What Senator John Glenn Said

[ZECH]

So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.

Hmmm,
Japan=war over oil
Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.

 

[GFR]

Hmmm,
Japan=war over oil
Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.

I agree with this insightful logic...I for one have to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Iraq air force was disgusting and clearly an act of war.

Great post dg806

 

[Decker]

Hmmm,
Japan=war over oil
Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.

FDR deprived the Japanese of vital access to oil. Of the range of reasons GWB invaded Iraq, access to Iraq's oil fields is quite different. Only in the most oblique sense are the 2 similar.

The terrorists that attacked the US were not trained in the middle east, they were trained on american soil. Al Qaeda was trained by our own CIA. So the organization that sent these terrorists to the US for flight school was, by-and-large, a product of our government.

Democracy does not guarantee stability. What if the democratically elected leaders turn out coincidentally to support Al Qaeda? Democracy is a type of government giving voice to all citizens....that's all it can do theoretically. The hatred of foreign intervention by middleeastern countries goes back centuries, the hatred of the US goes back decades, the different ethnic tribes in the middle east have feuds going back hundreds of years. How on earth is a democracy going to change any of that?

 

[brogers]

There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII, whatsoever. If it was remotely similar, our generals would have had the balls to just obliterate the cities with all this bullshit going on. If they were nice they'd surround the city and give people 72 hours to get out, and pick up all the terrorists that are trying to leave, then decimate it. If they were actual WWII generals, they'd simply bomb it to oblivion and the problem is solved (for the most part).

Quite simply, here in America we are too scared of other people's opinions, we fear political backlash more than losing the war, and that is dangerous, especially to our soldiers on the ground. We have the best weapons technology in the world and yet we don't use it.

 

[lnvanry]

CNN and MSNBC

CNN maybe....NBC you got to be fucking kidding me. All of the big three network are left...not leaning left but walking left

 

[lnvanry]

Hmmm,
Japan=war over oil
Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.

I defintely agree with this statement. We NEED this resource, but if we really went of to IRAQ for oil, according to libs, why are we paying so much for fucking gas... I know the whole supply logic, but lets get those kurds and shi'ites to start pumping that stuff over our way. Those two groups finally have some representation in their gov't, b/c of us. Can they return the favor?

 

[maniclion]

There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII, whatsoever. If it was remotely similar, our generals would have had the balls to just obliterate the cities with all this bullshit going on. If they were nice they'd surround the city and give people 72 hours to get out, and pick up all the terrorists that are trying to leave, then decimate it. If they were actual WWII generals, they'd simply bomb it to oblivion and the problem is solved (for the most part).

Yeah cause it's easy to pick out a "uniformed" terrorist in a crowd of people that's why we don't have to check everyone at the airport cause they stick out like neon signs. And people won't get angry and want revenge if we decimate their homes, no just like a whole race centuries later aren't still bitter about being enslaved.

 

[brogers]

It's called war maniclion, someone has to be destroyed in order for there to be victory. Either destroy the enemy, or don't start the war.

 

[maniclion]

It's called our boys shouldn't be policing a civil war. It's hard to tell if the lady running at you from the blast of a car bomb screaming is a friend or foe so you pop her in the head only to find out from the embedded journalist who speaks Arabic she was yelling for help with her child pinned under the rubble.

 

[Decker]

It's called war maniclion, someone has to be destroyed in order for there to be victory. Either destroy the enemy, or don't start the war.

We started the illegal war...Iraq did not. Either we are a country that honors the law or we are not. Illegally attacking another country for oil, or est. strategic military bases, or to bring democracy to the middle east is still an illegal act. Mass murder don't help either. All war is a crime, but some wars are justified. This invasion is not. We are a country founded upon law and we should aspire to follow the law. Arbitrary compliance is anarchy.

 

[ZECH]

Democracy does not guarantee stability. What if the democratically elected leaders turn out coincidentally to support Al Qaeda? Democracy is a type of government giving voice to all citizens....that's all it can do theoretically. The hatred of foreign intervention by middleeastern countries goes back centuries, the hatred of the US goes back decades, the different ethnic tribes in the middle east have feuds going back hundreds of years. How on earth is a democracy going to change any of that?

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Maybe it doesn't guarantee it, but it has a darn better chance than anything they have to offer. If they get to be too many "of them" here, I guess its time for the militias to step up! When it comes to the survival of the USA, don't be fooled. We will do whatever it takes to stay on top. If that means taking over Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia or whoever, don't think it couldn't happen. We need to be like Australia. "We won't adapt to your ways. If you don't like our ways, go back!"

 

[DOMS]

There's nothing to dodge. What is lame is your inability to really produce anything other than your own untrained analysis which typically reflects the right wing's inability to accept responsibility for their own interpretation of information.

And I'm supposed to find an unbiased, official, study on whether or not the news is unbiased?

