Home | Community | Message Board


Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 13 days
A challenge for all.
    #1330307 - 02/24/03 04:12 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

It is the goal of the media to be completely impartial. To report only the facts, and to give equal voice to opposing opinions.

Many feel that the media leans either to the right or the left. Naturally, it's those on the right who feel it leans to the left, and those on the left that feel it leans to the right.

When the facts that the media presents don't fully back up someone's own opinions, they tend to believe that the media is biased against them, whether that is true or not.

The truth is, while the media is often biased in one direction, it tends to stay somewhere in the middle.

The United States is a good example of this. Compare the American media to the media of any other well off western country, and you'll undoubtably find that the american media as a whole, is far more right wing than any of the others. (You can tell me that it's extremely liberally biased if you want, but if that's true, the rest of the world is even more biased.)

So, I challenge anyone here who wants to, to write a brief essay summing up the current situation with Iraq, and to do it without any bias.

This means, giving all of the most relevant information, and not just choosing that information which suits your argument. This also means providing the opinions and arguments from both sides of the debate, and not portraying either side as more accurate or righteous.

A lot of you have very strong opinions on this issue. I'd like to see if you could write something without bias, I'm guessing most people will be unable. Like, someone is going to post an essay and say "I got all of my information from guerillanews.com so that it would be completely accurate".


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblefadedpinkwings
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 120
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: Phluck]
    #1330346 - 02/24/03 04:32 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Without bias? we all have opinions on how things should be.Are you asking everyone to give a mindless analysis of the situation.

Maybe you think that if we mindlessly state the facts we will all arrive at the same conclusion you do. You may be right about that!

Our president(wether you like him or not) and those in government who make the decisions(wether you like it or not) believe that saddam has weapons of mass destruction and bio weapons and is a threat to the world. He is a sworn enemy of the US and would attack us if he thought he could get away with it. So that leaves concerns about sneak attacks and terrorism. I am all for preemptive action .

I believe in the sovereignty of the US so I dont really care what the world thinks.


--------------------
I hope all bleeding hearts Die from bloodloss!!!!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 13 days
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: fadedpinkwings]
    #1330361 - 02/24/03 04:38 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

"Are you asking everyone to give a mindless analysis of the situation."

No, that is not what journalism is. I'm asking you to state only the information that you know is true, and to give an honest, unbiased analysis of the situation.

Something like this:

"He is a sworn enemy of the US and would attack us if he thought he could get away with it."

Counts as 1) Making things up, and 2) Including an obvious bias.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblefadedpinkwings
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 120
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: Phluck]
    #1330380 - 02/24/03 04:47 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Ha! Saying that saddam is a sworn enemy of the US is a fabrication? You are insanely biased in saying that! are you stupid beyond belief.

What it boils down to is that you do not even believe your own ears! delusional is probably a better term than stupid.

Only the facts? it is all in what facts you choose to believe. I have seen enough to believe that saddam is a sworn enemy of the US. since you are from canada it does not suprise me that you don't give a shit.


--------------------
I hope all bleeding hearts Die from bloodloss!!!!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 13 days
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: fadedpinkwings]
    #1330411 - 02/24/03 05:00 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

"Ha! Saying that saddam is a sworn enemy of the US is a fabrication? You are insanely biased in saying that! are you stupid beyond belief."

Saying he would attack if he could get away with it is 100% speculation.

"I have seen enough to believe that saddam is a sworn enemy of the US."

Tell us what you have seen to make you believe this, not what you believe.

I'm not trying to start a debate, or to have anyone take sides here. I want to see if anyone can write an unbiased version of the situation.

I'm working on my own right now, I'm sure I'll have flaws in mine, just like everyone else.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineflow
outlaw immortal
Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 496
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: Phluck]
    #1330534 - 02/24/03 05:50 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Saying he would attack if he could get away with it is 100% speculation.




he attacked kuwait because he thought he could get away with it, not 100% speculation, more like 75%


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleG a n j a
Pictish and proud
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 7,860
Loc: Zone ate
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: flow]
    #1330677 - 02/24/03 06:56 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Funnily enuff kuwait and america are different countrys.For one america was never owned by iraq were as kuwait was.America is not a next door neighbour to iraq,kuwait is.Kuwait was never a friend or supplyer to iraq america was.
So because one attacks one does not make it likely for one to attack another.Under this logic america is a threat to britain as america once attacked vietnam.


