It was the expectation that invasion of Iraq would lead to the world's largest oil reserves being controlled by a US-friendly government, and fear of what might happen if they were controlled by a US-hostile government, that caused Bush to act. You may remember that in the immediate post-war chaos, US soldiers guarded oil installations while the museums were looted.Bush and Cheney did not have the brains to realise (as Bush senior did) that maintaining stability in Iraq after Hussein would be difficult. Nevertheless, oil is flowing out of Iraq, though less than there might have been.Yes, in the hospital in Kuwait City - no, it turned out, after many more people present at the time were interviewed, that there was no truth in it at all.
-
9/11 Predicted on Lone Gunmen Pilot Episode
-
we have our own oil, thanks(shhhh, don't tell George)
-
hmmmmnot sure where those numbers come from. We actually import 0. (it's the coal to New Castle scenerio) We supply more to the US than Saudi Arabia doesAnd we sent our troops to the country that the terrorists actually came from. We're funny like thatno, we're not an island and we do need friends. We just choose not to make friends by invading them
-
the CIA was no doubt getting it's information from the aliens and their mind control bureau. Don't forget to wear your foil hat!I'll try to look up the statistics. I was told this by oil guys when I was at an industrial trade show in Alberta.And if you can't insult your friends, who can you insult? I'll try to come up with an appropriat reward for you if you keep your mouth shut... although that sounds counterintuative
-
Originally Posted By: RadI just can't believe that, with it's heritage, the US is presenting an altered, biased diet of news.I find the U.S. mainstream news extraordinarily biased. But even if one doesn't accept that as true, it can still be argued that it's just awful. There used to be such a thing as "investigative journalism" and an understanding in journalistic circles that the essential quality of a true reporter is skepticism. Today, an enormous percentage of what is reported is taken directly from government agency press releases with no independent verification. Within the last month or so was a remarkable report about a particular example of this regarding the numerous "independent" military experts that are used repeatedly on network news. (This includes a lot of the retired generals you often see.) It turns out that these people were actually being briefed by the pentagon and paid by the military to put the pentagon's desired spin on their "independent" reports. One of the people I read on this pointed out the fact that not one network reported this story. Nor did most newspapers, and it was, in my view, an extraordinarily important story. It is very rare that we get any news that presents more than one side or perspective on an issue.
-
I saw the film myself...it was not in error.
-
there really isn't any news presented without an editorial slant unless there is unedidted news.I've generally found the CBC to be pretty straight but that could also mean that I just don't notice a bias.In the US, there is an interestiong thing that has happened. In the early days of the FCC, they mandated a certain amout of "public service" form their licenced broadcasters. This commitememnt was generally fulfilled by news. A while ago, that precentage of mandadted public service was reduced so the amount of news lessened. Now, even if you watch CNN, you'll notice that there really isn't so much news. There are several talk shows and pundantry. The end result is that the good citizens are starved of information, especially international news. The best way for a dictator to control the populace is to keep them ill-informed be the primary source of information. ponder that for a moment
-
Originally Posted By: RadWhat can the news do besides report what is released to them by whatever sources are available.I think I'd still take what's fed up to us by our government over what's fed up to the press by other governments.I think you're missing the point. Journalists should not rely on what is fed to them by the government. It used to be a fundamental axiomatic understanding of real journalists that information released by government agencies is always suspect because it is tied to an agenda of those agencies. The news should NOT merely uncritically report what is released to them. Jounalists should seek their own sources to try to confirm those stories and find out the facts. Otherwise the media simply becomes a pure propaganda service much like the infamous Tass news service of the old Soviet Union. I'll try tomorrow to see if I can find a few of the articles I've read on the pentagon program. The disturbing thing about it was that when some of the major network anchors were informed about this- that they had been used this way- they didn't even seem to understand or care that they had been used. I don't know of specific newspapers that practice an older style of journalism. But I think there are some sources that try to do investigative reports. NPR occasionally does lengthy stories that involve investigative reporting. Bill Moyers journal on PBS TV occasionally devotes a full hour to background information on some stories. Though I haven't gotten it in a while, the New York Review of Books occasionally does lengthy pieces of value. Personally, I put a great deal more weight on columns and lengthier more academic style articles about current events than I do on headline style news reports.