Ha...hahah...hahah.hahahahahahaha...bwahahahaahaa...

You're funny.

Now try and answer the question: which major new sources are not biased.

 

[DOMS]

With that commitment to idealism, it is no wonder that conservatives who whine about the "liberal" media end up doing nothing more than reproducing media in their own version of reality. . .and then wonder why they are considered hypocrites.

What few government regulations were in effect to promote fairness in media were replaced by a Republican-sponsored doctrine to mold it more into a market-driven product. Then they faux-bitch about the results of their own policies. The commitment was to intentionally assault the credibility of media -something that is necessary if the goal is to turn a nation into a tool of the Party elite.

Who said anything about the "liberal media"? I just said that all major new sources were biased. The you go off on one of your standard Angry Left rants and I'm supposed to be the one regurgitating someone else's point of view?

Pathetic.

 

[DOMS]

Great post...it shows us that both party's have involved this potentially great Country in illegal and immoral wars....the only exceptions being WW1 and WW2 which were both wars we had to join.

I almost missed this. You and I are agreeing on something?

I'm pretty sure that one of the signs of the End of Time.

 

[bio-chem]

In WWII, the writing was on the wall as to Hitler's aspirations for world domination--conquering most of Europe. The US population was largely isolationist just years removed from WWI. FDR recognized that the US had to be a player in the war or risk overwhelming enemy forces down the road. So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.

The Viet Nam war was initiated on the premise of the Domino Theory for the spread of communism. That theory has few credible supporters anymore. But in comparing Viet Nam war w/ the Iraqi invasion, I'd say its a matter of misguided policy and inept execution that binds the two. Both military excursions were 'cold wars' fought for purposes other than defense of our country. Whatever speculations I might entertain, I think it's fair to say that the comparison btn Iraq and Viet nam is more apt than that of WWII.

the invasion of defenseless iraq? are you serious? this can't possisbly be a serious post. is it? you are talking about a country that was left with a standing military at the end of the gulf war. they had what? 30 divisions defending their borders when we invaded with 3. the country that used chemical weapons to kill 8 million of its ethinic citizens and fought neighboring iran to a stand still for 8 years in the 80's. the country that invaded and took over its smaller and weaker neighbor kuwait in the 90's. yep sounds defenseless to me. to even post with anything stating that iraq was defenseless and has had its rights trampled on by the US is an outrage. and borders on stupidity.

if you agree with the war in iraq or not is fine and i dont have any problem with those who disagree with my opionion. i love to read healthy and intelligent debates, but how can we have a post with the point of view showing iraq was a poor defenseless country that had done nothing wrong and didnt deserve the big, bad US coming in and trampling their rights is asinine. the fact is sadam hussien and his government were evil. now if you feel we should have continued using useless diplomatic solutions with them is another story, but please dont disgrace our soldiers by insinuating we are picking on a helpless country and forcing our will upon them. that simply is not the case

 

[Rich46yo]

The Iraq war was not illegal. Saddam violated the original cease fire agreement, and then numerous UN declarations, so many times it almost impossable to keep count. Just because the Politicized UN is incapable of enforcing world peace and backing up its lawfull orders doesnt mean we are doing anything illegal by doing so. The first time Saddam violated the cease fire agree ment we had lawfull authority to go in and put his head on a spike. I think the last count was he violated 19 UN resolutions. What a joke!

Instead we sat around for ten years while Saddam fucked with the inspectors, played a shell game with his WMD assets, shot at allied warplanes policeing the no-fly zone, and thumbed his nose at the International cummunity. He bought off the pimps at the United Nations with sweetheart oil deals and other cash cows. The International media was easy. All he had to do was let them be themsleves.

My only regret was we werent ruthless enough. Anybody suspected of terrorism should get one trial in front of a military tribunal and if found guilty hung by the neck the next day. Fuck world opinion!

 

[kbm8795]

And I'm supposed to find an unbiased, official, study on whether or not the news is unbiased?

Ha...hahah...hahah.hahahahahahaha...bwahahahaahaa...

You're funny.

Now try and answer the question: which major new sources are not biased.

Don't ask other people to do your homework.

 

[kbm8795]

Who said anything about the "liberal media"? I just said that all major new sources were biased. The you go off on one of your standard Angry Left rants and I'm supposed to be the one regurgitating someone else's point of view?

Pathetic.

That was hardly an "Angry Left" rant. Wingnuts still struggle with the concept that others prefer to think for themselves; in their parallel universe, everything is simply black-or-white, with-us-or-against-us. That provides little foundation for grasping anything outside such rigid boxes.

You made a statement based on little substance or real knowledge of the history or influences of American media, nor any reference to Republican policies which have encouraged the growth of competitive media practices. It also doesn't consider the inherent biases within the audience itself.

