I was watching CNN today.. they were showing the anti war protestes and a guy had a sign saying "Saddam didn't steal my 401k".
I thought that was great.
OT: Saddam didn't steal my 401k
Back to post
Comments
shawnm
wrote on 1/20/2003, 7:14 AM
<snip>
-shawnm
>>>This would all be perfectly fine with us if he'd just let us build the friggin' pipeline. CNN
>>FIRST -
>>Ah? A pipeline through Iraq?? CNN said this???.....
Reading is fundamental but comprehension is the real key. My remark about CNN was meant to illustrate the fact that most people (Americans) refer only to mainstream news (specifically television) to form opinions about world (and local) events. I never said CNN reported anything like this, where did you get the impression that I did? Also, I never said that anyone wanted to build a pipeline through Iraq (you wrongly assumed this). Saddam opposes (in very strong terms) conglomerates like the CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium) building a pipeline through *Iran* (but you lived in the middle east for three years, you knew that).
<snip>
>>the fact that they were TRAINING terrorist there to KILL Americans of course had >>nothing to do with it - ? (silly)
What's silly is that no one said anything about the Taliban (who, according to Ronald Regan were the moral equivalent to the American founding fathers). What are you talking about?
>>Interesting how the antiwar folks tote this great buzz-word ‘blood for oil’ over >>from Afghanistan conflict to Iraq – expected though, since “buzz words” / slogans >>are so fun
Yeah, slogans like "You're either with us or against us" and the now famous "Axis of evil". Both sides use slogans and sound bites, what's your point?
>>EVEN if there is this huge conspiracy where US agents were actually behind the >>sept 11th attacks and generating anti-west hatred in Arabic states ALL for the >>simple goal of generating propaganda so we could take out Saddam Insane and get >>our hands on Caspian Oil
And futz accused *me* of doing drugs
>>WOULDn’t the then ‘side effect’ of removing this evil monster from power be a >>humanitarian effort in the end?
hu•man•i•tar•i•an: One who gives military aid to a madman, and then kills or arrests him for murdering people: See Manuel Noriega.
>>I could personally care less of the ultimate >>reason coined for taking out this >>psychotic megalomaniac - weapons of mass >>destruction, oil, blood, pizza – >>whatever – THE RESULT is what matters in this case, not the reason.
This doesn't pass the laugh test.
>>(side note – if the US has such an insatiable appetite for oil at ANY COST (as >>mentioned in yesterdays rally), why wouldn’t the US marched into Baghdad after >>Desert Storm? )
You tell me, you “lived/worked in middle east for 3 years, as well as studied the history, culture and religion of the region…”, so you obviously have the inside scoop.
>>As for [Saddam's brutality and genocide would all be perfectly fine with us..
>>This is not perfectly fine with me or anyone else who respects human life –
>>DO you HONESTLY think that the people who make up the Government of United >>State have NO concern for human life only oil?
Grow up….
Augusto Pinochet was a right-wing, murdering, fascist, bastard who (like Saddam) also greatly admired Adolph Hitler... we put him in power and *helped* him hunt down, torture and murder his own people (political rivals and average citizens). Yet, we never stopped supporting *his* regime.
Pol Pot was also a mass murder that the US supported… "The US not only helped to create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support -- $85 million from 1980-86 -- was revealed 6 years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation."
So yes - the US does have a long history of supporting dictators that engage in the mass murder of their own citizens. As long as our government sees someone as being “beneficial to American political interests”, they (our government) could give a care for what they (insert US backed dictator here) do to other people.
>> <snip> and the mere mention of “military” or “war” brings a VERY ill informed, idealistic public screaming & crying out in protest.
Yeah, real hippies like the former Secretary of the Navy James Webb – oddly enough, he’s not the only high ranking officer to oppose the war . It also elicits sympathy from the equally “ill informed idealists” and weak minded masses of uncritical “wartime” apologists (we didn’t know it was wrong to imprison Japanese Americans, it was wartime”, “we HAD to subvert the spirit of the constitution and suspend the freedom of speech and freedom of association, it was the cold war”, “we HAD to feed radioactive cereal to retarded children and pregnant women, we were facing the real threat of nuclear war”.
<snip>.
>>(one example : look at the SLAUGHTER which occurred in Rwanda in 1994 – >>800,000 wiped out – Could we have stopped it? Yes. Of course this would involve US >>forces KILLING people, so people WOULD have protested it “no Vietnam!! >>Vietnam!” “stop US imperialism!!”… mean while, 800,000 people are gunned down >>and literally bludgeoned to death with machetes in a door-to-door fashion . Protestors >>would’ve then gone home happy knowing that they prevented a “WAR/military >>intervention” which would have probably taken 5,000 lives)
But we didn’t intervene, so you DON’T know if anyone would have protested military action in that case, do you?
>Difference between Rwanda and Iraq situation is very different in many ways.
Yeah, there’s no oil in Rwanda.
>>Main difference, is that the majority of the American public SUPPORT the action –
According to…
>>because they’re educated on issue and understand that it DOES effect them – gas >>prices (pocket book) and nuclear/bio/chemical weapons (their very lives)…
Didn’t you say (or at least imply) that this wasn’t about oil?
