NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in Belgium and yesterday we had a documentary on television about Fox News... It is clearly a republican stronghold and in nothing 'Fair and Balanced', what they claim to be.

They support Bush and promote fear for terrorism. In fact they are using everything they can in order to give the victory to Bush.

Some examples:
* Fox news presented the war in Iraq far to victorious, as if all goes well for the people in Iraq now.
* On several occasions people of Fox News spoke about the 'Re-election of Bush' or something like that, instead of speaking about the 'Elections for presidency'
* In "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly was just disgustingly brutal against people with different opinions (saw a fragment with a guy who signed a petition against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, although his father was killed on 9/11).

What do Americans think of this? And what about the other television channels?

I live in Belgium and yesterday we had a documentary on television about Fox News... It is clearly a republican stronghold and in nothing 'Fair and Balanced', what they claim to be.

They support Bush and promote fear for terrorism. In fact they are using everything they can in order to give the victory to Bush.

Some examples:
* Fox news presented the war in Iraq far to victorious, as if all goes well for the people in Iraq now.
* On several occasions people of Fox News spoke about the 'Re-election of Bush' or something like that, instead of speaking about the 'Elections for presidency'
* In "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly was just disgustingly brutal against people with different opinions (saw a fragment with a guy who signed a petition against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, although his father was killed on 9/11).

What do Americans think of this? And what about the other television channels?Let's put it this way, the term 'fair and balanced' has become sort of a running gag. Everyone's aware of Fox's bias (except maybe those who agree with their politics) and we just shrug it off and change the channel. It's pointless to try and argue with them. Right wingers are a strange lot, take the Rush Limbaugh fans. They refer to themselves as 'dittoheads'. They want someone to tell them their opinion, not figure it out for themselves.

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.

/sarcasm on

yes indeed if it wasnt for all powerful wonderful amercia we would never have survied the world wars. i mean all those russians who died, they were just been careless right ?

/sarcasm off

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.


nice to see logical arguments are prevailing....

i mean, i wouldn't be right in saying, well if you would kindly keep your administration from interfering in other countries business then we will stop being interested in yours, now would i? oh wait, whoops.

in other words, if you have some reasonable arguement make it, if not shut up

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe in two World Wars.Well now you know why Fox is still on the air despite it's slant. Guys like this actually believe it to be the unbiased truth. They also believe we had nothing but unselfish motives in those two world wars. ;)

Realize, Fox News is a bastion of Republicans but everyone else, (CNN, DATELINE etc. ) are all Democratic strongholds as well. Dateline does an article on Bush's failing economy, yet they only show one factory in rual America and only say that this is the situation all over America... no statistics, no other examples.

Remember MEMOGATE... they were so HOT to show something damming of BUSH that they didn't even spot the HUGE and OBVIOUS mistakes in the letters. Normally (I'll admit) they do check their sources and try to go over all documents with a fine tooth comb... kinda funny that they missed this one.

The war in Iraq, how come only Fox News reports when the schools are open and running when they first opened. They reported when portions of the infrastructure are repaired. They report on civilians happily greeting US / British soldiers on the street. Mind you, they also report the other stuff including the atrocities committed by US soldiers and they do demand accountabiliy.

When Fox New is wrong, they do admit it... publicly and are forthright... not like other services that try to "blame their sources (Memogate)" or turn a blind eye untill confronted with overwhelming evidence (L.A. Times, N. Y. Times, Wall Street Journal)

Try watching it reguarly instead of only tuning in once a month. You'll see Bill O'Reilly tearing into Bush as well. He's been demanding the President explain the lack of WMD's and even saying the President has to Apologiese to the American People for the Missing WMD just as loudly as everyone else.

Don't forget, people have been desgusintly brutal with Bill also, at least with O'Reilly, he'll come at you while you're looking for the attack. not like the cowards who will blindside him by making him think the interview is about something else.

Fair and Balanced... compaired to the other News Service... They are!

yes indeed if it wasnt for all powerful wonderful amercia we would never have survied the world wars. i mean all those russians who died, they were just been careless right ?

But they were dirty Commies!!!! [/sarcasm]
I HATE it when Americans bring that up. Get OVER it. In World War 1 the US came in so late it hardly contributed (or at least thats what my history teacher told me...) And in World War 2, well you don't hear the Russians gloating do you?

And Fox News is a load of crap. I've only seen snippets on documentaries, but my boyfriend has watched it, and he always reports their craziness to me. :p The trange thing is that The O'Reilly Factor is called "The no-spin zone." um... yeah... And there's this morning show in Australia that adopted that as their slogan, Sunrise on 7. And the funny, yet sickening thing is that one of the hosts, David Koch, also has the habit of shouting down people who disagree with him, especially protestors. And don' get me started on his co-host. She's this horrible dirzy airhead anti-feminist who's a disgrace to women.

Ah, it feels good to get that off my chest. Thankfully I'm never up that early.

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.

I really do hope you're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Please.
I think everybody in Europe lost family in those two wars and by no means have forgotten how the US bailed us out (as indeed the British, Canadians, Indians, Marrocans, even the Russians and a lot of other countries who sent troops also did). Does that mean we can't ever comment on your actions, ever? Nor those of all the other nations that participated in the liberation (eg Russia)?
Also, who YOU choose in YOUR elections simply decides OUR future as well. American politics are almost as important as national politics for all europeans (and others). Wish it weren't so, but that's the way the world works at this time. So forgive us for being concerned and interested in the way you choose 'the leader of the free world'.

Ah, it feels good to get that off my chest. Thankfully I'm never up that early.

God yes, don't keep things bottled up inside... they clog the circulation and gets the blood pressure going.

BTW, is the BBC still being shown on the Royal Navy Ships? I kinda heard they don't watch it because they lean so far off center they're pratically lying down.

i regulary watch fox news from here in the UK for one reason, its the best comedy show on earth. nothing come's closer to making me laugh so hard at there hypocracy.

if anyone watched the o'reily factor last night with the interview of bush, they would know what i mean.

there were several questions were o-reily asked bush and all he did was mumble, o'reily moves on, same again.

then again the e-mail section at the end was damn funny aswell

"mr o'reily ... i think you are been to pro kerry" - hmmm what was that guy smoking ?

But the other networks are so bias in the other direction. Fox news is alittle biased to the right but the others are far biased to the left.

i regulary watch fox news from here in the UK for one reason, its the best comedy show on earth. nothing come's closer to making me laugh so hard at there hypocracy.
It's funny for a while, but then you get angry! :mad:

Realize, Fox News is a bastion of Republicans but everyone else, (CNN, DATELINE etc. ) are all Democratic strongholds as well. Dateline does an article on Bush's failing economy, yet they only show one factory in rual America and only say that this is the situation all over America... no statistics, no other examples.