-
I suspect part of the problem is that people are relying more and more on television news rather than print media. The US has been known for some very high-quality newspapers - of course of lower readership than the lower-quality papers. US broadcast journalism, however, has tended to pitch more at that tabloid market. (However, there is still some decent reporting from the ABC that is used here.)Rad, it's rare that a news agency deliberately lies. What is of more significance is whether it attempts to verify the accuracy of its sources, how it selects its stories, and the main angle (the headline) given to them. There are economic imperatives: an article, for example, that impugns dearly-held conceptions can be very expensive to its publishers' advertising revenue.
-
What I would really like is to see the news media make an occasional attempt to NOT slant stores by trying to be more factual, and to report far more broadly. I'm surprised at your perception that the news we hear is not slanted in our favor; I don't see it that way. We get very, very little about the other side of issues in our news. Why should a news story about Austrailia be anti-Australia? I really don't understand that.
-
You seem to be making a logical non-sequitur here, Rad. It just doesn't follow that if a US news publisher suppressed stories that showed the US in a bad light, that they would automatically specially run stories to show other nations in a bad light. One would rather expect that, where US interests were not at issue, they would default to an impartial and professional attitude.Articles about the US here do not show any noticeable anti-US bias. It is the disparity between the words and the actions of the US government that have caused ill-feeling in the rest of the world.
-
You think you saw in a film babies being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait by Iraqis? Are you the last person in the world who believes in that hoax? If you don't put up credible evidence, I'll have to conclude that you are a credulous person, willing to cling to anything that supports his beliefs, no matter how absurd. Has anyone found any parent whose baby was tossed out?Does the word "belief" not have any resonance for you unless it's preceded by "absolute"? You seem to categorize everything into "good" and "bad". There's never a shade of gray. Apparently everything the U.S. government is true and correct, just as the bible is.On the matter of Iraq's WMDs being transported out of the country before the U.S. invasion, much has been said of trucks crossing the borders out of Iraq. Assuming it's true, for all we know the trucks contained stacks of $20's and Hussein's favorite furniture. There is no evidence that they contained any kind of weapon, other then some people's desperate need to believe. Far be it for the U.S. to make a mistake.Do you have any evidence that there were any WMDs on those alleged trucks? Any evidence at all? And is there any doubt in your belief, in either case?In any case, the term "weapon of mass destruction" originally applied to nuclear weapons, and it's hard to believe that the U.S. could have made a plausible case to invade Iraq without the belief that Hussein had an operation nuclear weapons program. It now seems very clear that he did not.The Downing Street Memo (pdf) exposes what the Bush administration really believed, before the invasion, but that's another story.
-
Originally Posted By: HClYou think you saw in a film babies being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait by Iraqis? Are you the last person in the world who believes in that hoax? If you don't put up credible evidence, I'll have to conclude that you are a credulous person, willing to cling to anything that supports his beliefs, no matter how absurd. Has anyone found any parent whose baby was tossed out?You must be confusing me with somebody else. Quote:On the matter of Iraq's WMDs being transported out of the country before the U.S. invasion, much has been said of trucks crossing the borders out of Iraq. Assuming it's true, for all we know the trucks contained stacks of $20's and Hussein's favorite furniture. There is no evidence that they contained any kind of weapon, other then some people's desperate need to believe. Far be it for the U.S. to make a mistake.The video I saw showed trucks containing barrels. I don't think on the eve of his downfall Saddam was too worried about getting out just a few more barrels of oil, do you? Then there's that pilot's book and the testimoney of the Syrian defector. Fortunately for all of us, 2 + 2 still equals 4 in this world. But I'm equally sure there will always be some who will have to be gassed themselves in order to believe it exists. Quote:Do you have any evidence that there were any WMDs on those alleged trucks? Oh-ho, so now the trucks themselves are alleged? How soon do we get to talking about the alleged air over there that allowed Saddam to allegedly breath? Speaking of trucks, I think you've just about run out of gas.