<snip> he is plotting to KILL AMERICANS… yes he IS.
And your proof is?
>>>the Kurds have close ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam despises them both, should we >>invade Iraq and bomb the Kurds - cause if they're not with us....
>>Ahhh.. again….. CNN the source on this?
No, learn to detect sarcasm.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/08/22/34969.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2247987.stm
Again, my original post was “CNN... when you absolutely, positively need to *avoid reading*... accept no substitutes.” I’m pointing out that people tend to rely ONLY on mainstream Television for news and information, which is not enough if you want to be truly informed on any topic or issue.
>> mostly ‘keep my box on fox’ news these days, so haven’t watched CNN in a >>while…have they been taken over by antiwar propagandists? (btw, although I watch and like Fox news, I am by know means a conservative)
You’re proving my point - you saw it on TV, it must be true. And what’s wrong with being a conservative?
<snip>
>>too even mention that Kurds (or Shiites in the south) will be oppose the removal of >>Saddam sends a very strong signal that you need to find a better news source.
I didn’t mention that you did.
>>Saddam despises Al Qaeda?????
>>Oh . PAAAAAleease!!! Saddam wants to hug and snuggle and kiss Al Qaeda
I think it’s you who are misinformed….
“…bin Laden views Saddam Hussein "as an apostate, an infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow Muslim" and that bin Laden had offered in 1990 to raise an army of thousands of mujaheddin fighters to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.”
- Prince Turki bin Faisal former intelligence chief Saudi Arabia
>>he would give it over to terrorists faction in a heartbeat- FACT.
I think you have an interesting interpretation of the word “fact” - prove this statement.
>>Would groups like Al Qaeda deal with Saddam? OF COURSE they would!
And you know this from watching the Fox News Channel?
>>Just today an alleged Bin Laden release called for Muslims to stand together to fight >>off the evil crusaders.
al•leged: Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.
<snip> >>after the thousands of Iranians he murdered when he invaded Iran
Using the weapons we gave him, doesn’t seem right does it – oh well, “THE RESULT is what matters in this case, not the reason”. That’s why; IMO, this kind of thinking doesn’t pass the laugh test.
>> – they stick together and are as convinced that Bush is the devil as these >>Washington/Worldwide protestors …… this just makes me sick!
Who is “they” – Persians, Arabs, Muslims, brown skinned people?
>>>Democracy is completely useless without the right to dissent, just be thankful "someone” has the stomach to test that right.
>>yes, true. Although i feel the protesters in Washington the other day, are SILLY - since >>they were EXTREMLY uninformed on every issue <snip>
They were uninformed huh, all of them? Did you talk to all of them, conduct a poll, issue a test on the geopolitical implications of waging war against Iraq in the “post 9/11 era”? Oh no, that’s right you saw them on TV - deep.
<snip>
>>BUT - DEMOCRACY WOULD NOT EXIST if it was not for those that FOUGHT >>and gave their lives so those protesters COULD march and speak their minds - all >>possible ONLY ,and ONLY through WAR (unless you think a sit-in protest would've >>convinced Adolph Hitler/Saddam/ Mussolini/ Hirohito / Milosevic / king George III / >>Saloth Sar / Stalin ETC to magically have a change of heart, ala The Grinch Who Stole >>Christmas????????)
I don’t recall anyone making a statement to the contrary. Surely, you must have been trying to make a point (though it has nothing to do with this thread), what was it - Saddam Hussein is like the Grinch, but he never learned to love? People who protest against war (any war), don’t understand how they gained their freedom to openly dissent?
>>reality check time.
Yes, I would say it is; time to check reality. It’s still there, everything’s still real on my end – feel better?
Shawn
-shawnm
>>>This would all be perfectly fine with us if he'd just let us build the friggin' pipeline. CNN
>>FIRST -
>>Ah? A pipeline through Iraq?? CNN said this???.....
Reading is fundamental but comprehension is the real key. My remark about CNN was meant to illustrate the fact that most people (Americans) refer only to mainstream news (specifically television) to form opinions about world (and local) events. I never said CNN reported anything like this, where did you get the impression that I did? Also, I never said that anyone wanted to build a pipeline through Iraq (you wrongly assumed this). Saddam opposes (in very strong terms) conglomerates like the CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium) building a pipeline through *Iran* (but you lived in the middle east for three years, you knew that).
<snip>
>>the fact that they were TRAINING terrorist there to KILL Americans of course had >>nothing to do with it - ? (silly)
What's silly is that no one said anything about the Taliban (who, according to Ronald Regan were the moral equivalent to the American founding fathers). What are you talking about?
>>Interesting how the antiwar folks tote this great buzz-word ‘blood for oil’ over >>from Afghanistan conflict to Iraq – expected though, since “buzz words” / slogans >>are so fun
Yeah, slogans like "You're either with us or against us" and the now famous "Axis of evil". Both sides use slogans and sound bites, what's your point?