Remember MEMOGATE... they were so HOT to show something damming of BUSH that they didn't even spot the HUGE and OBVIOUS mistakes in the letters. Normally (I'll admit) they do check their sources and try to go over all documents with a fine tooth comb... kinda funny that they missed this one.

The war in Iraq, how come only Fox News reports when the schools are open and running when they first opened. They reported when portions of the infrastructure are repaired. They report on civilians happily greeting US / British soldiers on the street. Mind you, they also report the other stuff including the atrocities committed by US soldiers and they do demand accountabiliy.

When Fox New is wrong, they do admit it... publicly and are forthright... not like other services that try to "blame their sources (Memogate)" or turn a blind eye untill confronted with overwhelming evidence (L.A. Times, N. Y. Times, Wall Street Journal)

Try watching it reguarly instead of only tuning in once a month. You'll see Bill O'Reilly tearing into Bush as well. He's been demanding the President explain the lack of WMD's and even saying the President has to Apologiese to the American People for the Missing WMD just as loudly as everyone else.

Don't forget, people have been desgusintly brutal with Bill also, at least with O'Reilly, he'll come at you while you're looking for the attack. not like the cowards who will blindside him by making him think the interview is about something else.

Fair and Balanced... compaired to the other News Service... They are!See what we mean, some people actually believe them and nothing else. It's like some sort of tunnel vision that only aflicts hardcore Republicans like JuNii.

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.

Calm down, everyone needs a hobby and We are the biggest and best target that no one can resist trying to prove they are better than us.

After all, every Government has their scandals (cough! Prince Charles cheating on Lady Diana, Cough!) that was plastered for all the world to see. Every country has their troubles with their government (Cough! parlament/house duking it out physically Cough!) so let's take their critisisms and their barbs cuz when the real trouble starts, we all know who everyone's gonna turn to for help.

yeah the UN :p besides to get the best view, you have to watch a variety of channels and then make up your own mind...difficult for some i know but still, its all about cutting out the crap and being objective :eek:

See what we mean, some people actually believe them and nothing else. It's like some sort of tunnel vision that only aflicts hardcore Republicans like JuNii.

Hey I am Independant. I don't vote party lines! :mad:

At least I watch the other services with an open mind. just remember, everything you blame Fox News for, All the other news services... here and across the world... are guilty of. You also have tunnel vision if you cannot see the same slants (of course leaning the other way) in the other news services.

yeah the UN :p besides to get the best view, you have to watch a variety of channels and then make up your own mind...difficult for some i know but still, its all about cutting out the crap and being objective :eek:

My hobby exactly... well after Japanese Anime and Role Playing Games that is. :D

After all, every Government has their scandals (cough! Prince Charles cheating on Lady Diana, Cough!) that was plastered for all the world to see.

You might want to re-think this sentence.

You might want to re-think this sentence.

Just showing how every country gets things splashed on World News. Mistakes, Scandals and anything 'Juicy'. No Disrespect meant. After all, I'm also assuming the Bill Clinton Sex Scandal was shown in BBC and in most parts of the World also. :)

For anyone else who was offended. I do humbly apologize... it was not my intent

Wow the retardation in this thread is amazing. I don't think I've seen an intelligent response yet. Here's a thought for all you partisan morons. When you "massage the truth" the only people you influence are the sheep. You just piss off the others who are smart enough to realize you're lying.

Just showing how every country gets things splashed on World News. Mistakes, Scandals and anything 'Juicy'. No Disrespect meant. After all, I'm also assuming the Bill Clinton Sex Scandal was shown in BBC and in most parts of the World also. :)

For anyone else who was offended. I do humbly apologize... it was not my intent

I wasn't offended. Maybe you can tell me what job it is that Prince Charles does in the Government?

After all, every Government has their scandals (cough! Prince Charles cheating on Lady Diana, Cough!) that was plastered for all the world to see.
You're attempting to hold the UK Monarchy up as an example? Nobody cares whether he cheated on her or not, it was just another nail in the coffin that is the Royal family. They're not important or relevent in todays society, and apart from being figureheads, have no look in to how the country is run. The only people who care about 'cheating scandals' are tabloid newspapers (gutter press) and even then only because it sells papers.

so let's take their critisisms and their barbs cuz when the real trouble starts, we all know who everyone's gonna turn to for help Do you realise how much most of the outside world is fed up with the current direction of America?

Wow the retardation in this thread is amazing. I don't think I've seen an intelligent response yet. Here's a thought for all you partisan morons. When you "massage the truth" the only people you influence are the sheep. You just piss off the others who are smart enough to realize you're lying.


and was that an example of an intelligent or a retarded response?

Seriously people, SBS World News is where it's at. If you're in Australia, that is. All the other stations, with the exception of the ABC are crap local stories and assume the absolute ignorance of the viewer. You know, the news that ends with a story about a fluffy kitten?
And you know what, I'm not partisan. I think the political parties both here and in the US suck. But I voted for the least evil this election. :p

I wasn't offended. Maybe you can tell me what job it is that Prince Charles does in the Government?

He's a National Figure. Like the Queen is. He's someone whom privacy tends to be few and his actions are documented. Granted he may have no Governmental powers but what the Royal family does, gives impressions on the life of the British people. Kinda like how everyone else thinks America is Immoral, Sex-Hungry, War-Mongerers because the news only shows the Loudest groups.

Remember. For almost all of the people, Television is the only source of information on other countries. News gives the information on life in other countries and the more slanted the news, the more slanted the image people see.

And no, it wasn't my intention to "Nuke" Anyone.

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.

we would have won both wars eventually-it would have just taken longer.

Besides, once hitler invaded russia, it was all over for him. you just stopped the commies taking over europe, thats all.

He's a National Figure. Like the Queen is. He's someone whom privacy tends to be few and his actions are documented. Granted he may have no Governmental powers but what the Royal family does, gives impressions on the life of the British people.

Indeed. We're all millionaires from birth and have never done an honest days' work in our lives.

Calm down, everyone needs a hobby and We are the biggest and best target that no one can resist trying to prove they are better than us.

After all, every Government has their scandals (cough! Prince Charles cheating on Lady Diana, Cough!) that was plastered for all the world to see. Every country has their troubles with their government (Cough! parlament/house duking it out physically Cough!) so let's take their critisisms and their barbs cuz when the real trouble starts, we all know who everyone's gonna turn to for help.