--------------------
er


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: flow]
    #1330696 - 02/24/03 07:02 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

flow writes:

he attacked kuwait because he thought he could get away with it...

Not only did he think he could get away with it, he did get away with it. Hussein has suffered no personal consequences for his actions whatsoever. He is still the Absolute Ruler of Iraq. He still has his hundreds of millions socked away in foreign bank accounts. He still has his fifty palaces, and for sure he hasn't skipped any meals.

*edit* Sorry for the digression, Phluck. I couldn't resist. I am still working on my "essay".

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (02/24/03 07:03 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblefadedpinkwings
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 120
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: G a n j a]
    #1330700 - 02/24/03 07:04 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

england did not fight against us in vietnam. what a horrible analogy!


--------------------
I hope all bleeding hearts Die from bloodloss!!!!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleG a n j a
Pictish and proud
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 7,860
Loc: Zone ate
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: fadedpinkwings]
    #1330710 - 02/24/03 07:10 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Thats because the point is its not an analogy its actually specultaion,as was what i was replying to and is the point of this post.


--------------------
er


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: Phluck]
    #1330717 - 02/24/03 07:14 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Very interesting challenge, Phluck. If I had more time, I might give it a try. (And I have a strong feeling my bias would show!) It sounds like too big a bite to chew for me at the moment.

hongomon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: fadedpinkwings]
    #1330737 - 02/24/03 07:21 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Faded, fair reporting goes beyond "mindless analysis" (isn't that kind of an oxymoron?)

If you want to try, you can help keep it fair by including various perspectives in your article. For example, you can quote Condoleeza Rice with one perspective, and counter it with one from Gore Vidal.

The main thing is keep your own speculation and moral judgement out of it, and try hard to balance those you do present.

And of course, facts (slippery word though it is) help.

hongomon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblefadedpinkwings
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 120
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: G a n j a]
    #1330744 - 02/24/03 07:22 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Under this logic america is a threat to britain as america once attacked vietnam.




If you do not know what an analogy is then you shouldn't use one.

your logic here is illogical and incomplete! when we attacked vietnam britian did not try to run us out of there. When Iraq attacked its neighbor we kicked there ass. Get it?


--------------------
I hope all bleeding hearts Die from bloodloss!!!!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleG a n j a
Pictish and proud
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 7,860
Loc: Zone ate
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: fadedpinkwings]
    #1330906 - 02/24/03 08:34 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

When Iraq attacked its neighbor we kicked there ass. Get it?


No you did it to keep your oil prices low?So your attacking them now to do what?save your selves from harm?not really the home of the brave are you attacking 3 third world countrys in the guise of self protection and trying to play big brother to the world?


but anyway weve gone of topic try doing what phluck suggested and stop wasting your time with me as i think your blinkered and you think im pro sadam which is off topic so er bye brave one.

it beyond me what pluck is asking for as im biased to the point that nothing is worth life not even 2 cents to the gallon


--------------------
er


Edited by G a n j a (02/24/03 08:36 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineflow
outlaw immortal
Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 496
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: G a n j a]
    #1330933 - 02/24/03 08:45 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

are you attacking 3 third world countrys in the guise of self protection and trying to play big brother to the world?




could someone please explain just how iraq is a third world country?? I've seen this posted here many times, and it's just not true.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleG a n j a
Pictish and proud
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 7,860
Loc: Zone ate
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: flow]
    #1330953 - 02/24/03 08:59 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Due to sanctions impossed by our governments iraq is not a well to do place.Still if they were allowed to sell some oil to the french this would change quite fast.


--------------------
er


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheCaptain
addict

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 426
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: Phluck]
    #1331422 - 02/24/03 12:03 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

An essay is comming, if thats what you really want. :smile:
I shudder to think that I am acutally doing this under my own initiative...

But For now!

I didnt write this, but I agree with most of what is stated here...


Who Poses the Biggest Threat?
A Vet on Bush's Hypocrisy on the War Against Iraq
by CHRIS WHITE

I am a Veteran for Peace, and just like every other veteran with a peace agenda, the hypocrisy pervading my military experience largely informs my decision to resist the injustices perpetrated by my own government on the world. Just as it is hypocritical to train millions of men and women to mindlessly kill on command in order to defend the world from evil, the Bush administration's case for war on Iraq is also hypocritical in every aspect.

