
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:54 pm

Re: Did this make your local news?

Postby The Sociologist » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:13 pm

Stan wrote:"The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

Remarkable isn't it that the neocon civilians who now control the Pentagon had been planning on Syria as their next target after Iraq since about 1996? That's if I remember their document "Project for a New American Century" correctly.

So the interesting thing will be whether they can lead their sheep--Bush and the American electorate--into war with Iraq, Syria and Iran all at the same time. I suspect not. Bush may not be the brightest but he has occasionally shown an ability to count. You know what I mean, 1 vote 2 votes 3 votes...
User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:25 pm

People heavily over estimate the extent of hussein's WMDs - that's the lie on which we went to war

He did have WMDs - but none of them were nuclear - there is no evidence whatsoever that he had nuclear capability
He did have a variety of chemical warfare 'WMDs' - but he only had the launching capability to hit other countries in the middle east
Whereas, Britain and the US went to war saying that he was able to launch a strike against almost anywhere in the world in an hour or so notice.

Only a very small handful of nations have that capability - UK, US, possibly Russia and some other Western European states. It's highly improbable that Hussein had that sort of capability

Both Bush and Blair went to war in Iraq on the charges that he was a 'direct' and 'imminent' threat to the UK and US - which was and is a lie.

Even in regards to terrorism, it's clear now, and it's was clear at the start, that invading Iraq was going to do absolutely bloody sod all in regards to terrorism, if anything, it's increased their numbers and the difficulty in infiltrating them.

Yes, Saddam is a bad man, yes he should have been stopped (but there are loads of other bad men that should be stopped, yet they're not a blip on the military radar - mostly because they agree to cushty trade agreements for the US). But the fact remains, we were sent to war on a tissue of lies. People are dead, soldiers as well as countless civilians, because of a lie and a fabrication. That is wrong.
Whoever you vote for.

The government wins.
User avatar
Stan
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
Location: KENTUCKY, USA

Postby Stan » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:15 pm

I don't believe in all the conspiracy theories. Sorry. I'm not that paranoid.

As far as WMD...I don't recall thinking they were Nuclear. I remember them being reported as being chemical and biological that the US and Britain made the case for.

They were looking for tractor trailers and portable labs.

I recall that the nuclear discussion was around Hussein's attempt to create nuclear capability by buying aluminum canisters used in centrifuges.

The point being this.

1. Hussein killed people with WMD in the past.
2. Hussein was ordered to dispose of his Chemical Arsenal and provide documentation about the disposal.
3. Hussein did not provide documentation, so it should be assumed that he did not destroy them.
4. There was incorrect intelligence that he was trying to obtain components to enrich uranium (aluminum canisters).
5. A known terrorist was in Baghdad for hospitalization for injuries recieved in Afghanistan.
6. It was well known that Hussein intended to attack America. Chemical agents and biological agents could (may have been already) smuggled into the US for attack.
7. The US was attacked by Anthrax. Remember that? That is still an unsolved case.
8. The US and Britain rightly went into Iraq to enforce #2 and #3 and to investigate #4.

I see all these allegations of lies. I'm not the type of person to call someone a liar without damn good evidence. I think Bush was wrong about #4 but there is no disputing #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #7.

I base my opinion of the facts as I see them, not suspicions.
Stan wrote:I've never said anything worth quoting.
User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:57 pm

The problem that Bush faced was that he wanted to get terrorists.

But, terrorists aren't your usual enemy of the state - they aren't another state, a political entity. You can't invade the 'terrorist nation' 0 there's no such thing - terrorists know no borders.

Iraq had no more connections to terrorism than other places in that area. Attacking a political entity - which is the only thing that state military is used to - will never stop terrorists - they can slip out of that country and form elsewhere. It's not as if the forunes of terroprists are attached to the fortunes of any one state.

As for WMDs. Yes, he had chemical weapons, yes he probably intended to attack America. So do many other people, but they're not in charge of a political territory - there's nowhere you can 'invade' that belongs to terrorists.

I think you highly underestimate the security of America if you think the only way of stopping Saddam sending Anthrax in the post is to carpet bomb Iraq towns and villages.
Whoever you vote for.



The government wins.
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:38 pm

Seeker wrote:Don't trust everything you see in the media about war. All of that comes from the government, it's everything the government wants you to hear. In war, the only way to get information as a journalist is to become imbedded in the war. Embedded journalists get little choice about where they want to film, the government tells them to go with one group and they stay with one group. The government then makes sure that all the material they giver to the TV stations is "appropriate". Notice how we never get the news that used to come through during the Vietnam war? Has war really just stopped being so horrible? And is everything perfect? What happened to the footage that used to be around in the Vietnam war, the street executions and the killings of innocents?

The government needs the population's support before it can do anything, and that's all it's doing. It makes the public fear something (for example, these weapons of mass destruction) and then suddenly they have an excuse to invade a country.


This isn't true.
User avatar
Stan
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
Location: KENTUCKY, USA

Postby Stan » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:46 pm

rklenseth wrote:This isn't true.