That's just the attitude that the rest of the world despises. First, last time I checked Prince Charles and Lady Diana's relationship breakdown didn't result in global security hanging in the balance. Secondly, the rest of the world expects the United States to clean up the messes it's administrations have made meddling in other countries' affairs, not make them worse. It's not so much the rest of the world that needs help, its the US Government.

Pisscataway: You say to the world "get your noses out of our business" but you're quite happy to stick yours (as in your Government) in everyone else's. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I think. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to eat some of it too.

Hey I am Independant. I don't vote party lines! :mad:
Yeah,... Independant............ some republicans are too liberal for JuNii. :rolleyes:

Indeed. We're all millionaires from birth and have never done an honest days' work in our lives.


REALLY!!! Wow! :D

Ok Sarcasm off now.

Indeed. We're all millionaires from birth and have never done an honest days' work in our lives.
And you all have large ears. :(

That's like saying Nicole Kidman or Kylie Minogue represents Australians...

And as for people only having TV as a source of information about the world? Poor lil bubs. Maybe they should get off their arses and read a book, surf the net, travel if they can afford it. And FFS don't believe everything you see on TV!

That's just the attitude that the rest of the world despises. First, last time I checked Prince Charles and Lady Diana's relationship breakdown didn't result in global security hanging in the balance. Secondly, the rest of the world expects the United States to clean up the messes it's administrations have made meddling in other countries' affairs, not make them worse. It's not so much the rest of the world that needs help, its the US Government.


Never said it did... I just said it got plastered all over the world and I bet they (your oh so balanced news services) didn't get the story right for I remember two or three versions of who did what when and where.

And at the risk of sounding pompus... oh hell you guys already think I'm pompus, Count how many times Americans rush to aid a country hit by Natural Disasters and How many times the Americans got their first.

Europeans (and all people who don't inhabit America for that matter) must understand that most Americans are completely clueless when the discussion turns to any subject that originates outside familiar territory. Most Americans cannot tell you anything about what's happening just a few hundred miles from where they live. Also, Americans have been brainwashed into believing that we are always number one, and always correct, even when we are not. I mean look at President Bush for the love of Pete.

That's just the attitude that the rest of the world despises. First, last time I checked Prince Charles and Lady Diana's relationship breakdown didn't result in global security hanging in the balance. Secondly, the rest of the world expects the United States to clean up the messes it's administrations have made meddling in other countries' affairs, not make them worse. It's not so much the rest of the world that needs help, its the US Government.

Pisscataway: You say to the world "get your noses out of our business" but you're quite happy to stick yours (as in your Government) in everyone else's. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I think. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to eat some of it too.

Er... why does the US choice of President effect global security again. Surely it only effects US security?

And as for people only having TV as a source of information about the world? Poor lil bubs. Maybe they should get off their arses and read a book, surf the net, travel if they can afford it. And FFS don't believe everything you see on TV!

That would be a perfect world. :)

Unfortunatly, and sadly... it's not.

Yeah,... Independant............ some republicans are too liberal for JuNii. :rolleyes:

Nah, I just scare them! :D

Er... why does the US choice of President effect global security again. Surely it only effects US security?
Have a think :rolleyes:

Er... why does the US choice of President effect global security again. Surely it only effects US security?

You'd be surprised how far it reaches. It doesn't lie *entirely at the feet of the President. America is a/the superpower and it's foreign policy will affect the enitre world.

Have a think :rolleyes:


I have, and I don't see it. Surely, whichever candidate is chosen, it is between the US and whoever. It doesn't implicate the rest of the world. No-one is suggesting that the next CIC is going to invade China or Russia. So what's with the "global".

And at the risk of sounding pompus... oh hell you guys already think I'm pompus, Count how many times Americans rush to aid a country hit by Natural Disasters and How many times the Americans got their first.
So they bloody well should, since they're the wealthiest country on the planet.
But... Count the times America has rushed to depose an elected government and install a US-friendly dictator... Count the number of CIA instigated assassination... Count the number of unjust wars.... Count the number of people who could be fed with the US's defence budget, but are starving to death... Count the number of innocent victims in war, both secret and public...

Make no mistake. Your government only does what is in it's best interests.

I have, and I don't see it. Surely, whichever candidate is chosen, it is between the US and whoever. It doesn't implicate the rest of the world. No-one is suggesting that the next CIC is going to invade China or Russia. So what's with the "global".
Other than war, althouh they may well decide that Iran is a "threat," we have issues of trade, health, treaties and the so called "war on terror" and such... the US doesn't exist in a vacuum you know. :rolleyes:
And the US government DOES have this way of telling other governments how to run their countries.

You'd be surprised how far it reaches. It doesn't lie at the feet of the president really. America is a/the superpower and it's foreign policy will affect the enitre world.

and unfortunatly for any (for all of you out there - other) violent nation out there, America is the target to hit. for all of the pelting we get, can anyone blame us for getting angry.

Dammed if we help... Dammed if we don't.... Dammed if we just send supplies... Dammed if we take a direct hand in matters.

I guess we're just Dammed... period.

So they bloody well should, since they're the wealthiest country on the planet.
But... Count the times America has rushed to depose an elected government and install a US-friendly dictator... Count the number of CIA instigated assassination... Count the number of unjust wars.... Count the number of people who could be fed with the US's defence budget, but are starving to death... Count the number of innocent victims in war, both secret and public...

Make no mistake. Your government only does what is in it's best interests.


Political bias works both ways, wouldnt you think?

As for your comment about Sunrise, I agree with you! They have no original content, they took the 'set' from NBC's Today, and now they are taking the 'no spin zone' and making it into who-knows-what (I rarely watch the show).

Not to mention the absolute retards that go up to the window in the background.
Hey! Next time im in the city, im going to go there and moon the bastards!

[Viewer discretion will be advised]

Indeed. We're all millionaires from birth and have never done an honest days' work in our lives.

Had to get in here on this comment.
When you do as much work as the queen then you can comment, until then shut up and get down to your own level.

So they bloody well should, since they're the wealthiest country on the planet.
But... Count the times America has rushed to depose an elected government and install a US-friendly dictator... Count the number of CIA instigated assassination... Count the number of unjust wars.... Count the number of people who could be fed with the US's defence budget, but are starving to death... Count the number of innocent victims in war, both secret and public...

Make no mistake. Your government only does what is in it's best interests.


And your government doesn't do thing for it's best interests!?... Interesting... I say move outta there to someplace where they care about you then. After all, if the Government falls, then so does that Nation.

Innocent victims are present in any war caused by any Nation. Sad but true. Anyone who believes differently, lives in another reality. That doen't make it right... just a very sad truth.