>>EVEN if there is this huge conspiracy where US agents were actually behind the >>sept 11th attacks and generating anti-west hatred in Arabic states ALL for the >>simple goal of generating propaganda so we could take out Saddam Insane and get >>our hands on Caspian Oil
And futz accused *me* of doing drugs
>>WOULDn’t the then ‘side effect’ of removing this evil monster from power be a >>humanitarian effort in the end?
hu•man•i•tar•i•an: One who gives military aid to a madman, and then kills or arrests him for murdering people: See Manuel Noriega.
>>I could personally care less of the ultimate >>reason coined for taking out this >>psychotic megalomaniac - weapons of mass >>destruction, oil, blood, pizza – >>whatever – THE RESULT is what matters in this case, not the reason.
This doesn't pass the laugh test.
>>(side note – if the US has such an insatiable appetite for oil at ANY COST (as >>mentioned in yesterdays rally), why wouldn’t the US marched into Baghdad after >>Desert Storm? )
You tell me, you “lived/worked in middle east for 3 years, as well as studied the history, culture and religion of the region…”, so you obviously have the inside scoop.
>>As for [Saddam's brutality and genocide would all be perfectly fine with us..
>>This is not perfectly fine with me or anyone else who respects human life –
>>DO you HONESTLY think that the people who make up the Government of United >>State have NO concern for human life only oil?
Grow up….
Augusto Pinochet was a right-wing, murdering, fascist, bastard who (like Saddam) also greatly admired Adolph Hitler... we put him in power and *helped* him hunt down, torture and murder his own people (political rivals and average citizens). Yet, we never stopped supporting *his* regime.
Pol Pot was also a mass murder that the US supported… "The US not only helped to create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support -- $85 million from 1980-86 -- was revealed 6 years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation."
So yes - the US does have a long history of supporting dictators that engage in the mass murder of their own citizens. As long as our government sees someone as being “beneficial to American political interests”, they (our government) could give a care for what they (insert US backed dictator here) do to other people.
>> <snip> and the mere mention of “military” or “war” brings a VERY ill informed, idealistic public screaming & crying out in protest.
Yeah, real hippies like the former Secretary of the Navy James Webb – oddly enough, he’s not the only high ranking officer to oppose the war . It also elicits sympathy from the equally “ill informed idealists” and weak minded masses of uncritical “wartime” apologists (we didn’t know it was wrong to imprison Japanese Americans, it was wartime”, “we HAD to subvert the spirit of the constitution and suspend the freedom of speech and freedom of association, it was the cold war”, “we HAD to feed radioactive cereal to retarded children and pregnant women, we were facing the real threat of nuclear war”.
<snip>.
>>(one example : look at the SLAUGHTER which occurred in Rwanda in 1994 – >>800,000 wiped out – Could we have stopped it? Yes. Of course this would involve US >>forces KILLING people, so people WOULD have protested it “no Vietnam!! >>Vietnam!” “stop US imperialism!!”… mean while, 800,000 people are gunned down >>and literally bludgeoned to death with machetes in a door-to-door fashion . Protestors >>would’ve then gone home happy knowing that they prevented a “WAR/military >>intervention” which would have probably taken 5,000 lives)
But we didn’t intervene, so you DON’T know if anyone would have protested military action in that case, do you?
>Difference between Rwanda and Iraq situation is very different in many ways.
Yeah, there’s no oil in Rwanda.
>>Main difference, is that the majority of the American public SUPPORT the action –
According to…
>>because they’re educated on issue and understand that it DOES effect them – gas >>prices (pocket book) and nuclear/bio/chemical weapons (their very lives)…
Didn’t you say (or at least imply) that this wasn’t about oil?
<snip> he is plotting to KILL AMERICANS… yes he IS.
And your proof is?
>>>the Kurds have close ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam despises them both, should we >>invade Iraq and bomb the Kurds - cause if they're not with us....
>>Ahhh.. again….. CNN the source on this?
No, learn to detect sarcasm.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/08/22/34969.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2247987.stm
Again, my original post was “CNN... when you absolutely, positively need to *avoid reading*... accept no substitutes.” I’m pointing out that people tend to rely ONLY on mainstream Television for news and information, which is not enough if you want to be truly informed on any topic or issue.
>> mostly ‘keep my box on fox’ news these days, so haven’t watched CNN in a >>while…have they been taken over by antiwar propagandists? (btw, although I watch and like Fox news, I am by know means a conservative)
You’re proving my point - you saw it on TV, it must be true. And what’s wrong with being a conservative?
<snip>
>>too even mention that Kurds (or Shiites in the south) will be oppose the removal of >>Saddam sends a very strong signal that you need to find a better news source.
I didn’t mention that you did.
>>Saddam despises Al Qaeda?????
>>Oh . PAAAAAleease!!! Saddam wants to hug and snuggle and kiss Al Qaeda
I think it’s you who are misinformed….
“…bin Laden views Saddam Hussein "as an apostate, an infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow Muslim" and that bin Laden had offered in 1990 to raise an army of thousands of mujaheddin fighters to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.”
- Prince Turki bin Faisal former intelligence chief Saudi Arabia
>>he would give it over to terrorists faction in a heartbeat- FACT.