The president-select, thief in chief, dubya, or whatever his name shall be for the 82 percent of this country that did not vote for him, has three main reasons for invading Iraq: 1) Saddam is an oppressive ruler. 2) Saddam may possess weapons of mass destruction; 3) Saddam may have connections to terrorists. To accurately assess the validity of each reason, we need to both compare the equal record of both ourselves and our allies to each, in order to understand why Iraq is so worthy of invasion.

Reason #1: Saddam is an oppressive ruler. Well, Saudi Arabia has an oppressive monarchy that whips hundreds of children every year, and is brutally oppressive to its female population, and yet it receives massive U.S. military aid because it is a crucial ally. Turkey carries out massive torture and extrajudicial killings each year, and Kurdish culture is punishable by imprisonment, and yet it is a top recipient of U.S. military and economic aid because it is a crucial U.S. ally. Indonesia, Guatemala, Colombia, Pakistan, Israel, China, Russia, and several others also commit massive human rights abuses either against their own people, or against others, such as Russia's role in Chechnya, and yet each is a crucial U.S. ally. Why do we not invade them?

Reason # 2: Saddam may possess WMD. Again, many of our allies possess these. Israel, Pakistan, China, and Russia, to name a few, all possess nuclear weapons, AND oppress people on a large scale, and yet they are not worthy of invasion. But there is much more to this story. The details of the administration's case are also more than fuzzy. The major story in Europe and Australia last week was the revelation that Powell's case before the UN was partly plagiarized. Here's the story, reported very little in the U.S., but widely in the Mirror UK, the New Zealand Herald, and the Guardian: British intelligence, which recently came out with a document stating their belief that NO connection exists between Al Qaeda and Iraq, was also central in the intelligence gathering for Powell's case to be made against Iraq at the UN. It was discovered that "large chunks" of their dossier were taken from academic journals, not intelligence sources.

The most shocking part of this story is that Powell himself has not been entirely discredited. We have a history of lying in order get into war in this country. Whether it was the false declaration that the Mexican army had crossed into U.S. territory in 1846, which legitimated our entry into the Mexican-American War, or the false claim that the Spanish had sunk the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, Cuba in 1898, which justified our entry into the Spanish-American War, or the lies surrounding the Tonkin Gulf resolution of 1964, which facilitated our entry into the Vietnam War, or the false testimony that Iraqi soldiers had murdered incubator babies upon invasion of Kuwait in 1990, further enhancing the desirability of our entry into the first Gulf War in 1991, or a number of other engagements, this country has consistently used half-truths and deception to justify bloodshed. Why should this time be any different?

The Bush administration's deception continues. According the Guardian, Hans Blix dismissed Powell's central claim in his presentation about the alleged mobile biological weapons labs, and he denied that Iraqis had attempted to hide equipment before UNMOVIC arrived. Blix's teams had already searched two of the alleged biological weapons lab vehicles, and stated that they were food-testing trucks. U.S. tips had led him to inspect them in the first place.

Powell, who has been a hawk ever since his days as National Security Advisor to Reagan, according to CNN, recently asserted that the ricin "bouncing around Europe" originated in Iraq. This has been refuted by British and French intelligence, who say "There is no, repeat, no suggestion that the ricin was anything but locally produced." "It was bad quality, not technically sophisticated." Here Powell goes badly off the rails. Although we didn't supply Saddam with ricin, we did supply him with a number of other horrible weapons, all itemized in the Riegle Report, and produced by Congress in 1994. It states that we supplied Saddam with such chemical nerve agents as sarin, soman, tabun, and VX, as well as mustard gas. Of course, this report has only received scant attention from the U.S. mainstream, but it can be downloaded from the web. In short, the Bush administration's case to prove that Saddam has WMD is largely based on plagiarism and hypocrisy.

Reason # 3: Saddam may have connections to terrorists. So do two of our closest allies, and of course, ourselves. According to the New Zealand Herald, Al Qaeda received 1 million dollars from the royal family of Qatar, and according to Newsweek, money that reached the 9/11 hijackers was traced back to an account held by Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington. What would be the response if the same connection were made with Iraq? Of course, we don't have to point out the most obvious hypocritical aspect of all: fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi, and not one was Iraqi.

But, what's so hypocritical about that? After all, we don't apply any of the above standards to ourselves, so why should we apply them to our allies? It could be argued that we fit all three of the criteria cited above beyond any other nation. 1) We support oppression by supplying more military assistance to more nations than any other, by far. Not to mention the fact that we have used our military or CIA to intervene in forty-five nations over the past fifty-eight years, and we are the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilians. 2) We possess more nuclear weapons than any other nation on Earth, period. 3) Our connections to terrorists go deeper than any Muslim nation. We have the School of the Americas (now under new name, but same management), which has turned out hundreds of thousands of Latin American soldiers, many of whom have committed atrocities on a scale that compare to 9/11.

What if the U.S. government were held to the FBI's official definition of terrorism? ("the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives") Would our list of victims be any shorter than Iraq's? How is our military and CIA involvement in the following nations any better than Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or his oppression of his own people?

Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Chile, Granada, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Zaire, Namibia, Lebanon, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Iran, South Africa, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, Cambodia, Libya, Israel, Palestine, China, Afghanistan, Sudan, Indonesia, East Timor, Turkey, Angola, and Somalia.

According a Reuters article from December 26, our own CIA has recently been using tactics bordering on torture to extract information from Afghani prisoners of our bombing campaign that may have cost up to 5,000 civilian lives in and of itself. Who are we to call anyone else the bad guy when not only is our foreign policy history morally bankrupt, but we support some of the worst human rights violators on the planet, and still we claim to have a case against Saddam Hussein, a pebble in a shining sea of oppression that we otherwise hold quite dear to our hearts.

To sum up, the case for invasion of Iraq lacks proof, and is based on plagiarism, false assertions, and lies. In addition, the reasons we use for wanting to invade Iraq could apply to a number of our closest allies in the world. So, if the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq is unfounded, then why do they want to invade? I posit that not only is it for oil, which is certainly central, but it is also for maintaining legitimacy with our allies in the region. Allies such as Kuwait and Israel in particular enjoy the reassurance that we will pressure anyone who menaces them, and we take pride in reassuring them because that maintains our legitimacy as the nation they are dependent on for protection. This also sends the message to other "rogue states" that may get the silly idea to not follow us as their leader.

So, inevitably people will want answers on what we should do with Iraq. First of all, we have to admit that the case to invade could be made in many other countries, all of which are close U.S. allies. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves if we are willing to invade all of them, too. I think we realize that the answer would be a resounding NO, especially since we are talking about nations that, collectively, make up more than half of the Earth's population. So, instead we pick on tiny little Iraq. Does it make the sense they say it does?

Chris White is an ex-Marine infantryman who is currently working on his doctorate in history at the University of Kansas, Lawrence. He served from 1994-98, in Diego Garcia, Camp Pendleton, CA, Okinawa, Japan, and Doha, Qatar. He is also a member of Veterans for Peace. He can be reached at: juliopac@swbell.net

 


--------------------
"I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. 'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 14 days, 7 hours
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: TheCaptain]
    #1331510 - 02/24/03 12:41 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

That is a fanstastic article that mirrors my thoughts as well...Thanks!


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefalcon
In the green

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 6,835
Last seen: 25 minutes, 10 seconds
Re: A challenge for all. [Re: TheCaptain]
    #1331858 - 02/24/03 03:13 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

I concur and would add that many of Al Qaeda prisoners held at Guantanamo are Saudi.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Denial: From Vietnam to Fallujah Zahid 740 9 08/26/04 10:28 PM
by Zahid
* MLK: Beyond Vietnam IgnatiusJReilly 610 5 09/02/07 01:06 PM
by IgnatiusJReilly
* State of the Union address 1992 - hypocrisy/dishonesty 2004 Xochitl 720 7 04/30/04 01:00 AM
by silversoul7
* Nuke London and Washington
( 1 2 all )
Armageddon 1,931 32 01/18/05 06:34 PM
by Armageddon
* Democratic Hypocrisy
( 1 2 all )
SirTripAlot 1,616 27 01/23/08 11:25 PM
by SirTripAlot
* US Generals: Iraq far Graver than Vietnam SquattingMarmot 740 9 09/18/04 01:45 AM
by The_Red_Crayon
* USA violates UN laws and other hypocrisy
( 1 2 all )
Swami 1,497 29 11/01/05 10:51 PM
by Prosgeopax
* China's Hypocrisy
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 1,028 23 02/18/09 03:59 PM
by Virus_with_Shoes

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
608 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.122 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.