We already feed the greatest portion of the world! They starve because their nations don't want US Food or Their Pride prevents them from asking for help.

and Illuminate this American. Which Wars were Unjust. Vietnam? They asked us for help, the Vietnamese wanted us to fight their war... This one... well, history will be the judge for that, but while the reason is wrong, we gotta fix it... pain and all.

Not to mention the absolute retards that go up to the window in the background.
Hey! Next time im in the city, im going to go there and moon the bastards!

[Viewer discretion will be advised]

I know alot of people who want to do that on GOOD MORNING AMERICA

Other than war, althouh they may well decide that Iran is a "threat," we have issues of trade, health, treaties and the so called "war on terror" and such... the US doesn't exist in a vacuum you know. :rolleyes:
And the US government DOES have this way of telling other governments how to run their countries.

Yeah, but you could say the same thing about the leader of any first world country. God knows how much trouble the UK and France have caused between them in respect of "global" security in the past fifty years. I especially enjoyed the bit where France tried to wreck NATO or that little trip to the South Atlantic that the UK undertook in the 1980s. And did people in the US go so nuts? They did not. Were the people of the US screaming for Thatcher to be deposed, despite mucking up the stability of South America? No.

So, the US gets attacked by Islamists and decides upon a course of action. Then prosecutes said action. You may not agree with the choice, but it is the choice of a sovereign nation, and the US is allowed to do that. So what. As Al-queda et al have said, if you do not join with the US you will not be attacked - and as the conventional wisdom is you can negiotiate with these people - I fail to see what the concern is. If you're not involved it doesn't effect you. And it's not like the US has retaliated in anyway against those who have not actively supported it. So I don't see the concern, or the threat.

Or are you suggesting we should all get a veto over each others leaders?

I think this whole "global" argument is hyperbole.

Make no mistake. Your government only does what is in it's best interests.

Erm no shit sherlock, welcome to the planet earth. Has there been a completely unselfish government in the history of the WORLD? Hmm no, no there hasn't. Using our defense budget to feed the poor in other countries, many of whom would kill us if they had the chance? Smart plan. I don't see England volunteering to live on the level of a third-world country so they can feed the needy. You seem to want to have it both ways. We should only involve ourselves with the world when it helps someone....as long as it isn't us of course.

[QUOTE=DeaconDave]Yeah, but you could say the same thing about the leader of any first world country. God knows how much trouble the UK and France have caused between them in respect of "global" security in the past fifty years. I especially enjoyed the bit where France tried to wreck NATO or that little trip to the South Atlantic that the UK undertook in the 1980s. And did people in the US go so nuts? They did not. Were the people of the US screaming for Thatcher to be deposed, despite mucking up the stability of South America? No.

QUOTE]
That little place in the South Atlantic...are we thinking of the Falklands? Those little islands that are British and were invaded by the Argentinians and so we went over there to allow the people the choice to remain British? (they have been asked and are quite happy as they are!)

Other than war, althouh they may well decide that Iran is a "threat," we have issues of trade, health, treaties and the so called "war on terror" and such... the US doesn't exist in a vacuum you know. :rolleyes:
And the US government DOES have this way of telling other governments how to run their countries.

ahh, but every country tries to tell other countries how to run it's government. We tend to do it by talking and giving examples (McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken...) We actually hate doing it by force. but when people start throwing punches at each other... someone's gotta step in and stop it. The UN has tried it but they became weary of doing it. So perhaps we may have overstepped our bounds, but ya gotta admit. during this war in Iraq, alot of the smaller Middle East countires learned to put aside their differences... after all, most of them hate the US anyway and we became the common enemy to them. When (and I do mean When) we leave them, perhapes they will keep the peace... well with each other anyways.

That little place in the South Atlantic...are we thinking of the Falklands? Those little islands that are British and were invaded by the Argentinians and so we went over there to allow the people the choice to remain British? (they have been asked and are quite happy as they are!)

I don't seem to remember giving sanctions a chance, or trying to work out a diplomatic solution. Nor do I seem to remember the UN being involved. In fact, I seem to recall a military force being sent out within days with the its only mandate being to prosecute a war with extreme prejudice.

In any event, how many UK citizens were killed during the argentinian invasion. None I believe, yet the UK did not seem to feel the need to work at any other possible solutions. Also I seem to remember that the claim to those islands were in some dispute. Nevertheless, when the UK's security was threatened and the UK decided to jump in with both feet militarilty at the risk of causing god knows what trouble in South America, did the US start yammering on. No, it respected your decision. Silly though it was.

And your government doesn't do thing for it's best interests!?... Interesting... I say move outta there to someplace where they care about you then. After all, if the Government falls, then so does that Nation.
I said IT'S best interests. I don't think the US or Australian government acts in the best interest of it's people.

Innocent victims are present in any war caused by any Nation. Sad but true. Anyone who believes differently, lives in another reality. That doen't make it right... just a very sad truth.
Well I think they shouldn't have been in many of these wars in the first place... And why the hell use things like cluster bombs or depleted uranium? There's NO WAY you can justify things like that.

We already feed the greatest portion of the world! They starve because their nations don't want US Food or Their Pride prevents them from asking for help.
Look at this as a proportion of GDP, the US is at the BOTTOM of the table. OK, the URL keeps pasting to the end of this, but it's down there.


and Illuminate this American. Which Wars were Unjust. Vietnam? They asked us for help, the Vietnamese wanted us to fight their war... This one... well, history will be the judge for that, but while the reason is wrong, we gotta fix it... pain and all.How about all those secret wars? Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia... Interventions in central Africa.


foreign aid (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=p2003#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs)

I don't seem to remember giving sanctions a chance, or trying to work out a diplomatic solution. Nor do I seem to remember the UN being involved. In fact, I seem to recall a military force being sent out within days with the its only mandate being to prosecute a war with extreme prejudice.

In any event, how many UK citizens were killed during the argentinian invasion. None I believe, yet the UK did not seem to feel the need to work at any other possible solutions. Also I seem to remember that the claim to those islands were in some dispute. Nevertheless, when the UK's security was threatened and the UK decided to jump in with both feet militarilty at the risk of causing god knows what trouble in South America, did the US start yammering on. No, it respected your decision. Silly though it was.

Diplomatic channels were attempted both before and during the time taken to send out the taskforce (as it took about 2 weeks to setup the taskforce and a further week to get down there you cannot argue that diplomacy wasn't attempted!)
Also, you are arguing that the British should not defend its territory? This isn't the same thing as the war on terror. The Falklands are a British Protectorate, they wish to remain British. This was not an international situation that was going to affect the US. Your war on Terror does affect the rest of the world as your President has proclaimed himself as the "Leader of the free world". The world includes us all, thusly we should have a say, yes?

In respect to who you elect for your internal policies, I don't care, but if it destabilises the world for you to wage an illegal war on Iraq, or anywhere else that you may feel are harbouring terrorists but which most likely aren't (Saddam and Bin Laden were old enemies, Bin Laden even offered to kill him during the 1st Gulf War but was stopped!)

Erm preebles maybe you should actually read the chart? Yes, the US is lowest percentage-wise, but guess what? In 2003 it was still twice as much as anyone else included in the chart.

Lets not forget the good things fox bought us, like the simpsons...

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.

I suppose you would like the Europeans to disengage themselves from the two-way cross border trade in goods and services with the U.S. exceeding $650 billion, as well as the EU investment in the U.S. of $870 billion, as well? Then when you lose your job you can at least take satisfaction that the Europeans aren't butting their noses in other people's affairs (like George W. Bush recently did in the Australian election, criticizing Labor leader Mark Latham and openly supporting John Howard).

Erm preebles maybe you should actually read the chart? Yes, the US is lowest percentage-wise, but guess what? In 2003 it was still twice as much as anyone else included in the chart.
ERM yeah, I did read it. :rolleyes:
So what if the US gave the most? It STILL failed to meet it's obligation and gave the LOWEST PROPORTION of GDP, which is the only relevant measure here, since it's unfair to compare an economy say, the size of Norway with the US.

Political bias works both ways, wouldnt you think?

As for your comment about Sunrise, I agree with you! They have no original content, they took the 'set' from NBC's Today, and now they are taking the 'no spin zone' and making it into who-knows-what (I rarely watch the show).

Not to mention the absolute retards that go up to the window in the background.
Hey! Next time im in the city, im going to go there and moon the bastards!

[Viewer discretion will be advised]

I'm glad I never watch that show.

Why don't they stop with the pretending that it's news, and start saying that it's Hollywood Daily.

I said IT'S best interests. I don't think the US or Australian government acts in the best interest of it's people.

Surely that's for the people of the US to decide. Unless you don't believe in democracy. :rolleyes:


Well I think they shouldn't have been in many of these wars in the first place... And why the hell use things like cluster bombs or depleted uranium? There's NO WAY you can justify things like that.

They are justified because they work. Weapons kill people, it's what they are designed to do. You cannot fight a war without them.


Look at this as a proportion of GDP, the US is at the BOTTOM of the table. OK, the URL keeps pasting to the end of this, but it's down there.

Your chart does not include the massive amount of taxpayer subsidized private charity that is donated by US citizens every year. In the US, being a free country, things like overseas aid are not mandated by the government, but left up to individuals.


How about all those secret wars? Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia... Interventions in central Africa.

All nations fight secret wars. I seem to remeber a malayan emergency. And while we are digging up history, has France and the UK apologized to Egypt yet.

While we are at the blame game, when is Europe going to 'fess up for the overwhelming part it has played in destablizing the middle east, and creating much of today's conflict.

Also, to the UK, way to not condemn India for years while Indian agression causes Pakistan to become a failed state. Nice. No, really, good job. Phew I'm glad the US stayed out of that mess and let "more responsible" nations look to it. :rolleyes:

I said IT'S best interests. I don't think the US or Australian government acts in the best interest of it's people.

and if your government didn't have 'IT'S best interest in heart, it would be giving, not selling, food and giving resources to other nations... oh wait, that fosters international ties that would be handy for international problems which would be in IT'S BEST INTEREST... ok, they don't give food and money, but feed their citiziens that.... wait agian, that makes them popular with the people and it would be in THEIR BEST INTEREST to foster good will among their own people... ok, your government then must chuck the food and burn all resources if it doesn't have IT'S BEST INTEREST in heart. but that would Piss the People off and they would change the government and probably have outside help doing so. again that government would fall because the government IS the People... no matter what type of Government you are.

Well I think they shouldn't have been in many of these wars in the first place... And why the hell use things like cluster bombs or depleted uranium? There's NO WAY you can justify things like that.

Just like shooting your enemies from protected and religous sites, setting off bombs in crowded streets, and when your enemies fail to protect the innocent, BLAME them for it as well

Look at this as a proportion of GDP, the US is at the BOTTOM of the table. OK, the URL keeps pasting to the end of this, but it's down there.

They're talking about Percentages. not solid amounts. granted we may not be giving our full PERCENTAGE but it's still more than mostly all of them, Ok Japan is match and in some cases beating us, bit whop, where does your nation stand in the THOUSANDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS donated. and look 2000 to 2003, we were attacked in 2001. for someone who claims we don't care about our citizens, you want our resources going to you instead of our hurting citizens... BTW after Iraq fell, we started spending resources for them to so yes, we are sorry but that does mean less for your country.


How about all those secret wars? Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia... Interventions in central Africa.

Ahh, the war on drugs... Tell ya what, we'll ship all the drugs from those countries we confiscate coming to the US, over to then huh? You can count that towards our GDP Percentage then

foreign aid (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=p2003#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs) [/QUOTE]

This thread has really gone off topic...out of curiousity..in reading this thread..no one actually gave any proof of Fox News being liars, nor no real proof of it even being a Republican network, except for merely stating it.

America has been watching news from networks like CBS NBC ABC CNN for years, alot of people's bar for reporting is based on those networks, now when you compare FOX NEWS to them, its going to appear right, because those networks are unquestionably left (I would show some proof but some has already been mentioned and i don't have the time). I will admit sometimes the Fox news network might appear right, but I will state they are closer to center than any network mentioned in this thread so far. An certainly they are all closer to center than the few foreign networks I have seen.

As for Bill O'Rielly, not much to be said here. Either you watch him and you know the truth about his program and him, or you don't and you make comments about him being a right wing bais reporter while knowing nothing about the guy or his show.

ERM yeah, I did read it. :rolleyes:
So what if the US gave the most? It STILL failed to meet it's obligation and gave the LOWEST PROPORTION of GDP, which is the only relevant measure here, since it's unfair to compare an economy say, the size of Norway with the US.

we all make mistakes... even me. When I first saw it I thought the same thing too. Took a while to read it tho.

This thread has really gone off topic...out of curiousity..in reading this thread..no one actually gave any proof of Fox News being liars, nor no real proof of it even being a Republican network, except for merely stating it.

America has been watching news from networks like CBS NBC ABC CNN for years, alot of people's bar for reporting is based on those networks, now when you compare FOX NEWS to them, its going to appear right, because those networks are unquestionably left (I would show some proof but some has already been mentioned and i don't have the time). I will admit sometimes the Fox news network might appear right, but I will state they are closer to center than any network mentioned in this thread so far. An certainly they are all closer to center than the few foreign networks I have seen.

As for Bill O'Rielly, not much to be said here. Either you watch him and you know the truth about his program and him, or you don't and you make comments about him being a right wing bais reporter while knowing nothing about the guy or his show.

well, Bill O'Rielly isnt the only news show on Fox... Others may think that but really, he isn't. Oops, forgot to add that I agree with your assesment on why everything seems slanted. Can you imagine the types of broadcasts when JFK was in the White House.

It's like saying all RADIO TALK SHOWS are like HOWARD STERN's.

Surely that's for the people of the US to decide. Unless you don't believe in democracy.
Some democracy where people elect a government in a highly flawed electoral system. The government then proceeds to do whatever the hell they want, without care for the people's opinions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preebles
Well I think they shouldn't have been in many of these wars in the first place... And why the hell use things like cluster bombs or depleted uranium? There's NO WAY you can justify things like that.


They are justified because they work. Weapons kill people, it's what they are designed to do. You cannot fight a war without them.
Um, but surely there are more effective ways of killing enemy COMBATANTS rather than civilians? Cluster bombs hang around until some person walking by accidentally sets one off. And depleted uranium? Let's leave radiation hanging around for year and years. Niiiiiice. It strikes me that the military isn't exactly going out of its way to avoid "collateral damage."



Your chart does not include the massive amount of taxpayer subsidized private charity that is donated by US citizens every year. In the US, being a free country, things like overseas aid are not mandated by the government, but left up to individuals.
Although the US governmetn DID make an obligation, and fail to deliver. Now is my turn to ask, did YOU read?



All nations fight secret wars. I seem to remeber a malayan emergency. And while we are digging up history, has France and the UK apologized to Egypt yet.

While we are at the blame game, when is Europe going to 'fess up for the overwhelming part it has played in destablizing the middle east, and creating much of today's conflict.

Also, to the UK, way to not condemn India for years while Indian agression causes Pakistan to become a failed state. Nice. No, really, good job. Phew I'm glad the US stayed out of that mess and let "more responsible" nations look to it. :rolleyes:
I'm not condoning ANY secret wars, but I'm pretty sure the US has the largest record in this area. But right now, I'm too busy to get involved in a debate that's going nowhere.

Diplomatic channels were attempted both before and during the time taken to send out the taskforce (as it took about 2 weeks to setup the taskforce and a further week to get down there you cannot argue that diplomacy wasn't attempted!)
Also, you are arguing that the British should not defend its territory? This isn't the same thing as the war on terror. The Falklands are a British Protectorate, they wish to remain British. This was not an international situation that was going to affect the US. Your war on Terror does affect the rest of the world as your President has proclaimed himself as the "Leader of the free world". The world includes us all, thusly we should have a say, yes?

In respect to who you elect for your internal policies, I don't care, but if it destabilises the world for you to wage an illegal war on Iraq, or anywhere else that you may feel are harbouring terrorists but which most likely aren't (Saddam and Bin Laden were old enemies, Bin Laden even offered to kill him during the 1st Gulf War but was stopped!)


Three weeks? Oh well I guess you guys really tried the diplomatic route. Gave it every chance there.

Yes you are right, the US was not attacked on its sovereign territory. The smoking hole in New York and the three thousand dead civilians are all a figment of our imagination :rolleyes: Jeez, at least we waited longer than three weeks before sending our millitary.

The subsequent actions are an attempt to defend out soveriegn territory from another such attack, and are prosecuted in furtherence of that aim.

But let me get you position straight. If Al-queda had invaded a sparsely inhabited island in the aluetian chain, we would have been perfectly justified in throwing our entire millitary at that island to regain the territory, even though no-one had died. And we could do this without the UN, without consulting anyone else and as fast as we possibly could.

If, on the other hand, several thousand of our civilians are killed, we should not go to where we believe the killers are and attempt to kill them before they do it again - because they are not on our sovereign territory. We should just sit there and hope they don't strike again or something. Therefore, land is more important than people, but whatever.

Also the invasion of Iraq was not illegal. The sole authority to declare or authorize war vests in the US congress. This is constiutional law. The US constitution cannot be ammended by treaty, and every treaty signed by the US has clawbacks so stating. The invasion of Iraq is perfectly legal as per US law, and is therefore perfectly legal.

And yes the falklands did affect the US. We did have relationships with interested parties in South America, and that doesn't just include Argentina.

Here is a study that shows that FOX didn't support Bush as he recieved the same kind of coverage that other networks provided. However, FOX provided coverage of the bad side of Kerry also. In other words, FOX equally highlighted the good and the bad on both of the candidates, unlike the major networks and the other news networks. There is a reason that FOX draws the largest viewership by far. It doesn't pander to one segment of society. It realizes there are 2 sides to every issue and reports both. That is why FOX is "fair and balanced".

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.09...er.Campaign.pdf

I live in Belgium and yesterday we had a documentary on television about Fox News... It is clearly a republican stronghold and in nothing 'Fair and Balanced', what they claim to be.

They support Bush and promote fear for terrorism. In fact they are using everything they can in order to give the victory to Bush.

Some examples:
* Fox news presented the war in Iraq far to victorious, as if all goes well for the people in Iraq now.
* On several occasions people of Fox News spoke about the 'Re-election of Bush' or something like that, instead of speaking about the 'Elections for presidency'
* In "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly was just disgustingly brutal against people with different opinions (saw a fragment with a guy who signed a petition against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, although his father was killed on 9/11).

What do Americans think of this? And what about the other television channels?

The other TV news; CNN, CNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC, are liberal left leaning organizations. Some of the shows on FNC like Bill O'Reilly lean a little to the right but there are shows on CNN, like Larry King, that lean way to the left. By the same token, FNC has very balanced shows like Hannity and Combs, I don't see that on CNN. Crossfire on CNN uses liberal Republicans to counter the far left Democrats. No concertatives allowed there.
When all is said and done, FNC is much more fair and balanced than the other news TV media. I think people believe they are leaning to the right because they report both sides of the story. The other news doesn't make any attempt at all to present both sides.
My two cents.

I will admit sometimes the Fox news network might appear right, but I will state they are closer to center than any network mentioned in this thread so far. An certainly they are all closer to center than the few foreign networks I have seen.

