Censorship in the media

[Stratos]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: Look, if all Europeans really thought that America did 'the right thing', don't you think we would have given you our full support then?

Not really. I recall reading about a scene between Charles DeGaull and Dwight Eisenhower regarding D-Day preparations. It appears that some leaders would cut off their nose to spite their faces.....It appears to me that in the world of international politics "Right" has very little to do with final decisions in most cases...as long as you can get kickbacks from oil sales with a sadistic dictator...you can conveniently overlook the use of Chemical Weapons on the various factions....and the mass killings of whole populations in other countrys.

The US may have dirty hands in some cases (note: I say MAY)...but I see a lot of people living in glass houses throwing stones.
[/QUOTE]Oh come on, do you really think that Europe objects to some of US's action just to give you the finger?

Europe and the US really wants the same thing, defeating or minimizing terrorism, we just want to use slightly different methods.

Here's an example that we can still cooperate. Even those countries opposed to the war is expected to accept this.

Edit: Talk about off-topic...

[ 06-27-2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[promethius9594]

my example was jacques chirac, who, in a meeting with president bush, admitted that the world and iraq is a better place now that saddam has been deposed.

if deposing saddam was a good action that makes the world a better place, where was all the support? oh, thats right... that support was for the most lucrative oil contract that any country had with iraq.

[Donut]

Originally posted by skywalker: In Britain a vest = T-shirt. You know, the kind that doesn't have sleeves on them. Mark

Actually Mark I believe you call them "undershirts". Anyways - real men don't wear them!

[promethius9594]

Anyways - real men don't wear them!

they do when they wear a suit with a white shirt. uneducated men don't, in those circumstances.

[Donut]

Vests are worn to keep you warm.

Originally posted by Stratos: Oh come on, do you really think that Europe objects to some of US's action just to give you the finger? Europe and the US really wants the same thing, defeating or minimizing terrorism, we just want to use slightly different methods. Here's an example that we can still cooperate. Even those countries opposed to the war is expected to accept this. Edit: Talk about off-topic...

Oh I know that Europe and the USA and many other nations all have various causes in common, what I do think though is that for our own good (the USA) we should re-examine our treaties and alliances and our force deployments to better serve modern day needs..the Cold War is over..so we really need no bases in Western Europe to Counter Cold War Enemies or to prop up local economies. NATO has pretty much served it's purpose and should also be either done away with or rebuilt with a new focus and objective.....as for the UN....well...it was a nice idea..but I think its a long shot from what it's founding members originally imagined it to become.....I think it's just time to clean house and re-think strategies.

Originally posted by Stratos: Yeah, you're right. What's right has unfortunately little to do international politics. Or rather, it's only a part of it. Ultimately, I see the war in Iraq, for example, as an attempt to create some form of stability in the very oil rich Gulf Region. Instability in that region would affect oil prices, and since our societies are dependent on oil, our economies. By creating democracies in the Middle East, stability would hopefully follow and there would be less risk of an oil crisis. But that's ultimately also a selfish reason, isn't it?

That is exactly what proppingup Saddam in his war with Iran was for as well. AND it was done for all the nations of the West not just the USA. The USSR in dire need could have developed their own extensive oil reserves..they may actually have more oil than the Middle East(if they still existed that is).....but not everyone wants to look all the way round the issue.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Stratos: There's only a limited amount of ruckus little Sweden can cause about Sudan, especially when there's thirty or so other hotspots around the World that needs a good fixin'. Further, there are no other forums Sweden can use except the UN and possibly the EU. Despite what we think about the UN, it's the only one of it's kind and the only organization that can be even remotely close to actually accomplishing something. The only alternative is military actions by individual nations or groups of nations, and only superpowers or other large nations can do that. The conflict in Sudan, like most other conflicts in Africa, is very complex and requires a very well-planned plan and probably alot of time to get any good results.

Whats so complex about people killing each other? You go in and kick everybody's rear-ends, anyone with a weapon is considered an enemy and is shot on sight. All the time wasted on talking about how much time it's going to take is more time that people are being killed!! Why don't any of these other country's gov'ts plan for this kind of possibility and increase their military budgets so they can do something? After all the history of the Human race is full of these kinds of things. Why can't Sweden send troops it's not like Sweden has an enemy boardering it wanting to invade? 3 or 4 other countries together could have troops there in a couple of days, since everybody knows the USA RUSHED to war in Iraq. A much bigger opperation so something this small shouldn't take much time to do.

Here's a bit of Media Censorship....why hasn't any major news service pointed out what the 9/11 Commission determined in article 15 of it's finding? A paraphrased synopsis is :

"President Bush' War on terror, (not just the action in Iraq and Afghanistan here the whole war) has crippled Al-Queda's ability to mount and carry out spectacular works of terror such as was seen on 9/11"

Seems to me that would be a lead story....but then..it points to the wrong guy doing something right.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by MagiK: Here's a bit of Media Censorship....why hasn't any major news service pointed out what the 9/11 Commission determined in article 15 of it's finding? A paraphrased synopsis is : "President Bush' War on terror, (not just the action in Iraq and Afghanistan here the whole war) has crippled Al-Queda's ability to mount and carry out spectacular works of terror such as was seen on 9/11" Seems to me that would be a lead story....but then..it points to the wrong guy doing something right.

Now, now, now MagiK You know censorship is only a function of the Gov't when it comes to something that might help President Bush. If a company like the NY times chooses of it's own free will to Not relsease something good for President Bush, it exercising it's freedom of the press/speach. But if a company let's say Disney decides to not release something anti President Bush it's censorship.Or if a company like Clear Channel decides not to run a radio progam it's censorship.

You got to get your Mind right MagiK
SO I'll have to give you a lesson, and to show you what a nice guy I am, I'll not charge you.

Left do what it wants GOOD!

Right do anything BAD!

[ 06-29-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]