conspiracy theories....

[new.vogue.nightmare]

Yeah, but there's even more anti-American sentiment in Europe than in the liberal media.

[rklenseth]

And back to the topic, the war and all Bush's policies to bankrupt the government are part of the Reganite conspiracy to force the federal government to srink in the classic conservative style. They're out to destroy us all! (and all our social programs) *hides under a blanket*

Good, about time they started getting rid of those social programs.

[rklenseth]

rklenseth>

In fact there is a growing movement in Iraq by Iraqis to make Iraq the US's 51st state. It won't happen because then it would seem like to the rest of the world that America took over as an imperialist power.

You actually get fed by that type of propaganda in the news?
And it aint even Fox News?
That is incredably scary...because European media, or at least Swedish media, reports pretty much everyday about how much the Iraqis hate your guts, and humanitarian organizations critize the lack of planning from the American forces, regarding humanitarian aid.

This will probaby sound mean, but you really shouldn't complain about Muslim fundamentalists when your Christian counter part have so much influence over your own politics....

And what about Saudi Arabia holding Americans as prisoners?
What about the captives from the Afghanistan war, who have been held for years by a made up term so that your government doesn't have to follow international law?

Might I point out that European Socialistic Liberal Media isn't so unbiased as well. BBC News has already been caught lying about this crap and I'm sure other European News Organizations are doing the same. They only care about making the US look bad no matter what and making sure their own propaganda of the world is all nice and peaceful while the US is a belligerent gorram advocator of violence. Give me a break. And personally, I do believe what I see on the news for it is real. I think a lot of American journalist would be highly insulted if you told them that what they were publishing wasn't true since they went out and got the story and that they were only a government tool. I have worked in the journalist field from my classes as college and they don't go out and make up yellow stories. What they report is what they see and hear.

The terrorists the government has taken are illegal combatants and aren't under International Law and so the government could do whatever they wanted to with them under International Law. Now the US's laws on POWs will most likely change that as the Supreme Court has accepted to hear a case from Gitmo. Anyways, we should do something with them sooner or later. Either put them up for trial or I'm sure there are other governments in the Middle East who would want to do something about them.

The Americans being held in Saudi Arabia did nothing wrong so to hold them in the same light as the terrorists captured in Afghanistan is not correct. The Americans are usually women and the children of those women. These women are married to Arab men. Many of these women were physically and mentally abused and now want out but Saudi Arabia is under Islamic Law which doesn't hold for any chance for divorce so those women are screwed. A lot of the women have escaped to America but many of the children are still being held. Since Saudi Arabia law contradicts American law some say that since the children are American citizens that the government should do something about it. Plus, Saudi Arabia is going against International Law by doing what they are doing.

It's funny that you would use International Law as something that the US is breaking. Iraq was going against International Law for 11 years and 14 different resolutions through the security council in the UN before something, being that the US had to take action instead of the UN, happened. So I'm not too worried about the UN as actually to enforce their own laws as they have to look to the US to do it for them anyways and half the time they don't want the US to enforce them anyways. I think you know my view on the UN; it is a debunk organization that is controlled by dictators and socialistic European countries who care nothing for human rights, upholding International Law unless it suits them, and while bitching about what the US does or does not while holding their people in slavery and forced virtue. I think it is time for the US to leave the gorram UN. We'll be better off without at this time.

[Pirog]

Give me a break. And personally, I do believe what I see on the news for it is real.

Yes, I know that.
That is why you are so along the lines of what your government is doing.
I'm attending Cultural Studies at the university, and there is a lot of focus on medias role and power.
Having a critical view towards media is one of the fundamental views in that course, but also amongst the Swedish media itself.
For example, during the Iraw war (well, if it should really be considered ended) Swedish media constantly warned people that their view of the story might differ from the truth...doesn't that happen in USA?

I mean, how can you actually think that everything you see on the news is true? With so many different news agencies that view seems almost impossible to have...or do you mean that only American news casting is truthful and the rest of the world is always lying? Because that would be more than a little naive.

Regarding the "illegal combatants" there is a fundamental problem...the term "illegal combatants" didn't exist before the American Government made it up. It's like a muslim country would call American POWs "illegal crusaders" and kill them off without a trial.