Exactly. It almost seems as if people WANT to believe they are being lied to. It makes no sense to me.

It doesn't mean we should throw away all pessimism but some of the stories I've heard from people that have little basis in fact blows my mind...and I don't mean just on this Forum.

I could not imagine living my life so afraid that someone is lying to me that I cannot even begin to trust the news media in US, the President of the United States, troops that served my country and the plethora of others that would have to be involved in such a vast conspiracy.
Stan wrote:I've never said anything worth quoting.
User avatar
The Sociologist
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:54 pm

Postby The Sociologist » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:54 pm

Stan wrote:I could not imagine living my life so afraid that someone is lying to me that I cannot even begin to trust the news media in US...

Hmm, not trusting that bunch would be a good start. It's easy enough with Internet. You can read the New Yorker, the British Guardian and so on for balance. There are plenty of blogs too, and it's easy enough finding those of people with experienced backgrounds and something really interesting to say.

Anyhow, Saddam destroyed the Iraqi chemical arsenal, which had, by the way, been a deterrant against the Iranians who -had- -also- used chemical weapons in the war they fought against the Iraqis, and perhaps also a deterrant against the Israelis, who -do- have nuclear weapons. It is also hugely ironic that at the time Iraqis and Iranians used chemical weapons against each other, Saddam was the "good guy" and supported by the US. The Iranians were supposed to be the "baddies" in those days, remember?

Now of course, the Iranians have pretty much gained an overwhelming voice in Iraqi politics thanks to US intervention, and the Iraqi Christians are having a terrible time, whereas baathist secularism had tolerated them before. Saddam's mother was an Iraqi Christian, don't forget. All thanks to the supposedly "christian" values of this currect US administration. Hah!

Oh and here is a relatively balanced account of my....conspiracy theory? as you call it. Nice list of names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... an_Century
User avatar
Coramon
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:15 am
Location: The Two Rivers

Postby Coramon » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:56 pm

People don't want that. And these are not conspiracy theories. If you can call those conspiracy theories you can call the theory that their were nukes in Iraq a conspiracy theory.
Wolf wrote:Hm... MTV Deathmatch: Caveman Clobbering?
Or... do they end up forming the local caveman union?
User avatar
Nixit
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Your imagination...

Postby Nixit » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:06 pm

This is only slightly related, but out of curiosity, Stan, do you support Cheney as well?
Just because you're older, smarter, stronger, more talented... doesn't mean you're BETTER.
User avatar
Stan
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
Location: KENTUCKY, USA

Postby Stan » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:36 pm

Tough call. I believe he is a trusted advisor of the President for whatever that's worth.

I can't say that I've ever seen him give a speech other than in election debates. Here are the few data points I have on him.

-I think he is an intelligent person based on his career development and the fact that he has been tapped to advise many in Washington.

-He seems cold when I've seen him answering questions in interviews...not a warm caring kind of person. The CEO type.

-He has publicly proclaimed his love and support for his daughter depsite her homosexuality, so he must, at least, have some common decency.

-He worked for Halliburton which has been involved in more than a few scandals. But, none that I know of when he was at the helm...not that don't think there were any. I just don't know about them.

-His health seems to be failing but he continues to work for the goals set by the administration.

-He is a definite "company man".

Seems like I had a couple other that are slipping me since I think faster than I type.

Based on those facts that I know I would say I support him as an adviser but would not really support him as a Vice President.

VP, although president of the Senate, doesn't really hold much power.

I think the fact that he appears cold, and his affiliation with Haliburton, he's taken some knocks. I'm not in a good position to judge whether they are deserved or not. But, I err on the side of innocent until proven guilty for anyone.

I doubt I'd like him as a person, though, but who knows.
Stan wrote:I've never said anything worth quoting.
User avatar
Nixit
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Your imagination...

Postby Nixit » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:04 am

*nods* Seems reasonable.

You do know that he has publicalliy supported torture methods for extracting answers out of prisoners?
Just because you're older, smarter, stronger, more talented... doesn't mean you're BETTER.
Schme
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:21 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Schme » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:33 am

Nobody's going to "Take care of" Iran.

This General is very obviously getting some big money from the biggest, most powerful and destructive terrorist group in the world.They've a history of spreading that kind of things around to further their own ends.




The terrorist group being the CIA.
"One death is a tragedy, a million is just statistics."
Joseph Stalin
Schme
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:21 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Schme » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:39 am

And no, we don't broadcast that kind of bullshit in Canada. We prefer different kind. Stuff like "Oh, we're a beacon of democracy and freedom" and "All races are equal in Canada.".
"One death is a tragedy, a million is just statistics."

Joseph Stalin
west
Posts: 4649
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm

Postby west » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:42 am

everyone's got their own brand.

But Pie and Stan, if you think your government has anyone's best interests but the politicians' in mind, you're living in a fool's paradise.
I'm not dead; I'm dormant.

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest