Bush Terrorists and the war.

that's why you look for different sources and perspectives. and READ once in a while. it's really much better than watching news that covers an issue in a few minutes.
 
what makes it "fair and balanced", is how the interviews are from both sides of a situation, and you can easily detect BOTH sides of the story, when its being reported.
 
whoawhoawhoawhoa, dont go telling Alpine3 to READ once and a while, cause I'll tell you right now that hes one of the better educated and informed than half the kids on this site. And also guess what articles are...media!! Papers like The New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times are worse than half the news stations out there. Most newspapers take up space with absolute bullshit, because once again, it sells.
 
well saying that he's smarter than half the kids on here is not saying much... at all. again i would like to point out to you that any information you get comes from the media. also you still havent answered that question i've asked you twice.
 
Yeah man i wasn't trying to bash your thoughts. I was just trying to give examples of them. The thing about Russia is they are too caught up with themselves to accept help from us right now.
 
I think that most of you seem to have forgotten the main reason that America and the UK declared war on Iraq, namely weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found so the shift of propoganda focused on terrorism. The war in Iraq will create more hatred and enemies of the US than by any other means. Hearing 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence is ludicrous.

We all love democracy and the freedom of speach and yet we commit crimes such as Guantanamo Bay. Holding suspects without trial for years on end. This is illegal and a disgrace to the US way of freedom and rights of individuals.

The world is more unstable as a result of the war in Iraq and democracy is not the answer for the Middle East. I suspect that if North Korea had oil reserves then Iraq wouldn't even be on the George Bush 'to do' list.

Power is control and we are seeing this right before our very eyes. Speaking up against Bush is not being anti American or unpatriotic...it's about seeking the truth that is so often distorted by those in power.

l8rs
 
the war is fucking retarded people from the us are dying over there for nothing.. why the hell do we always get involved in shit that we dont need to be in its a waste of time money a lives.. yeah its good iraq is "liberated" but either way too many people have already died from stupid ass sand niggers who just set bombs in the sand and wait for a hummer to run over it.. its bull shit
 
the syracuse newspaper just wrote an editorial about a Zogby/Le Moyne poll of soldiers in Iraq. it found that "42 percent of soldiers are unclear of their mission" and that 85% believed the war was stared in "retaliation of Saddams role in 9/11"
 
see, now you're just being retarded. newspapers are a type of media. media is a business that thrives off of its readers, or viewers. And guess how you attract readers and viewers....with a good story. Think about it, if somebody walks up to a newspaper stand, and there are 2 papers sitting there, and one is titled "The war is going well" and the other states "12 men killed in 3 bomb suicide insurgent attack". which one is the person more likely to pick up?
 
now for your question.

It really is sad, but not many people can be trusted for credible inormation. you actually answered your own question when you said that you must read and look around and read into an issue, to get more than one take on it.
 
k, wow quit your fucking bitching.

apparently I can make an arguement, because look at all the posts that I have in this thread, as far I as know, maybe 2 dont state something relevant to the thread.

ok, i'll give you that many soldiers dont want to be in Iraq, I dont see why they would. But Im sure that if you ask them if they think they are doing good over there they'll say yes. Everyday, more schools and banks are being put up, and the government being rebuilt, and the way of life is being changed for everyone everywhere.
 
yes, but that doesn't change the statistic that was cited to a reputable polling company. I never even read the editorial, the statistic is what i find telling.

And wikipedia is not a reliable source of information since anyone can go on there and edit it. although it is usually correct.
 
This was the whole point of that statistic. You put all this blind faith in the soldiers and there opinions, when in reality they often don't know what the fuck is going on. while serving in the military is honorable, it in no way makes them right about everything, including the situation in iraq. Since 85% of the soldiers think that we are involved in Iraq in response to Hussein's involvement in 9/11, that shows that most of them are pretty naive and unaware of the truth, since saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and Hussein and Bin Laden are radically different, and would never team up or work together.
 
I like how you keep on saying reputable polling company. does this reputable company have a name?

and also you controdicted yourself by saying that Wikipedia is not reliable, but most of the time correct.....if something is most of the time correct, then it is quite reliable. common sense could tell you what an editorial means.
 
twintipteles.. did your mother refuse you a tit when u were a young lad? is that why u are very perturbed?

haha jkjk
 
i didnt say that they are right. THough they know Hell of alot more about the situation then you do. I donno what the is up with that poll, but it is common knowledge that they are 2 completely different wars. and If they dont know that then its not cause the military didnt tell them.

- If the military wont tell its soldiers about something, what makes you think that they would tell the rest of the countrymeaning the media
 
Reliable: adj: Worthy of reliance or trust.

Wikipedia is often wrong. As i said, most of the time it is correct, but it is still sometimes wrong, hence it is not reliable.

And i know what the fuck an editorial is, the only thing i have been reffering to is the Poll, which was done by an independant company, and has nothing to do with what was said in the editorial.
 
i've got a poll for you:

58% of Americans think that the gonvernment has been doing a good job with the war on terror.

34% feel otherwise and that it has not been handled correctly

foxnews.com

and im not gonna bother to get in a fight with you over whether an encyclapedia is reliable or not.
 
wikipedia is not a verified encyclopedia though, read the very first sentence on their main page: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"

Gee, something where anyone can edit articles sounds really reliable to me!
 
first off, that entire thing is speculation, there is no solid evidence, just some videotapes that we don't know what the fuck is on them. We've known for quite a while that Saddam wanted WMDs. Further, how the fuck are we defining WMD's? I always thought it referred to nuclear weapons, but apparently chemical and biological weapons count too.

This part is classic

"HOEKSTRA: we know that the weapons existed at one time. He used them. Everybody acknowledges that worldwide"

He forgot to mention that the first bush administrations sold Saddam the technology to create the weapons, and that Rumsfeld was in charge of relations and didn't do shit to stop it.
 
just for you salomonski22, I will quote myself.

-and actually as of yesterday. the likely hood of a civil war was greatly decreased with U.S. victories.

-President Bush isnt running for election

-your last point was just udderly stupid
 
just for people who decide not to read that entire article, the tapes were never used as evidence. the article only writes that people are suspecting these new tapes are evidence of WMD. the article cites nothing from the content of the tape, and i dont want you to think you won anything with this.
 
lol WMD doesn't specify what is catagorised there. so yes.. chemical and biological weaponds count.. considering they casue just as much casualities as nukes and such
 
-source, please? if it was in the foxnews article, i didn't find it. tell me if it was, and i'll read it over.

-i never said he was. the polls asked whether americans thought he was doing a good job or not, indicating his strength as president.

-i'll give you that because they're only rumors.
 
"they cause just as much casualities as nukes and such"

Wow, you really have no clue what you're talking about.

Anyways, what is your response to the fact that the republican party basically gave these weapons to Saddam 16 yrs ago?
 
-no, it was not a fox news article. it sadly enough was on my local news and havent heard much about since(it was yesterday evening) and it wasnt on tonight or this morning.

-how would the president lose power if people dont like him? that doesnt change his position.
 
I havent heard that, but if its true, then yes it was stupid. Though what did Clinton do for it as president? nothing. all he did was get poon from some 30 year old fat chick.
 
I posted this earlier, definitely worth reading. Basically, Clinton wouldn't have had to have handled shit, had Bush sr. not dicked it up. To be clear though, I'm not much of a clinton fan, and he had terrible environmental policies. I still think he did a far better job than bush though.
 
well here is a link to the syracuse news story with the polls, which is actually in no way an editorial.

http://www.syracuse.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1141207012323480.xml?syrnesreg&coll=1&thispage=1

here are all the results of the polls that were used in the article:

-72% believe bush should bring all troops home within 12 months

-more than a quarter said american troops should leave immediately

-42% are unclear of the US' role in iraq (already stated)

-85% believe they are there "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks" as the main reason or a major reason (already stated)

-23% believe they are there "to build a democratic model for the region."

-75% believe they are there to stop Saddam from protecting al-Qaida

-68% believe they are there to remove saddam from power

the poll was conducted between jan 18th - feb 14th, and is said to have a plus or minus 3.3 % margin of error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top