It is a well known fact that America doesn't respect International Law.
You have, for an example, made it clear that no American citizens can be charged at the International Court (or whatever it's name is in English).
If that would happen you have given yourself the right to send Special Forces there to bust the prisoner/s out of there.
No other country would even dare say something like that...but USA is in the position of school bully and pretty much does as you wants.
Something I don't doubt you see as a positive thing.

And please don't say that the "socialistic European countries" (I assume you think Sweden is one of those) have no care for human rights.

We have a better welfare program, better health care, pensions are much higher, the school system is more effective, the prisons much more humane and set on rehabilitation instead of your "hang 'em high", Wild West mentality.
From an international perspective USA are often amongst the really shady countries, as for example your refusal to sign the agreement against using landmines that pretty much every other democratic country is behind.
But hey...if you are set on getting the one-sided truth from American media I bet you will never even hear about these things.

Last of all I must point out that me seeing Americas war against Iraq as something not based on care for human rights (since your government has actively supported both the talibans and Saddam Hussein when you had mutual enemies and interests) doesn't mean that I think Iraq was ruled in a proper way before.
But saving a people from a dictator who violated International Law and human rights, by conducting an illegal war and littering the Iraqi peasents fields with mines and undetonated cluster bombs doesn't feel like a great foundation for building a happy country.

[Meh]

the fly as it crawls on the window is sending messages in the pattern that it walks

[rklenseth]

Yes, I know that.
That is why you are so along the lines of what your government is doing.
I'm attending Cultural Studies at the university, and there is a lot of focus on medias role and power.
Having a critical view towards media is one of the fundamental views in that course, but also amongst the Swedish media itself.
For example, during the Iraw war (well, if it should really be considered ended) Swedish media constantly warned people that their view of the story might differ from the truth...doesn't that happen in USA?

Not so much because the American media governs itself on its bias and unbias. If you are very bias, another media group will pounce on them and you lose what is called creditability which if a news outlet loses pretty much means that that media is done for but might have a career as a tabloid. The state run news medias of European countries don't have that and furthermore reports what your government wants. The news medias in America believe in Freedom of the Press and if the government tries to make them say something, like what you claim is propaganda, the news outlets would be so on that to get a good story on the government trying to get the news media to report what they want that. I think you don't understand American news media at all. They are ran by corporations and won't report bad stuff that corporation but there is always another news outlet that isn't controlled by that corporation that will report that story.

I mean, how can you actually think that everything you see on the news is true? With so many different news agencies that view seems almost impossible to have...or do you mean that only American news casting is truthful and the rest of the world is always lying? Because that would be more than a little naive.

I don't believe everything is true but because I get both stories, I can choose what I believe is true and what isn't. When you get only one source, you don't have a choice to believe in something else. And did I say that the rest of the world is lying. I just don't trust state run news medias run by socialistic countries that have their own agendas. At least with the corporations in America with their own news medias there is a chance to get more than one viewpoint and they will most likely pounce on each other for the correct new story because the American public don't like to see yellow journalism. We had our run with yellow journalism and I think the American public is quite wary of it and these news medias know it.

Regarding the "illegal combatants" there is a fundamental problem...the term "illegal combatants" didn't exist before the American Government made it up. It's like a muslim country would call American POWs "illegal crusaders" and kill them off without a trial.

They have done that. No, the term illegal combatants did exist as it is in the text of the International Law as anyone who doesn't fight for a soveriegn country or uses acts of terrorism. Mercenaries would be another example of illegal combatants next to terrorists.

It is a well known fact that America doesn't respect International Law.
You have, for an example, made it clear that no American citizens can be charged at the International Court (or whatever it's name is in English).
If that would happen you have given yourself the right to send Special Forces there to bust the prisoner/s out of there.
No other country would even dare say something like that...but USA is in the position of school bully and pretty much does as you wants.
Something I don't doubt you see as a positive thing.

It is a well known fact? And why should America respect International Law created by a debunk organization controlled by dictators and socialists? Why should it respect it when the UN itself doesn't even enforce it against other countries? UN has failed. It failed at the point of conception because democratic countries should never deal with dictatorial countries at all. We are beginning to see the facts today of this but the same thing is happening in the UN that happened to the League of Nations in the 1930's.

And please don't say that the "socialistic European countries" (I assume you think Sweden is one of those) have no care for human rights.

Don't know much about Sweden but I was referring to France and Germany.

We have a better welfare program, better health care, pensions are much higher, the school system is more effective, the prisons much more humane and set on rehabilitation instead of your "hang 'em high", Wild West mentality.
From an international perspective USA are often amongst the really shady countries, as for example your refusal to sign the agreement against using landmines that pretty much every other democratic country is behind.
But hey...if you are set on getting the one-sided truth from American media I bet you will never even hear about these things.

Welfare is only good if it helps those that can't work, not those that don't want to. Health care should never be state run as it will sky rocket health care prices and might I say taxes. Pensions, I assume you are referring to a Social Security type thing, is wrong. How can the govenrment force you into a retirement plan and confiscate your hard earned money for something that is at least 50 years if not more down the road. Personally, I would rather create my own retirement plan since there won't be any money in the Social Security by the time I'm that old that I can't work. People should control their own money, not the government. Actually, our prisons are more humane and you just don't agree with the death penality which is usually only reserved for the heinious of crimes by most state (except maybe Texas). Plus, my uncle has worked as a cop for 50 years and he will tell you that there are just some people that you can't rehabilitate. It's either they don't want to or they can't. The US doesn't use landmines and in fact we are helping clean them up in countries such as the Balkans though we should probably surround our borders with them to keep out illegal immigrants (that was a joke).

[Meh]

Major media outlets don't set public opnion, they pander to it.

Is an american media outlet going to go on and on about how the rest of the world is right and america is wrong? No. American don't want to watch that. Ratings suffer. Ads get pulled.

Is any other national media going to go on and on about what a super bang up job america has done again? No. People don't want to watch that. Ratings suffer. Ads get pulled.

And in the case of non-ad supported journalism they are still senstive to how many people watch to judge wheter they are doing a good job.

[rklenseth]

Major media outlets don't set public opnion, they pander to it.

Is an american media outlet going to go on and on about how the rest of the world is right and america is wrong? No. American don't want to watch that. Ratings suffer. Ads get pulled.

Is any other national media going to go on and on about what a super bang up job america has done again? No. People don't want to watch that. Ratings suffer. Ads get pulled.

And in the case of non-ad supported journalism they are still senstive to how many people watch to judge wheter they are doing a good job.

Yes, but as I said before the journalists in America regulate themselves. It makes a great story when another news outlet lies or panders. You see the news medias are waiting to pounce onf each other for scandals like that. Take the recent scandals at the New York Times.

Plus, if what you say is true then why is the news media focusing on the killings and the things that America did during the reconstruction of Iraq today. Wouldn't they be focusing on all the good which they aren't doing enough of and totally ignoring the bad.

Remember, that American journalists scoff at the idea that they are government pawns and if they hear a good story about something bad the government does then that makes a good news story and if their news media doesn't want to publish then there are certainly others that will just because the other one won't.

[Meh]

Yes, but as I said before the journalists in America regulate themselves. It makes a great story when another news outlet lies or panders. You see the news medias are waiting to pounce onf each other for scandals like that. Take the recent scandals at the New York Times.

Sort of goes with the no honor amoung thieves genre.
"Look at them. They're wrong." {watch us. we're good for you}
There is a difference between having a bias and making things up.

Plus, if what you say is true then why is the news media focusing on the killings and the things that America did during the reconstruction of Iraq today. Wouldn't they be focusing on all the good which they aren't doing enough of and totally ignoring the bad.

Because a burning truck chase is a ratings blessing.

Remember, that American journalists scoff at the idea that they are government pawns and if they hear a good story about something bad the government does then that makes a good news story and if their news media doesn't want to publish then there are certainly others that will just because the other one won't.

Yes. But they don't scoff at the idea of giving people what they want to hear. "Everything is going good in Iraq and they love our culture". "Look at the silly clowns in the goverment aren't they funny".

[Pirog]

I don't buy your idea bout American media.
Take Fox News for an example, you can't actually believe that they are reporting an objective view on the matters they bring up?

You Americans are so extremly patriotic, that if the news agencies would bring up serious critique against the government they would probably drop in ratings.
Still, I understand that there is no way I will be able to "show you the light", since you seem very content with living in your American Matrix.
If you have come anywhere near serious journalistic educations and they don't mention that it is crucial to ALWAYS have a critical view of media your whole education systems seems to be a joke.
(damn, I'm getting all irritated at how tricked you guys are...)

Regarding Swedish media being funded by the state, it is true.
But no individual political party or politician is allowed to fund it, it's the taxpayers who fund it and it is not in any way politically bound.
Furthermore it competes with a lot of commercial media, so it's not like some kind of communistic one-way choice.
It is rather an insurance so that we have at least one news agency who doesn't rely on commercial interests.
I very much understand American media, since we have the possibility to include CNN, Fow News and other news media in our TV selection.
So I can compare on a more personal level, while I don't think you read Swedish newspapers or watch Swedish media on your TV.

I'm not saying that Swedish media uses less propaganda than their American counter parts based on being more honest at heart, but in Sweden there is a long tradition of educating people about being more aware of such things in media, so the Swedish media simply wouldn't get away with pulling such stunts as American (or for example British) media does.

I don't believe everything is true but because I get both stories, I can choose what I believe is true and what isn't.

Both stories?
Would that be the Republican story and the Democratic story?
They are both American and thus very patriotic...
Keep in mind that the democratic party in USA is further to the right than the radical right wing parties are in Sweden, so don't count the views from your Democratic party as "left wing" in an international perspective.

No, the term illegal combatants did exist as it is in the text of the International Law as anyone who doesn't fight for a soveriegn country or uses acts of terrorism.

International Law says that you are either judged in military court or as a civilian. There is no third alternative. If it had been there would have been an established court system for these "illegal combatants".
You are running little else than a concentration camp in Guatemala Bay.

And why should America respect International Law created by a debunk organization controlled by dictators and socialists?

Nice...rule the rest of the world out as dicatorships or commies.
Are you really so paranoid?

Don't know much about Sweden but I was referring to France and Germany.

France and Germany socialistic countries?
I would think the French and Germans would disagree quite alot to that.
Stop trying to see communists everywhere, the Cold War is over.

Health care should never be state run as it will sky rocket health care prices and might I say taxes.

So you prefer that sick people have to sell their own house to afford their hospital bills?
In Sweden there is a limit to about 120 $ per year for ctizens, then their medical bills are payed by the state. (people under 20 y/o get free medical service from the start)
That goes for EVERYONE, not only the rich.
In my eyes that is a lot more humane then your American system, where health care is only for people with a good education.
But hey, you like the fact that your political system is based on structures from Ancient Rome, so why not just feed the weak and old to the tigers, huh?
Because lives are cheap and in your refined capitalism money seems to be all that matters...

[Meh]

You Americans are so extremly patriotic

No need to get insulting.

your whole education systems seems to be a joke.
(damn, I'm getting all irritated at how tricked you guys are...)

Where did that come from? Your sample size is too small to make that analysis.

As for the rest of it Swedish education being better. I have no data. However is the rest of the country really as smart as you think it is? I don't know. It is possible that you are making a bias on people in your own country based on your experience.

They are both American and thus very patriotic...

Patriotic. I think something is getting lost in the translation. Do americans think highly of themselves as a whole regardless of how they feel of the nation of the current goverment. Yes. Who doesn't have pride for thier fellows. When you say patriotic I think you mean proud or prideful to the point of vice. There is probally a better word than pride but I think patriotic is an inaccurate generalization. Did you mean something else?

You are running little else than a concentration camp in Guatemala Bay.

This pointing to a probelm not a solution. Internatial law is based on people being from states. Stateless groups are outside the parameters. What is the solution?

[new.vogue.nightmare]

I personally don't trust any news media completely. They all lie. ABC, and the European media for example make a point of only saying bad things about the USA, and Fox and a few others go just the other way. You can't trust anyone.

And I think the word Pirog is looking for might be 'jingoistic'

[rklenseth]

I don't buy your idea bout American media.

Don't but that is how it works.

