On the forth comming war & the "liberal" media

Where is the liberal media? We are about to engage in a war of agression, a premtive war, the same as the Japinise did to us in 12/41.

A liberal media would point out that this is illegal & that we hung many Japinise for doing the exact same thing.

A liberal media would point out that according to the UCMJ, a solider had the OBLIGATION to resist illegal orders, like starting an agresive war.

A liberal media would point out that Bush's refusal to join the world criminal court in 2000 proves that this illegal war of agression was planned long before 9/11.

A liberal media would cover things like the massive demonstrations aginst the war, here & abroad.

A liberal media would tell us when our CIA was caught bugging most every Ambasador to the U. N.

A liberal media might even allow a liberal or two to be heard.

To our overseas friends; we didn't elect this president, we had a judical coup, & most of my countrymen didn't even notice. We don't have a free or liberal press, it costs money, & those with the money make it a propaganda organ for our Rebublican Party. I am so very sorry for what is about to be done in my name.

 

You assume that the media (liberal or otherwise) cares about facts.

The truth is they just want a headline and an appeal to an emotional arguement.

"Give peace a chance", people being thrown out of malls for peace shirts, and "let the inspections work" are more than enough to fulfil that need.

 

Shadygrove, I'm surprised at you. You should know better than that. Liberals are fucknuts, but they are not stupid. No way in hell is the liberal media going to pound Bush on any of this, not while the vast majority of Americans back Bush. Nosiree, that's not the way to ingrain liberal control over everything, especially since the ass-whipping in the recent elections. No, you gotta sneak in liberal horse-shit. Throwing it in someone's face won't change his mind. I just noticed this myself, while watching Crossfire. The liberals were pretty much not arguing, and agreeing with almost everything the conservatives said. Heh. They're running scared.

 

Ass whopping? 15% of the electoriate voted Democrat. 16% for the Repubilcans. 2% for others. 2/3 did not vote. Many more were not even regestered.

The "landslide" was a gift from the liberal media.

In all your hunting through the FM bands for Rush clones have you ever heard a liberal talk show host?

In Korea we had U. N. cover, in Viet-Nam a good lie. If we go into Iraq without either, we commit a war crime. And no one will even mention it.

Bush has decalred war on the blacks, the labor unions, & the lower 99 1/2% of the income brackets & no one will mention that either.

Out here in America's upper left coast even the Republicans are scared of Boy George & CO. But we are about as liberal as you in GA are conservative.

Read the constititution & be afraid.

 

I've been afraid. From the time bush stole the presidency. Or perhaps I should say 'arranged'

You know what scared me? His press conference. In which he said, in regard to Iraq. "They don't believe in god. Not as we do."

These are words that have no place on an American president's lips.

These are words that belong on 12th century king's lips. As he marches thousands of troops over the 'heathen scum' in a mad man's holy war.

Besides, no one wants to hear liberal media. Liberal media asks too many hard questions. They want revenge, for an act commited against America. What they don't realize, is that American policy brought the 911 attacks on itself. Aye, blame the terrorists. But also blame the politicians. How would you feel if some clowns from a country halfway across the world gave away your homeland? American foreign policy sowed the seeds for the 911 attack years ago.

Notice how a good portion of the political satire shows have suddenly disappeared from the airwaves?

In the Albany, NY area, some people were arrested for wearing anti-war t-shirts. Welcome to the land of the free.

I've all but given up on this whole mess. I can't say anything I haven't said a thousand times before. Nobody wants to hear it.

 

I'm getting sick and tired of this claim. Do me a favor, remind me of the golden age when America WASN'T hated by the rest of the world for a whole bunch of reasons, real and imaginary.

The debate about "liberal media" is probably too American for an outsider like me to enter, but here are some of my thoughts (mostly related to Shadygrove's first post).

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a pre-emptive strike, it was an agressive war, a logical outcome of the Japanese policy of that time of taking control over Asia. At that point they only had two main rivals in their domination attempt- US and Russia, and after the Chalkin-Gol battle they were quite afraid of messing with the Russians, so they turned onto the supposedly weaker US.

Starting an agressive war in itself is not an illegal order the soldiers have a right/obligation to refuse, and they cannot be held responcible for carrying this order out. They can't, and not supposed to, have the information or authority that would allow them to decide on their state's politics and security needs. The only orders that are seen as illegal are those that demand deliberate targeting of the civilian population, which so far the Americans don't do and aren't planning to do.