The problem is what is now passes for "the center" has been so significantly shifted to the right by the conservative corporate media establishment, aided significantly by vitriolic right wing talk show radio, that your statement might very well be true. Unfortuantely, true left wing politics is no longer represented in America's national dialogue.

Ahh, the war on drugs... Tell ya what, we'll ship all the drugs from those countries we confiscate coming to the US, over to then huh? You can count that towards our GDP Percentage then
Um... WTF are you no about? This isn't about the war on drugs. This is about fighting "communism." When Portugal pulled out of Angola and Mozambique the apartheid SA goverment and the US were afraid of Communist or socialist forces coming to power that they launched a guerilla war. Now those countries are virtual basket cases. Thanks a lot. And in Cambodia it was another secret war on Communism. Ask the Hmong people...

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.
living in the past means nothing in the present. he was just trying to canvas opinions. i personally hate fox news because the support the idea that God is on our side. God doesn't take sides in American foreign pollicy.

The problem is what is now passes for "the center" has been so significantly shifted to the right by the conservative corporate media establishment, aided significantly by vitriolic right wing talk show radio, that your statement might very well be true. Unfortuantely, true left wing politics is no longer represented in America's national dialogue.

Kerry, Kennedy, and Hillary are centrists? Who then are the members of "the true left wing?

Some democracy where people elect a government in a highly flawed electoral system. The government then proceeds to do whatever the hell they want, without care for the people's opinions.

Is that your country? Cuz if that was us, that bastard would be IMPEACHED so fast, you would wonder if he had a fair trial.

Um, but surely there are more effective ways of killing enemy COMBATANTS rather than civilians? Cluster bombs hang around until some person walking by accidentally sets one off. And depleted uranium? Let's leave radiation hanging around for year and years. Niiiiiice. It strikes me that the military isn't exactly going out of its way to avoid "collateral damage."

Yeah, we Americans perferre a good clean stand up fight... none of this house-to-house stuff because your enemies hide among the civilians... wearing their clothes because they have no organized Uniforms... Using civilians as shields.



Although the US governmetn DID make an obligation, and fail to deliver. Now is my turn to ask, did YOU read?

Yep, but we still contribute more and while undergoing a war too!


I'm not condoning ANY secret wars, but I'm pretty sure the US has the largest record in this area. But right now, I'm too busy to get involved in a debate that's going nowhere.

That's because the US is a Favored target for Drugs, Terrorist attacks, smuggling... hey, let your country get the biggest percentage of that and see how many Secret Wars you get. BTW, most of those wars had the blessings of the Government. Sometimes because the Drug Cartels had their Government under their thumb.

Some democracy where people elect a government in a highly flawed electoral system. The government then proceeds to do whatever the hell they want, without care for the people's opinions.

Highly flawed? I hardly think so. In fact it has many many safeguards to prevent exactly what you are talking about. And I hardly think the government is doing "whatever the hell" it wants without care for people's opinions. Some people agree, some disagree, that's the nature of things.


Um, but surely there are more effective ways of killing enemy COMBATANTS rather than civilians? Cluster bombs hang around until some person walking by accidentally sets one off. And depleted uranium? Let's leave radiation hanging around for year and years. Niiiiiice. It strikes me that the military isn't exactly going out of its way to avoid "collateral damage."

Well I'm sure if someone comes up with these weapons, we would happily use them I should imagine. Until then we have to use what we have. I also rather thought this whole radio-active myth had been debunked. The troops have to ride round with the ordinance you know.


Although the US governmetn DID make an obligation, and fail to deliver. Now is my turn to ask, did YOU read?

My point was that, you have to consider more than just government commitment when looking at the amount of foreign aid the US gives. The majority of it is from private sources, that are subsidized by the tax payer through the tax code.


I'm not condoning ANY secret wars, but I'm pretty sure the US has the largest record in this area. But right now, I'm too busy to get involved in a debate that's going nowhere.

Again my point is, all nations are guilty, why just single out the US?

The problem is what is now passes for "the center" has been so significantly shifted to the right by the conservative corporate media establishment, aided significantly by vitriolic right wing talk show radio, that your statement might very well be true. Unfortuantely, true left wing politics is no longer represented in America's national dialogue.


Conservative corporate media establishment?
Yikes even though they are owned by corporations the report on things people want to hear … which right now leans a bit left.

That is the nature of pandering to human beings entertainment craving side. They want the “Truth” but in a way they feel comfortable with or are entertained by

Ridiculous

Here is a study that shows that FOX didn't support Bush as he recieved the same kind of coverage that other networks provided. However, FOX provided coverage of the bad side of Kerry also. In other words, FOX equally highlighted the good and the bad on both of the candidates, unlike the major networks and the other news networks. There is a reason that FOX draws the largest viewership by far. It doesn't pander to one segment of society. It realizes there are 2 sides to every issue and reports both. That is why FOX is "fair and balanced".

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.09...er.Campaign.pdf
give me one example of when Fox either said a good thing about Kerry or a bad thing about Bush. :mp5:

Crossfire on CNN uses liberal Republicans to counter the far left Democrats. No concertatives allowed there.

*s'cuse me while I alternately laugh and projectile-vomit, here*

HAHAHA - urhm - Wahhhblorgle orgle unhhh HAHAHAHAHA - wurf - ohhhhBLORGLE blorgle ORGLE *cough* ehmmm HAHAHAHA

liberals? CNN? HAH! BLOOOORGLE ORGLE orgle...

Um... WTF are you no about? This isn't about the war on drugs. This is about fighting "communism." When Portugal pulled out of Angola and Mozambique the apartheid SA goverment and the US were afraid of Communist or socialist forces coming to power that they launched a guerilla war. Now those countries are virtual basket cases. Thanks a lot. And in Cambodia it was another secret war on Communism. Ask the Hmong people...

Ahh, so you only talk about some of the "Secret Wars" some of them were about the Drugs and other illegal smugglings going on. Ok, to stay on your grounds. Sure, Would Your let potentally hostile government set up on YOUR boarders? if they do, then they don't have YOUR BEST INTEREST to heart.

*s'cuse me while I alternately laugh and projectile-vomit, here*

HAHAHA - urhm - Wahhhblorgle orgle unhhh HAHAHAHAHA - wurf - ohhhhBLORGLE blorgle ORGLE *cough* ehmmm HAHAHAHA

liberals? CNN? HAH! BLOOOORGLE ORGLE orgle...


[slaps back]

You ok? sounded like you were choking there.