You Americans are so extremly patriotic, that if the news agencies would bring up serious critique against the government they would probably drop in ratings.

that would be totally untrue and would go to further my claim you don't know much about how the American Media works. Ratings go up when they bring up harsh critique of the government and they do all the time.

Still, I understand that there is no way I will be able to "show you the light", since you seem very content with living in your American Matrix.
If you have come anywhere near serious journalistic educations and they don't mention that it is crucial to ALWAYS have a critical view of media your whole education systems seems to be a joke.
(damn, I'm getting all irritated at how tricked you guys are...)

Believe what you like but I would question where you are getting your education from and whether or not it is asunbiased you think. My education may not be unbiased but at least I have other outlets from which to get other information from and argue against what is taught. And media must be critical of itself and that is what I just explained. The media balances itself out by having different outlets that are willing to look at each other critically in order to find mistakes or stuff that is less than the truth.

Regarding Swedish media being funded by the state, it is true.
But no individual political party or politician is allowed to fund it, it's the taxpayers who fund it and it is not in any way politically bound

But it is still controlled by the government, right? And the political party that has te majority has the power, right? Then the majority political party controls the government, right? And the the government controls the state run media, right? And you seem to already not trust anything that CNN or FOX says so you would most likely believe whatever your state run media says, right?

I very much understand American media, since we have the possibility to include CNN, Fow News and other news media in our TV selection.
So I can compare on a more personal level, while I don't think you read Swedish newspapers or watch Swedish media on your TV.

You think you understand American media by only watching two different American news channels? Obviously you don't. Plus, it would be better to read the American newspapers instead. More choices and more viewpoints then just the Republican right and the Democratic left. Plus, I don't think very many people in America can read Swedish but if a Swedish company wanted to translate the newspaper in English and sell it in America then they could do that without a problem. But is there a Swedish company who would want to do that?

International Law says that you are either judged in military court or as a civilian. There is no third alternative. If it had been there would have been an established court system for these "illegal combatants".
You are running little else than a concentration camp in Guatemala Bay.

First of all, it is Guatanamo Bay in Cuba and not Guatemala Bay in the Pacific. Perhaps there should be a court for them but I am just arguing at this time that what American Government is doing is legal and the Hague I believe has confirmed that it is legal. The Hague by the way is what we call the international court. I'm pretty sure that the prisoners at Gitmo is getting better treatment than most prisoners in European countries. I forgot to add that European prisons are notorious for being harsh to prisoners and I've heard France is the worse of them all.

Nice...rule the rest of the world out as dicatorships or commies.
Are you really so paranoid?

A lot of the countries that are in the world are dictatorships and I never said anything about communism. I said socialism and there is a difference. And socialism, to me, is just coercment of people into a system they have no chance of gaining in or choice to be something which is my definition of slavery. So, yes, I am totally against a socialistic society though some socialism (like welfare and unemployment etc...) is good as long as it does not take money from those that have rightfully earned it and gives it to those that have not.

France and Germany socialistic countries?
I would think the French and Germans would disagree quite alot to that.
Stop trying to see communists everywhere, the Cold War is over.

France and Germany are very socialist. They aren't communist though and communist doesn't really exist anymore as the only true form was the one created by Lenin that died when Stalin took power over the Soviet Union. Some would argue that the Cold War isn't over but if you knew your history, the Cold War doesn't refer to communists over democracy but the arms reace between two nations those being the US and USSR. And it is referred to the Cold War because it was fought through espionage and by spys rather than guns and soldiers.

So you prefer that sick people have to sell their own house to afford their hospital bills?
In Sweden there is a limit to about 120 $ per year for ctizens, then their medical bills are payed by the state. (people under 20 y/o get free medical service from the start)
That goes for EVERYONE, not only the rich.
In my eyes that is a lot more humane then your American system, where health care is only for people with a good education.
But hey, you like the fact that your political system is based on structures from Ancient Rome, so why not just feed the weak and old to the tigers, huh?
Because lives are cheap and in your refined capitalism money seems to be all that matters...