I wouldn't bash Bush for not joining the International criminal court, definitely wouldn't link it to the Iraqi war. The Internationan criminal court, in my opinion, is an extremely bad idea. It will inevitably turn out to have a heavy political bias against certain states (US included) and in favor of others, and will become another embarrasement to the world like the infamous Durban International conference against racism was. I am extremely suspicious of anything with the world "international" in the title these days.

I doubt that one can claim that the global anti-war demonstration didn't get a sufficient media coverage.

As this thread isn't about the Iraqi war itself (as of yet anyway) I will keep my opinion on it to myself unless the debate goes that way

 

You know, Shadygrove, you should really get together with Chuck sometime. You could spin conspiracy theories until the cows (or liberals) came home. Then Charles could go on a jihad, and you could write all about it.

 

You know, he does kinda sound like Ol' Chuckie.

Yeah, that's the latest tactic from the whiney left. It's not enough that 95% of television media is extremely biased towards the left, they want the radio too. Waaahhhh!!!!! Sniff sniff....

Where do you get this stuff from? Do you put up a lot of silly arguments, then throw a dart at them while blindfolded? "Ooooh, it landed on war against blacks. Bush hates blacks!!"

 

Of course he does He's from Texas isn't he?

 

The muslims don't belive in god the same way christians does, saying that does not mean that you have declared war.

The japanese attack on pearl harbor was a strike to gain an upper hand in the pacific, the japanese knew that it would take some time for the americans to gain the fleet advantage in the pacific and then be imposibole to stop when striking at oil wells in the south. It was not an premtive strike since the us would not likely declare war at japan if japan had not struck.

Hey have you heard that the americans are planning to put cameras on their soldiers when sending them into battle and transfer this liv. Go screw yourself bigbrother.

 

What are you saying here? That US and Britain's breaking up of Palestine has nothing to do with the face of terrorism today? It has nothing to do with world opinion of the US? If so, I will politely tell you you're full of it. I know if a bunch of foreigners gave away my home, then armed the settlers with weapons of mass destruction(supposedly the same reason we're on the edge of war with Iraq) I'd damn sure have a problem with it. Now Palestinians are forced to live in ghettos, and contained to certain sections of what was their home. And every chance they get, the Israelis, expand their holdings by running tanks over civilians. The Palestine lands keep getting smaller and smaller. This is very nearly the same thing that happened to the Native Americans. Minus the nukes. But if there were nukes available then... This is also the same thing that happened to the Jews under hitler.

Ironically, if China rolls a few tanks over civilians, they earn a stinging rebuke from the US and the rest of the world. But if Israel sends tanks after a few Palestinians, they earn a pat on the back and praise for their efforts of 'being tough on terrorism'. There's nothing wrong with being tough on terrorists. So long as it's terrorists that are on the receiving end.

From WWII through the Cold War, the US has been meddling wholesale in the Middle East. Personally, when the 911 attacks happened, my first reaction was "Well it's about time." What made me the most angry about it was the fact that they hit civilian targets. If they'd attacked only military targets, I would hardly have been upset. Military personnel are aware of the risks from the time they sign up.

Comparing Iraq to WWII...Well that is a bit of a stretch. BUT--The Japanese DID launch an unprovoked attack on the US. Iraq is a mostly unprovoked attack. True there's been little or no direct aggression from Iraq against the US, but it would be difficult to say it's entirely unprovoked. It's just that hussein and his cronies are constantly talking shit to the US and UN. Talking shit, however, is hardly a reason to start a war.

It's also a bit of a stretch to say bush is waging war on blacks. He's waging war on the working class, by offering huge tax-breaks to special interests and the wealthy, while the underprivelaged and working class make up the difference. He's also waging his own little private war against those who follow a non judeo-christian path, free-speech, and freedom of choice. Although, in my own personal opinion, I wouldn't be the least bit surprized to find a white sheet and hood hanging in georgie's closet.

Democrat vs. republican. I've always found this somewhat amusing. Both parties are unethical. Afterall, they're politicians. How things change...Democrats are viewed as liberal, and republicans conservative.
Let's not forget that in the mid-late 19th century, it was the republicans that opposed, and ultimately abolished slavery. The democrats supported slavery, and even started a civil war over it.

I actually like Rush. I agree with some of the things he's said, but not all. But then, I'm a funny guy when it comes to my political stance.