I think you have an interesting interpretation of the word “fact” - prove this statement.
>>Would groups like Al Qaeda deal with Saddam? OF COURSE they would!
And you know this from watching the Fox News Channel?
>>Just today an alleged Bin Laden release called for Muslims to stand together to fight >>off the evil crusaders.
al•leged: Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.
<snip> >>after the thousands of Iranians he murdered when he invaded Iran
Using the weapons we gave him, doesn’t seem right does it – oh well, “THE RESULT is what matters in this case, not the reason”. That’s why; IMO, this kind of thinking doesn’t pass the laugh test.
>> – they stick together and are as convinced that Bush is the devil as these >>Washington/Worldwide protestors …… this just makes me sick!
Who is “they” – Persians, Arabs, Muslims, brown skinned people?
>>>Democracy is completely useless without the right to dissent, just be thankful "someone” has the stomach to test that right.
>>yes, true. Although i feel the protesters in Washington the other day, are SILLY - since >>they were EXTREMLY uninformed on every issue <snip>
They were uninformed huh, all of them? Did you talk to all of them, conduct a poll, issue a test on the geopolitical implications of waging war against Iraq in the “post 9/11 era”? Oh no, that’s right you saw them on TV - deep.
<snip>
>>BUT - DEMOCRACY WOULD NOT EXIST if it was not for those that FOUGHT >>and gave their lives so those protesters COULD march and speak their minds - all >>possible ONLY ,and ONLY through WAR (unless you think a sit-in protest would've >>convinced Adolph Hitler/Saddam/ Mussolini/ Hirohito / Milosevic / king George III / >>Saloth Sar / Stalin ETC to magically have a change of heart, ala The Grinch Who Stole >>Christmas????????)
I don’t recall anyone making a statement to the contrary. Surely, you must have been trying to make a point (though it has nothing to do with this thread), what was it - Saddam Hussein is like the Grinch, but he never learned to love? People who protest against war (any war), don’t understand how they gained their freedom to openly dissent?
>>reality check time.
Yes, I would say it is; time to check reality. It’s still there, everything’s still real on my end – feel better?
Shawn
FuTz
wrote on 1/20/2003, 8:06 AM
Shawnm:
holy macaroooooni! I was just, and I insist: JUST referring to your "editing" of the facts. Your "breaks of edits", etc... Trying to figure out the image, sound and contents...
I'm really sorry you misinterpreted my post as a bullet shot in your direction, which it wasn't.
And the "who's your pusher " thing, well,it's a very common joke I could tell a senior citizen right here on the street and he'd laugh (I clearly don't live in the USA). We say that to people who got imagination, lots of creativity, etc after a good "pitch"... or when they get so concerned and passionate that not everyone around can follow. Usually ends up with everybody around laughing . Really, and I mean REALLY not a accusation or something negative.
holy macaroooooni! I was just, and I insist: JUST referring to your "editing" of the facts. Your "breaks of edits", etc... Trying to figure out the image, sound and contents...
I'm really sorry you misinterpreted my post as a bullet shot in your direction, which it wasn't.
And the "who's your pusher " thing, well,it's a very common joke I could tell a senior citizen right here on the street and he'd laugh (I clearly don't live in the USA). We say that to people who got imagination, lots of creativity, etc after a good "pitch"... or when they get so concerned and passionate that not everyone around can follow. Usually ends up with everybody around laughing . Really, and I mean REALLY not a accusation or something negative.
Cheesehole
wrote on 1/20/2003, 9:08 AM
>>>And the "who's your pusher " thing
sorry futz but it's just the kind of thing I would have expected in response to the expression of an idea outside the mainstream. "are you on crack?" that type of thing :) thanks for clarifying... my UT is offline.
sorry futz but it's just the kind of thing I would have expected in response to the expression of an idea outside the mainstream. "are you on crack?" that type of thing :) thanks for clarifying... my UT is offline.
rextilleon
wrote on 1/20/2003, 10:21 AM
This isn't about Sadist Hussein---the protestors hate Bush and I think it colors their view of Hussein-----I am not a big BUsh fan but I have seen enough to know that one must be pro-active with characters like Sadist. Look at how long it took the world to react to Hitler---he completely abrogated the League of Nations mandates as the world looked the other way. This is not about oil--this is about a nuclear or biological weapon going off on the mainland of the USA.
We can be truely thankful that the VAST majority of the AMerican people can connect the dots----
We can be truely thankful that the VAST majority of the AMerican people can connect the dots----
craftech
wrote on 1/20/2003, 10:29 AM
We can be truely thankful that the VAST majority of the AMerican people can connect the dots----
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The American media reports selectively from the Middle East. I have over 1000 A-B comparisons of daily reports of incidents and events in the Middle East which only appear in Ha'aretz (an Israeli moderate newspaper) and the BBC news [NOT EDITORIALS EITHER.....ACTUAL EVENTS}, but do NOT appear or are edited into oblivion by the American media. They are actively engaging in camouflage because if the public read this stuff every day they would not support some of the US long standing policies in the Middle East. Try going to those websites every day and then look for the same thing on the ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, or CNN websites. You won't find them or you will find them so watered down that they appear to be referring to something else. Do this for awhile and you will see for yourself if you are an objective person. If you are not an objective person then of course you could dismiss it all or put labels on me which would be IMO would be unfair.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The American media reports selectively from the Middle East. I have over 1000 A-B comparisons of daily reports of incidents and events in the Middle East which only appear in Ha'aretz (an Israeli moderate newspaper) and the BBC news [NOT EDITORIALS EITHER.....ACTUAL EVENTS}, but do NOT appear or are edited into oblivion by the American media. They are actively engaging in camouflage because if the public read this stuff every day they would not support some of the US long standing policies in the Middle East. Try going to those websites every day and then look for the same thing on the ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, or CNN websites. You won't find them or you will find them so watered down that they appear to be referring to something else. Do this for awhile and you will see for yourself if you are an objective person. If you are not an objective person then of course you could dismiss it all or put labels on me which would be IMO would be unfair.
rextilleon
wrote on 1/20/2003, 10:53 AM
I dont get the point---as if the BBC et al. doesn't have a point of view----Whomever said that news reporting is subjective? Now if you want to deny that Hussein is a maniac who has pretty much ignored UN mandates----then heck, tell me who our source is?
rextilleon
wrote on 1/20/2003, 10:56 AM
Oh, one more thing---I find it repugnant that intellectuals among the left are always belittling the ability of the every day American citizen to discern the truth. The right wing claims that CNN and the majors are anti-American, the left wing claims they are tools of the administration. It usually boils down to---well they are not discerning my truth. By the way, another couple of warheads suddenly were found by Sadist and his whacky family----
craftech
wrote on 1/20/2003, 11:42 AM
"I dont get the point---as if the BBC et al. doesn't have a point of view----Whomever said that news reporting is subjective? "
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read my post again. What I said was:
"daily reports of incidents and events in the Middle East which only appear in Ha'aretz (an Israeli moderate newspaper) and the BBC news [NOT EDITORIALS EITHER.....ACTUAL EVENTS}, but do NOT appear or are edited into oblivion by the American media."
Daily reports of actual events and NOT EDITORIALS. Ha'aretz and BBC are not creating people, places, and events in a coroborative effort to win an award for creative fiction. The American media on the other hand are presenting a lopsided view of the Middle East through OMISSION. The media can get away with that, they cannot get away with out and out fabrication. If you don't like the BBC, then try the ("et al" as you put it)award winning Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/ It's my favorite of the two.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read my post again. What I said was:
"daily reports of incidents and events in the Middle East which only appear in Ha'aretz (an Israeli moderate newspaper) and the BBC news [NOT EDITORIALS EITHER.....ACTUAL EVENTS}, but do NOT appear or are edited into oblivion by the American media."
Daily reports of actual events and NOT EDITORIALS. Ha'aretz and BBC are not creating people, places, and events in a coroborative effort to win an award for creative fiction. The American media on the other hand are presenting a lopsided view of the Middle East through OMISSION. The media can get away with that, they cannot get away with out and out fabrication. If you don't like the BBC, then try the ("et al" as you put it)award winning Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/ It's my favorite of the two.
Cheesehole
wrote on 1/20/2003, 11:50 AM
>>>We can be truely thankful that the VAST majority of the AMerican people can connect the dots----
I'm amazed that you can know what's in the heads of the vast majority of American people.
Bush lost the popular vote. he never got Bin Laden. the economy sucks. we've got rampant corporate corruption. campaign spending is out of control. we've got a 6 trillion dollar debt and it's getting BIGGER as we speak. we've got a convicted felon in charge of a new office of Information Awareness to keep extensive records on every American, but most of what we hear about on the news concerns the war on terrorism and/or Iraq. there's a few dots to connect.
btw - I doubt the vast majority of American people can even point to Iraq on a map. it isn't a matter of being capable of discerning the truth, it's a matter of paying attention enough to even know there are truths to be discerned.
I'm amazed that you can know what's in the heads of the vast majority of American people.
Bush lost the popular vote. he never got Bin Laden. the economy sucks. we've got rampant corporate corruption. campaign spending is out of control. we've got a 6 trillion dollar debt and it's getting BIGGER as we speak. we've got a convicted felon in charge of a new office of Information Awareness to keep extensive records on every American, but most of what we hear about on the news concerns the war on terrorism and/or Iraq. there's a few dots to connect.
btw - I doubt the vast majority of American people can even point to Iraq on a map. it isn't a matter of being capable of discerning the truth, it's a matter of paying attention enough to even know there are truths to be discerned.
shawnm
wrote on 1/20/2003, 1:14 PM
Hey Futz,
No worries man, I was mostly responding to Tadpole's comments. No hard feeling dude, you either Tadpole. :-)
-Cheese, Craftech thanks for making me feel like I'm "not the only one".
Peace,
Shawn
No worries man, I was mostly responding to Tadpole's comments. No hard feeling dude, you either Tadpole. :-)
-Cheese, Craftech thanks for making me feel like I'm "not the only one".
Peace,
Shawn
rextilleon
wrote on 1/20/2003, 1:17 PM
Ha'aretz is very good---I read the online addition whenever I have the time---Remember, Haaretz is located in Israel and thus their news primarily discusses events in Israel---As far as cheesehole goes, my God, the election is over---still harping on that issue----get on with your life--beyond that, the corporate corruption has been going on for years--(I think there was quite a bit of it under Clinton), you dont know if he got Bin Laden----that remains to be seen---, the economy is cyclical in nature---bad cycle, deficit spending is good! By the way, because they can't locate it on the map doesn't mean they dont understand what a threat Hussein is----stop belittling the people!
Cheesehole
wrote on 1/20/2003, 2:21 PM
>>>my God, the election is over---still harping on that issue---- get on with your life
thanks for the advice. yes, that is the message we are getting from the media, but the problems with the electoral process highlighted in 2000 are far from over. in fact nothing has changed except for the much needed upgrading of our polling equipment. 3rd parties are still practically excluded from the process and the illegal purging of the voter roles which cheated thousands of people out of their vote were not even fixed before the 2002 election! (I live in FL so I tend to pay a little more attention) hey, aren't free and fair elections central to a real democracy? isn't that something worth discussing before the next presidential election? nah, who's got the time to harp on these trivial matters. we should just 'get on with our lives'.
>>>beyond that, the corporate corruption has been going on for years
>>>(I think there was quite a bit of it under Clinton)
imagine that. and your point is...? are you saying the Bush administration has nothing to gain by distracting the public from this and the other topics I mentioned?
>>>you dont know if he got Bin Laden
exactly my point. no bagged kill. better find another enemy to defeat before 2004. we have to justify the $300 billion + we spend on our military each year.
>>>the economy is cyclical in nature---bad cycle, deficit spending is good!
really? then I wonder how we can convince the American public to consent to the spending of massive amounts of money despite our enormous deficit... any ideas?
>>>By the way, because they can't locate it on the map doesn't mean they dont understand what a threat Hussein is-
spreading fear is remarkably easy especially when the public is uninformed. fear is easy to understand. the real motivations behind the Bush administrations push for war are much more difficult. if you don't know where Iraq is, what countries it borders or doesn't border, how can you possibly understand the situation enough to support an invasion? I guess it makes perfect sense to you, but to me it is confounding.
>>> ---stop belittling the people!
garbage in, garbage out. one can't make intelligent decisions based on what one doesn't know. the consistent ommission of important news from mainstream media fosters an uninformed public. the US is passed off as a benevolent character in a simplistic morality play. that is what I would call 'belittling the people'.
thanks for the advice. yes, that is the message we are getting from the media, but the problems with the electoral process highlighted in 2000 are far from over. in fact nothing has changed except for the much needed upgrading of our polling equipment. 3rd parties are still practically excluded from the process and the illegal purging of the voter roles which cheated thousands of people out of their vote were not even fixed before the 2002 election! (I live in FL so I tend to pay a little more attention) hey, aren't free and fair elections central to a real democracy? isn't that something worth discussing before the next presidential election? nah, who's got the time to harp on these trivial matters. we should just 'get on with our lives'.
>>>beyond that, the corporate corruption has been going on for years
>>>(I think there was quite a bit of it under Clinton)
imagine that. and your point is...? are you saying the Bush administration has nothing to gain by distracting the public from this and the other topics I mentioned?
>>>you dont know if he got Bin Laden
exactly my point. no bagged kill. better find another enemy to defeat before 2004. we have to justify the $300 billion + we spend on our military each year.
>>>the economy is cyclical in nature---bad cycle, deficit spending is good!
really? then I wonder how we can convince the American public to consent to the spending of massive amounts of money despite our enormous deficit... any ideas?
>>>By the way, because they can't locate it on the map doesn't mean they dont understand what a threat Hussein is-
spreading fear is remarkably easy especially when the public is uninformed. fear is easy to understand. the real motivations behind the Bush administrations push for war are much more difficult. if you don't know where Iraq is, what countries it borders or doesn't border, how can you possibly understand the situation enough to support an invasion? I guess it makes perfect sense to you, but to me it is confounding.
>>> ---stop belittling the people!
garbage in, garbage out. one can't make intelligent decisions based on what one doesn't know. the consistent ommission of important news from mainstream media fosters an uninformed public. the US is passed off as a benevolent character in a simplistic morality play. that is what I would call 'belittling the people'.
DGates
wrote on 1/20/2003, 2:35 PM
Well said, Rex
riredale
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:08 PM
Whew! I'm exhausted! You guys can sure type a lot!
Cheesehole
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:21 PM
>>>Remember, Haaretz is located in Israel and thus their news primarily discusses events in Israel
seems to me that events taking place in Israel would be of great interest to the American public, especially now!
A. financial aid to Israel cost US taxpayers several billion each year. (or don't we care what they doing with our money?)