-
Actually the U.N. was the one that coined the term Weapons of Mass Destruction. They were referring to the chemical weapons Saddam and his psychotic cousin (Chemical Ali) were using on the Kurds who were supporting and sending supplies to Iran. Iran is the country we need to watch about gaining a nuke. Because once they have it, they'll bomb Israel. Then it'll be huge arms race and lots of nukes leftover from the Cold War will enter into Afghanistan and then every country will hold one and there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East. That is why we cannot leave Iraq. I'm predicting God will be coming back sometime in the next 50 years because the Middle East is slowly but surely getting out of control. Especially after the invention of the nuclear bomb and the 10,000 or so nukes sitting in the backyard of the Middle East a.k.a USSR.
-
Rad, I don't have time right now to talk at length about disparities, and it's probably too much of a distraction to the thread - but I'm thinking about things like preaching free trade while practising subsidies to farmers so that more efficient farmers elsewhere cannot compete; and preaching human rights while practising torture, mistreatment of prisoners of war, detention without trial, and denial of international treaties and law.
-
I have a life, Rad, with family to look after.Australia doesn't subsidise crops as the US and Europe do. We're not talking about emergency relief when crops are bad - we're talking about cash handouts when crops are good. Nor does Africa have subsidies. It cannot afford it, and its farmers' ability to export to the West has been virtually wiped out by Western agricultural subsidies. Subsidies have exactly the same effect as tariffs on imports, preventing them from being able to compete fairly, and they also distort exports.Any nation, of course, has the right to be protectionist if it wishes. I understand Obama is a protectionist. What is sickening is the hypocrisy of preaching one principle while practising the opposite.The other things aren't all about the current war, though that has brought them to particular attention. Guantanamo in particular was a serious shock to the international community, though far from the only one. These matters are no longer being fought out in the courts, which have already ruled on the matter, including that habeas corpus doesn't apply. Pleading ignorance is merely intellectual cowardice.You're not likely to get much more oil any time soon, since the adventure was an almighty cock-up. This is not a good time to try to plan for the future, though worse for the younger generations we shall leave behind, who will have to pay for our generation's lack of principle.
-
don't know if this is big news to the American media no one wnts to know about torture or violations of the Geneva Convention by Americans uppon a Canadian citizen
-
Originally Posted By: Ineligible...preaching human rights while practising torture, mistreatment of prisoners of war, detention without trial, and denial of international treaties and law. I think you need to find a way to back this up. Most of this is "straw-man" in nature, at best...but that's the problem when you get all your data from the modern media. How about a few examples, just for fun?
-
I'm not defending Omar other than he has been the victim off an illegal act by the US government. He is also, obviously a product/victim of his radical father.
But, when it comes to justice, the ends don't always justify the means.
Omar is a citizen of and allied country with whom the US has extradition treaties.
He was also 15 which puts him in the category of "Child Combatant"
He has been tortured through severe sleep depravation a.k.a. the frequent flyer program.and yeah, our government has been embarrasingly impotent on the whole issue but, unfortunatly, Harper is Bush's lap dog.
-
Originally Posted By: Rad Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: Ineligible...preaching human rights while practising torture, mistreatment of prisoners of war, detention without trial, and denial of international treaties and law. I think you need to find a way to back this up. Most of this is "straw-man" in nature, at best...but that's the problem when you get all your data from the modern media. How about a few examples, just for fun? Please quit using that "straw man" junk! It's getting old. Doesn't make it any less true. Since none of the terrorists or those they represent have signed the Geneva Convention, they are technically not prisoners of war, nor do they come under any rules covered by international law. To state such is to create a "straw-man". According to the definitions of the Geneva convention, if you insist on applying them to something they were not designed to cover, terrorists are most akin to spies. During times of war, spies may be shot for no other reason than being spies.As far as I'm concerned, the moment you become a terrorist you forfeit your rights under international law. ALL rights.