[edit]

No it doesn't, but when mentioned in accordance with reasons to go to war on a country, it sounds like a trip back to the Dark Ages.
When taken into consideration the intense background checks on anyone entering the country of Middle Eastern descent, or Muslim heritage instituted under the reprehensible 'Homeland Security Act' by THIS administration.
Throw in the fact that under this act, the people of the US are urged to report deviant behaviour to the authorities. Mix in bush's pleas for more power. Then add his resolve to go to war with or without UN support. Starts to sound pretty oppressive to me. Kinda like the KGB...and Big Brother, and the KKK all in one neat little package.
A person or even country's religious views are none of any foreigner's business. Much less an American's. A person or people's faith is their own. America was settled in order to escape religious persecution. Of course, when the settlers got over here, they started their own little crusade against the natives, and of course witchcraft. But that's a different rant.

 

Well at least you told me that "politely".
I happened to be Israeli myself, and it always amazes me how little most people actually know about what is really going on here. I'm a bit tired of debating on this subject (I get a lot of it on other forums I visit), but I'll try to explain.

First, the creation of Israel was a UN decision, supported by the majority of states. The US had little to do with it, and nothing to do with drawing maps in the Middle East in general. During the Independence war of 1948, the US put embargo on all weapons trades with Israel. In fact, the American involvement in the Middle East began in the 1960-s, to counter the massive influence the Soviet Union was gaining over the Arab states. Untill then, Israel's main strategic partner was France, and to a much lesser degree Britain.

Second, the Palestinians don't live in ghettos, its a claim that always amuses me. The so called "refugee camps" are today full size cities, not tents in the desert (you could see it when the hoax of a "massacre" in Jenin was being broadcasted all over the media, they gave plenty of aerial footage). Their freedom of movement does get limited, this is a sad, but inevitable outcome of the terrorist tactics used by the Palestinian militants. No one in Israel is happy about it, but so far curfews seem to be the only somewhat effective way of preventing suicide bombings. Also, Israelis don't "run tanks over civilians" and don't deliberately target the innocents on the Palestinian side. If you want, I can post detailed statistics of fatalities on both sides (not just the absolute number of casualities, but also the number of non-combatants, women, children and elderly among them), which creates a very different picture than the one you may get from news reports on TV. The majority of the Palestinians killed in the conflict are combatants- members of "Hamas", "Islamic Jihad", "Al-Aksa martyrs", "Tanzim", "Force 17" and other terrorist organizations. Civilians do get hit, but not deliberately. I hope you do know the term "collateral damage".

Third, the Palestinian lands do no get "smaller and smaller". There is no goverment initiated expansion of the Israeli settlements . Several of them have even been removed recently (Havat- Gil'ad for example). Even the settlements natural growth as existing and functioning cities has been paalyzed by the Israeli goverment for over a decade.

Another thing: the Palestinians have not been "deprived of their home". As I have said before, the creation of Israel was a UN decision. After being created, Israel was immediately attacked by the Arab states surrounding it, and the war, as any war, forced thousands of people to live their home. Since there haven't been peace between Israel and the Arab states ever since and the Arabs refused to negotiate the solution (the famous "three no" of the Khartoum conference), the refugees were unable to return. The Arabs who chose to stay within the Israeli borders are today citizens with full rights (about 20 percent of the Israeli population are Arabs), they have their own political parties in our parliament, and many of them (especially the Bedouins) even volunteer for the army service (in Israel only the Jewish people are being drafted, for Arabs, Druze and other minorities its a volunteer service).

The Arab-Israeli conflict is being frequently used for anti-American propaganda, but is it the real reason for hating America? Hell no. Its just a good excuse. Most of the Arab leaders keep instigating hatred against Israel and America as a distraction for their own people, to blame all the flaws of their totalitarian political system and retarded economy on someone other than the existing goverment, in order to stay in power. Osama uses it to gain political weight in the Muslim world as a "rebel" against the "Big Devil". Other terrorists use it to get funding from Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia for their "noble cause". After all, its not like America wasn't hated before the creation of Israel.

 

That I can see. Another sore point of mine. The US supports corrupt governments like Saudi Arabia, yet if France voices an opinion against the US, they get boycotted.


And I stand corrected. With that, I will politely bow out and keep my mouth shut. And apologize for any offense given. No one likes to find out they have their head up their ass. Fewer still care to admit it. I thank you for giving a detailed, comprehensive response instead of flames.

Damn that liberal media!

 

Apology accepted No need to keep your mouth shut, I have no problem with people who have different opinions, as long as they have their facts right and don't resort to name calling or anything of this kind.
I agree with you about the US support for Saudi Arabia. Kind of weird that Bush goes against Afghanistan and Iraq in his "war on terrorism", while completely ignoring the fact that most 9/11 perpetrators were Saudis.