B. they are violating UN resolutions
C. they are involved in a conflict with people who identify with Iraqis
D. US support is the source of great resentment among Arabs
these seem to be pretty important issues in a very complicated situation. you have to wonder why we are consistently presented with lopsided coverage. we hear about every suicide bomber that's for sure! seems the best way to get the attention of US media is to kill a lot of people, but only if you are Palestinian, not if you are the Israeli army.
the point is, we need to hear about what happens in Israel because we are a direct participant and it has huge repercussions on the Arab and world perception of our intentions in the region. if we knew what was happening there, we could actually begin to understand where some of this hatred is coming from. oh yeah, I almost forgot, they hate us because we're free. :D
so why is so much missing from US media when it comes to Israel even with an impending invasion of Iraq? could it be that support for the war might waver even more? or would we get pissed off about supporting a regime which is spending our money violating UN resolutions (supposedly one of the reasons for attacking Iraq)?
it seems to me that anytime my money is being spent on something, I become a participant. since most of our foreign aid goes to Israel, it should be at the top of the list.
seems to me that events taking place in Israel would be of great interest to the American public, especially now!
A. financial aid to Israel cost US taxpayers several billion each year. (or don't we care what they doing with our money?)
B. they are violating UN resolutions
C. they are involved in a conflict with people who identify with Iraqis
D. US support is the source of great resentment among Arabs
these seem to be pretty important issues in a very complicated situation. you have to wonder why we are consistently presented with lopsided coverage. we hear about every suicide bomber that's for sure! seems the best way to get the attention of US media is to kill a lot of people, but only if you are Palestinian, not if you are the Israeli army.
the point is, we need to hear about what happens in Israel because we are a direct participant and it has huge repercussions on the Arab and world perception of our intentions in the region. if we knew what was happening there, we could actually begin to understand where some of this hatred is coming from. oh yeah, I almost forgot, they hate us because we're free. :D
so why is so much missing from US media when it comes to Israel even with an impending invasion of Iraq? could it be that support for the war might waver even more? or would we get pissed off about supporting a regime which is spending our money violating UN resolutions (supposedly one of the reasons for attacking Iraq)?
it seems to me that anytime my money is being spent on something, I become a participant. since most of our foreign aid goes to Israel, it should be at the top of the list.
piney
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:29 PM
Why is it that Israel, a democratic society with an elected government and a civilian-controlled military is demonic in a way that an autocratic cabal, sponsoring the suicide-murder of civilians, is not?
rstein
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:35 PM
Cheesehole,
While I agree with much of what you say vis a vis Bush, I disagree with your argument about Israel.
You apparently don't understand the situation there well enough to know that Israel would be happy to live side-by-side with Palestinians, if the Palestinians didn't want to kill every Israeli. However, if you bother to take a look, the cycle of hatred is eminating from the Arab side of the equation. There is still no acknowledgment by the neighboring states of Israel's right to exist. And let's get real - Israel does NOT target civilians as a tactic or strategy, but Palestinians (and Saddam et al) use women, aged, and children as shields to point to and say "see what those nasty Israelis did?" The fact that those regretable events occur in response to homicidal bombers or snipers TARGETING innocents seems to be ignored in your argument.
OK, back to video and less unhappy subjects.
Bob.
While I agree with much of what you say vis a vis Bush, I disagree with your argument about Israel.
You apparently don't understand the situation there well enough to know that Israel would be happy to live side-by-side with Palestinians, if the Palestinians didn't want to kill every Israeli. However, if you bother to take a look, the cycle of hatred is eminating from the Arab side of the equation. There is still no acknowledgment by the neighboring states of Israel's right to exist. And let's get real - Israel does NOT target civilians as a tactic or strategy, but Palestinians (and Saddam et al) use women, aged, and children as shields to point to and say "see what those nasty Israelis did?" The fact that those regretable events occur in response to homicidal bombers or snipers TARGETING innocents seems to be ignored in your argument.
OK, back to video and less unhappy subjects.
Bob.
rextilleon
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:39 PM
Yeah, I figured we would eventually here the anti-Israel stuff--just a matter of time. I often wonder why cheesehole et al always question our aid to Israel but seldom mention the massive amount of aid we give to Egypt etc. I could say what I am thinking but I wont. The fact remains that I am constantly bombarded by images of the Palestenians in all their squalor--I dont know what news you are watching. This is a new strategy by the left---the AMerican news outlets aren't reporting on the plight of the Palestenians---(this is merely another iteration of the Jews own the press crap that is so common among the radical left and the radical right).
This is not the place to debate the complexity of the Palestine/Israel issue. Both sides have points to make. I don't care what the Arab masses think----they have been kept in a state of abject poverty by dictators and pseudo-monarchs. Israel is used as a focus of frustration---almost the way Hitler used the Jews as a focus of frustration for the German people who were also suffering from an horrific economic situation.
WE do not get our gasoline for free---we pay for it----much of the revenues go to the leadership of the oil producing states---The corrupt dictators pocket vast amounts and merely tell their people that the Israelis are the cause of their problems---What a lot of crap! Anti-semitism serves so many purposes.
This is not the place to debate the complexity of the Palestine/Israel issue. Both sides have points to make. I don't care what the Arab masses think----they have been kept in a state of abject poverty by dictators and pseudo-monarchs. Israel is used as a focus of frustration---almost the way Hitler used the Jews as a focus of frustration for the German people who were also suffering from an horrific economic situation.