First of all, I said I supported some socialistic principles to help people who cannot help themselves. Now a person who can't afford their medical bills usually made a mistake somewhere in their financial scheme but if that person has a job usually the company that that person works will have their insurance company flip the bill. If they work for themselves and don't have insurance then they are taking that risk. People make decisions and they have to live by what they made and the government should not step in everytime someone makes a mistake in their life and fix for them. That is not what the government is there for.
Let me see, who pays most of the taxes in your country? Let me guess....the rich? But since the rich pay most the taxes it is their money that is funding this health care but they get the same as everyone else. Is that really fair that they pay more but get the same as everyone else that pays less? In my opinion, no, it is not fair (unless they got the money immorally or something and didn't actually earn it). There is health care for everyone in this country but as I said, some people take risks by not being insured so that they can save a buck or two and get screwed in the end but at least they have that freedom of choice. Plus, if the government is the only source for health care then there is no competition so prices in health care will sky rocket and thus taxes will so people will pay more in the end unless a society goes totally socialistic and does away with economics but that makes a society too vulnerable for a government to abuse their right, freedom and make it to easy for a dictatorship type government to come to power. As Stalin said, all you have to do is put everything under the government and allow for no other choice and the people will have to rely on you or they will simply die because they do not have the essentials of life. Socialisim is a great ideal but I'm sorry that human nature doesn't allow it to work and thus should not implemented.

Last of all I must point out that me seeing Americas war against Iraq as something not based on care for human rights (since your government has actively supported both the talibans and Saddam Hussein when you had mutual enemies and interests) doesn't mean that I think Iraq was ruled in a proper way before.
But saving a people from a dictator who violated International Law and human rights, by conducting an illegal war and littering the Iraqi peasents fields with mines and undetonated cluster bombs doesn't feel like a great foundation for building a happy country.

I forgot to answer to this one last time. First of all, the Taliban was never supported by the US. The Taliban didn't exist until the early 1990's and came to power in Afghanistan around 1996. We did support Osama and his fanatics against the Soviet Union in the 1980's but itn was either that or send American troops over to do it. We did support Iraq against Iran in the 1970-1980's only because we saw Iran as a bigger threat at the time. But you can't hold these against the current govenrment or Bush. In America things actually change every 4 years or 8 years (America has had more executive leaders in only 200 years of history than France or England had in bout 700 years of history). Each leader his different and have different ideals and principles. Bush cannot be held for what another president did 20 years ago or even 4 years prior to his administration. I remember one of you saying that Europe changes while America doesn't. I would totally disagree and would say that America has changed both politically and culturally in the past 200 years than Europe has, which there are many views in America that Europe is still Old Europe though I never really understood what that meant. I think they were talking about that Europe hasn't change or leanred from what happened in the 1930's from inaction and appeasement but I can't be sure. America doesn't usually use mines except maybe to put around military complexes they are using to keep unwanted people out. You can't post a guard at every point and if that guard is shot and killed what will stand in their way then. And America doesn't use cluster bombs anymore due to that reason you stated. The last time the US serviced the cluster bombs you are talking about was in 1991 during the Gulf War. Plus, for a country that you believe is so devious minded we go far out of our way not to kill people. If we really wanted to conquer the entire world at this time who would stand in our way and why would we even bother to be diplomatic to other countries? Why don't we just bomb the hell out of areas without worrying about killing civilians and why aren't we more aggressive at fighting war? Like, people have said, America could literally make hell on Earth come true without using weapons of mass destruction adn take our enemies out in less than a day. But we don't. We try diplomacy and when it fails, we take action instead of sitting on our asses and wondering what to do next.

You did say that you never went to America, right? And that most of your opinion comes from your government's media, your education which is probably also ran by your govenrment, and what other people have told you about America. Why don't you come to America and make up your own mind from actually seeing first hand what America is? And if you can figure out what America is then by all means make sure to tell me because I'm really still trying to figure that out as it seem the rest of world is pretty set as to what America is and most Americans cannot even define it and they live in it and are a part of it.

[Meh]

The movie "Wag the Dog" was great.
Ever see it?

[rklenseth]

The movie "Wag the Dog" was great.
Ever see it?

Yep, it was pretty funny though I don't think it is possible for it to happen in real life though there is always that possibility that it might but highly unlikely.