 

Bummer, hate when responses come in before edits..

What's even wierder, is that the US armed the Taliban when Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation. I may have said this before--Another irony: during the Iran Hostage Crisis, hussein and Iraq were our buddies.

On one hand the Saudis are our buddies. With the other hand, they're arming and giving asylum to terrorists. Tell me that's not about oil! Good business at the very least.

Kinda like some of the bars in Vietnam. During daylight hours they were 'American' bars, but after dark the VC held their meetings in the same bars, plotting out where they were going to plant their next bomb.

 

The Japinese called it a preemtive atack. From their point of view, it was. We hung a lot of them for it. The only reason we didn't hang Germans for the same thing was they were tried in Europe & our allies didn't believe in the death penalty.

On Martin Luther King's real birthday, Bush announced that the Justice Dept. would sign on to fight with a private "white discrimination" lawsuit against affirmative action. No mater what you think about affirmative action, the timing is a dead giveaway.

George's grandad, Prescot Bush, along with the elder Philby from England (Kim Philby's dad, I forget his first name) were the people who set the Saudi royal family up in the king busness. Back when England was keeping the world safe for constitutional monarchies. It worked as well as democracy does in Pakastan.

 

At the time it probably was a logical move, the Taliban were the only real force in Afghanistan capable of resisting the Soviet invasion. I don't think the Americans should be held responcible for any actions of the Taliban for years to come, decades after the US support for them had ended.

 

It's not weird at all. Just because the terrorists were born in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we should go bomb the Saudis. Osama bin Laden, at the very least, was disowned by his family. Just because someone came from a certain country, or was born there, doesn't mean that they had the whole support of their family and country in whatever they did. If Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with the bombers, other than having allowed them to be born and survive, then there's no reason to bomb them back to the Stone Age, is there?

 

Not quite true. The UN voted a partition plan in 1947, but the plan did not go ahead, because of escalating conflict. The USA was involved politically, in that it was pushing for greater Jewish immigration to the region.

There is nothing ironic here. The Chinese were killing peaceful protestors, not terrorists. If the Palenstinians had stuck to peaceful forms of protest they would have a lot more backing.

There is - arguably, of course - a good legal case for the War in the UN resolution that Iraq have broken. I don't trust Bush, and I find US aggressive nationalism as scary as any other fanatacism, such as Islamic Fundamentalism, but I assume the UN passed the resolution for a reason, and I think something should be done if it is not followed.

If fanatical leaders believe there is noone prepared to stand up to them, Saddam will just be the tip of the iceberg. They'll be springing up all over the place, using clever public relations ruses to sway the populations of democratic countries while secretly preparing attacks.

 

Notes without quotes.

What Solaris didn't mention was that the British Mandate of Palistine was to be divided into Jewish Palistine & Arab Palistine. After the dust had cleared, (that was the War of Partition) Israel had almost the same borders as Jewish Palistine, yet Arab Palistine had ceased to exist! Where did it go? Well, part became "Jordan's West Bank" & then there was "Egypt's Sinai Peninsula" and "Egypt's Gaza Strip" where Egypitans kept the Palinistinans in those refugee camps. Inside of what should have been their own country.

I thought the Druze were an Arab people. ???

Where are all the liberals on TV? Other than comedians. Oops, spoke too soon, they were just cancled.

Retard, the "liberal" press has no problem going after a wildly popular president tooth & nail. As long as he is a Democrat. But you probably think Clinton was a liberal.

Whats even wieder was that in May, 4 months before 9/11, we gave the Taliban $43 mil. for their (documented) success in destroying opium poppy plantings & switching to other crops. Our buddies, the Northern Alliance, are planting a record poppy crop.

The single largest source of funding for Al Qida & the fundimentalist Wahabi sect (I know I cannot spell) is the Saudi Royal Family.

In truth there is a liberal press. It consists of weeklys like Seattle's Stranger & political magizines like The Nation & Mother Jones. Never heard of them? Thought not. They think that the Democrats could be a solution.

BTW, I am not a liberal. I am an unreconstructed '60s radical. I think I was a liberal when I took my first freedom ride at 15. But there hasn't been any radical media since the '60s. Anyone else rember an old Pacifica show called "Radio Free Ozz"?

Old radical rallying cry; "Sure the liberals are behind us, far behind us."

Sign at a protest; "Who would Jesus bomb?"