WE do not get our gasoline for free---we pay for it----much of the revenues go to the leadership of the oil producing states---The corrupt dictators pocket vast amounts and merely tell their people that the Israelis are the cause of their problems---What a lot of crap! Anti-semitism serves so many purposes.
Cheesehole
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:41 PM
>>>Why is it that Israel, a democratic society with an elected government and a civilian-controlled military is demonic in a way that an autocratic cabal, sponsoring the suicide-murder of civilians, is not?
not demonizing anyone. apparently my post was taken the wrong way. please explain "American? apologist." I don't know what you are trying to say.
I'm simply pointing out that Israel is of primary concern to America. please explain how questioning the use of my tax money is "demonizing" or "anti-semetic".
not demonizing anyone. apparently my post was taken the wrong way. please explain "American? apologist." I don't know what you are trying to say.
I'm simply pointing out that Israel is of primary concern to America. please explain how questioning the use of my tax money is "demonizing" or "anti-semetic".
piney
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:43 PM
NM
piney
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:44 PM
NM
piney
wrote on 1/20/2003, 3:56 PM
An American apologist would be someone who feels we deserved 9/11 (and all the other bad things that happen to American interests) because of all the awful things we do to the oppressed citizens and nations of the globe. Perhaps that is too harsh for you, so I apologize for that, but some of your rants might cause an unbiased observer to throw you into that category and frankly, I'm sick of all this anti-Americanism. I can't believe that anyone would think that the world would not be a better, more secure place if Iraq were a democracy.
By the way if you study your middle east history, it was Jordanians and Kuwaitis, not we and not Israelis, who ethnically cleansed Palestinians.
By the way if you study your middle east history, it was Jordanians and Kuwaitis, not we and not Israelis, who ethnically cleansed Palestinians.
DGrob
wrote on 1/20/2003, 4:03 PM
OK, OK. Let's go for something positive out of this. I'll start.
Sadam Hussein walks into a bar . . .
Next?
Sadam Hussein walks into a bar . . .
Next?
Cheesehole
wrote on 1/20/2003, 4:14 PM
>>>An American apologist would be someone who feels we deserved 9/11 (and all the other bad things that happen to American interests) because of all the awful things we do to the oppressed citizens and nations of the globe.
thank you for clarifying.
>>>Perhaps that is too harsh for you, so I apologize for that, but some of your rants might cause an unbiased observer to throw you into that category
no surprise there. most people are pretty quick to categorize and classify those with whom they do not agree. if you read what I wrote, however, you will see that I have not suggested that we deserved 9/11. I can't even wrap my brain around that concept.
>>>and frankly, I'm sick of all this anti-Americanism.
on the contrary, dissent is very American. could you define what it is that you think is anti-American?
>>>I can't believe that anyone would think that the world would not be a better, more secure place if Iraq were a democracy.
is it the goal of the Bush administration to deliver a democracy to the Iraqi people? what exactly is a democracy anyway? that word is thrown around a lot but rarely defined. I don't have much confidence in the US govenment's ability to install a democracy in place of Saddam's dictatorship. it all sounds a bit far fetched. we have used the excuse of spreading democracy before.
>>>By the way if you study your middle east history, it was Jordanians and Kuwaitis, not we and not Israelis, who ethnically cleansed Palestinians.
thanks, but if you read my post you'll see I was only posing questions about the use of my tax money and lack of in depth media coverage of such an important issue. perhaps lop-sided was the wrong word. the three responses to that post seemed to suggest that I am anti-Israeli or something. I think that is interesting, but completely baseless. I'm used to being attacked for asking questions though. it's part of that categorization thing.
thank you for clarifying.
>>>Perhaps that is too harsh for you, so I apologize for that, but some of your rants might cause an unbiased observer to throw you into that category
no surprise there. most people are pretty quick to categorize and classify those with whom they do not agree. if you read what I wrote, however, you will see that I have not suggested that we deserved 9/11. I can't even wrap my brain around that concept.
>>>and frankly, I'm sick of all this anti-Americanism.
on the contrary, dissent is very American. could you define what it is that you think is anti-American?
>>>I can't believe that anyone would think that the world would not be a better, more secure place if Iraq were a democracy.
is it the goal of the Bush administration to deliver a democracy to the Iraqi people? what exactly is a democracy anyway? that word is thrown around a lot but rarely defined. I don't have much confidence in the US govenment's ability to install a democracy in place of Saddam's dictatorship. it all sounds a bit far fetched. we have used the excuse of spreading democracy before.
>>>By the way if you study your middle east history, it was Jordanians and Kuwaitis, not we and not Israelis, who ethnically cleansed Palestinians.
thanks, but if you read my post you'll see I was only posing questions about the use of my tax money and lack of in depth media coverage of such an important issue. perhaps lop-sided was the wrong word. the three responses to that post seemed to suggest that I am anti-Israeli or something. I think that is interesting, but completely baseless. I'm used to being attacked for asking questions though. it's part of that categorization thing.