The concept of "bias" has become a popular wingnut talking point when trying to defend their often deliberate deflection in reporting the news. Then they use the bias argument to explain that media is all junk anyway, and it really has little credibility because, like themselves, it is full of inherent bias. The goal remains to reduce public confidence in the media in order to remove any status of function as a watchdog for the public.

You might start by developing an understanding of the differences in defining bias within the media and the safeguards formerly constructed to minimize that influence. Those would be the very safeguards that Republicans desperately fight to keep removed.

 

[Mudge]

For those who don't remember .
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA.

And man is he an idiot, he asked for it HARDCORE.

 

[myCATpowerlifts]

Good posts and rebuttals! I'm learning alot about history and government
that I don't learn in social studies class.

 

[DOMS]

Don't ask other people to do your homework.

Just as I thought, you can't name one and are trying to back out.

Fucking pathetic.

I stand by what I said: there are no unbiased major news sources. Either political or financial agendas prevent that.

And no, the voices in your head don't count as a major news source.

 

[DOMS]

Those would be the very safeguards that Republicans desperately fight to keep removed.

And again, your Angry Left mentality leaks out. And let me guess, if the source is against the current administration, they're just enacting those safeguards, but if the source is in favor of the current administration it's being biased.

One more time: utterly-fucking-pathetic.

As a conservative, I state that you can't find a source that's not biased. As a member of the Angry Left, you seem to imply that there are unbiased sources, but can't name any.

You can end this debate right now by naming just one source, but you can't because there are none, but you must cling to the idea that the New York Times or the Washington Post are saying like it is, completely unbiased.

Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[GFR]

Good posts and rebuttals! I'm learning alot about history and government
that I don't learn in social studies class.

Try reading a book sometime

 

[bio-chem]

I agree with this insightful logic...I for one have to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Iraq air force was disgusting and clearly an act of war.

Great post dg806

iraq attacked pearl harbor and you still think our war with them is illegal

 

[kbm8795]

Just as I thought, you can't name one and are trying to back out.

Fucking pathetic.

I stand by what I said: there are no unbiased major news sources. Either political or financial agendas prevent that.

And no, the voices in your head don't count as a major news source.

Yawn. What is pathetic is that you can't quite understand that your own political agenda prevents you from always identifying bias as an original intent.

 

[kbm8795]

And again, your Angry Left mentality leaks out. And let me guess, if the source is against the current administration, they're just enacting those safeguards, but if the source is in favor of the current administration it's being biased.

Guessing usually isn't a component of accuracy.

One more time: utterly-fucking-pathetic.

Arrogance never wears very convincingly on the Right.

As a conservative, I state that you can't find a source that's not biased. As a member of the Angry Left, you seem to imply that there are unbiased sources, but can't name any.

I'm not even sure you know what a conservative is. . .let alone have any knowledge about this subject. Since you aren't even sure what the journalistic definition of bias is, how would you know if a source was without clouding your own judgement through your own political bias?

Again, media bias is one of the most oft-repeated arguments by the Right. The purpose is to destroy credibility in the media so to reduce a role as a watchdog for the public. In its place, we get the non-stop talking heads like Rush, O'Reilly and Jeff Gannon whose irresponsibility is explained away by "conservatives" as excuseable because bias is inherent.

You can end this debate right now by naming just one source, but you can't because there are none, but you must cling to the idea that the New York Times or the Washington Post are saying like it is, completely unbiased.

This isn't a debate. You haven't done your homework

Whatever makes you feel better.

I feel just fine, thanks.

 

[Big Smoothy]

dg308:

This is rationalization at its finest.

1. Rationalizing the homicide rate of Detroit with Iraq.

Apples and oranges.


2. Comparing Iraq with WWII is shameful.

There is no comparison.

 

[maniclion]

And again, your Angry Left mentality leaks out. And let me guess, if the source is against the current administration, they're just enacting those safeguards, but if the source is in favor of the current administration it's being biased.

One more time: utterly-fucking-pathetic.

As a conservative, I state that you can't find a source that's not biased. As a member of the Angry Left, you seem to imply that there are unbiased sources, but can't name any.

You can end this debate right now by naming just one source, but you can't because there are none, but you must cling to the idea that the New York Times or the Washington Post are saying like it is, completely unbiased.

Whatever makes you feel better.

These sources are unbiased.

ftp://216.54.96.55/pub/doc_013.pdf
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=2&page=pdf#
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html


Bias can only be undone through pure realization, not interpretation.

 

[DOMS]

These sources are unbiased.

ftp://216.54.96.55/pub/doc_013.pdf
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=2&page=pdf#
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html


Bias can only be undone through pure realization, not interpretation.

And none of them are major news sources.

 

[DOMS]

I feel just fine, thanks.

I'm sure you do.

OK, let's try a different tact. Since the question "Name one unbiased major new source" seems to confuse you, let's try this:

Are any of these news sources unbiased?

• FOX News
• New York Times
• BBC
• Al Jazeera