Sure, Would Your let potentally hostile government set up on YOUR boarders?
First up, I thought you were referring to the wars *I* was referring to. Obviously not. And since none of these countries have been on the US's doorstep you have to wonder don't you? And I'm sure Angola posed a great military threat. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Dobbs Town
*s'cuse me while I alternately laugh and projectile-vomit, here*

HAHAHA - urhm - Wahhhblorgle orgle unhhh HAHAHAHAHA - wurf - ohhhhBLORGLE blorgle ORGLE *cough* ehmmm HAHAHAHA

liberals? CNN? HAH! BLOOOORGLE ORGLE orgle...
My thoughts exactly. That's like Kerry being liberal... And anyway, does anyone here actually know what Liberal means in a political context? I'm dead serious here.

Anybody?

give me one example of when Fox either said a good thing about Kerry or a bad thing about Bush. :mp5:


Yikes read through a few storys and couldent find a PRO bush or anti Kerry comment anywhere really.

It is all “he said” or “he is going to” or his campaign staff said


I mean I know a lot of the bias is in how much of each side they say but really the average news story (not the talking head opinion shows) really while probably biased makes none of those comments you are claming … not that I could find


Care to prove me wrong (and remember limit it to the NEWS not the opinion shows)

My thoughts exactly. That's like Kerry being liberal... And anyway, does anyone here actually know what Liberal means in a political context? I'm dead serious here.

Anybody?

Are you refering to classic liberal, or the american version?

My thoughts exactly. That's like Kerry being liberal... And anyway, does anyone here actually know what Liberal means in a political context? I'm dead serious here.

Anybody?


lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

give me one example of when Fox either said a good thing about Kerry or a bad thing about Bush. :mp5:


Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly asked Bush for an Explanation for the Missing WMD's, He also said that Bush better open his eyes or he will loose the White House. He also said that Kerry was the Best choice to go against Bush, saying if it had been Cain, then Bush had no worries.

(sorry can't state anything more substantial due to the fact that works got me on nights now and I sleep during my off time.)

Now your turn, when have the other stations shown "Good" things from Iraq and given them the same coverage as any Bombings or "yet another US Soldier died" story? or any good thing about President Bush? and given that story at least half the time they attack him.

Yes, I was referring to political Liberalism with a capital L. Like Howard Liberalism. *shudder*

First up, I thought you were referring to the wars *I* was referring to. Obviously not. And since none of these countries have been on the US's doorstep you have to wonder don't you? And I'm sure Angola posed a great military threat. :rolleyes:

Toche! As you now know Geography is not my strong point. I'll conceed those contries but not all of the "Secret Wars"

BTW, in Nationstates, are you A UN Member?

BTW, in Nationstates, are you A UN Member?
Yes.

Yes, I was referring to political Liberalism with a capital L. Like Howard Liberalism. *shudder*

So you mean, laissez faire economics coupled with minimal interference in autonmous rights. In other words, low taxes, belief in the sacrocanct nature of property rights, government does not get involved in what are thought of as "morality issues", seperation of church and state, equality under the law &ct. Also big on private enterprise, the private sector and a de-empahsis on public services. The whole Hayek thing.

In the US liberal doesn't mean that anymore because we don't like the word socialist. It's nasty or something.

Kerry, Kennedy, and Hillary are centrists? Who then are the members of "the true left wing?

We are talking about the media (although the people you mentioned are simply left of center on the political spectrum).

What major network features the commentary of Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Naomi Klein, Nat Hentoff, or Amy Goodman? You probably don't even know who those people are, but they are a sampling of true liberal thought and opinion in America today, not the watered down excuse for left wing representation, like Alan Colms, that Fox trots out to be "fair and balanced" or the silly false dichotomy of "from the left/from the right" found on CNN.

The most extreme right wing voices are represented on the airwaves owned by the American people, but you have to search out small liberal outlets like the Democracy Now! radio show, newspapers such as The Village Voice, or magazines such as The Nation or The Progressive to find true liberal opinion.

So you mean, laissez faire economics coupled with minimal interference in autonmous rights. In other words, low taxes, belief in the sacrocanct nature of property rights, government does not get involved in what are thought of as "morality issues", seperation of church and state, equality under the law &ct. Also big on private enterprise, the private sector and a de-empahsis on public services. The whole Hayek thing.
Yes, that is indeed what I meant. I was just checking...

In the US liberal doesn't mean that anymore because we don't like the word socialist. It's nasty or something.
Damn you Americans and alternative words!!! Try having to use American textbooks, where all the measurements are in outdated systems and organs and hormones have different names! It drives me crazy! *head explodes*

But let me get you position straight. If Al-queda had invaded a sparsely inhabited island in the aluetian chain, we would have been perfectly justified in throwing our entire millitary at that island to regain the territory, even though no-one had died. And we could do this without the UN, without consulting anyone else and as fast as we possibly could.

If, on the other hand, several thousand of our civilians are killed, we should not go to where we believe the killers are and attempt to kill them before they do it again - because they are not on our sovereign territory. We should just sit there and hope they don't strike again or something. Therefore, land is more important than people, but whatever.
Actually, that's exactly right. Every country has the right to remove foriegn troops from it's soil with as much violence as it likes; that's the whole thing about sovereignty.

In fact, if an actual _country_ had attacked your home soil that would constitute an act of war and you would also be justified in returning the favour - the trouble is that it wasn't a country but a terrorist organisation that attacked; they don't HAVE a home country to attack. This does not (or at least shouldn't) give you the green light to go off and invade an unrelated country that you've been wanting to invade for a while.

Yes, that is indeed what I meant. I was just checking...


Damn you Americans and alternative words!!! Try having to use American textbooks, where all the measurements are in outdated systems and organs and hormones have different names! It drives me crazy! *head explodes*

I have to agree with the alternative words thing pissing me off too

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Hee Hoo. That may be what the dictionary says, but it isn't what the liberals in the US beleive. They darn sure aren't tolerant when it comes to the right wing concertatives.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount;

This they are. They like to take our tax dollars and give it freely and gednerously to others. They love to raid the Social Security system to help fund their tax and spend programs then tell everyone that SS is going broke. They insist that they can manage our SS $ better than we can. They want to give social benefits to those who have broken the law (illegal aliens) instead of deporting them. Yes, they are a generous liberal benefactors who give freely of the tax payers money.

Yes, that is indeed what I meant. I was just checking...


Damn you Americans and alternative words!!! Try having to use American textbooks, where all the measurements are in outdated systems and organs and hormones have different names! It drives me crazy! *head explodes*

Yeah, I often question the american habit of misdescribing liberal myself. If you are a socialist, just say so, nothing worng with it and it's a perfectly legitimate philosophy - although I don't agree with it.

But renaming liberal over here has caused no end of trouble. Our left-wingers are now "liberals." But the actual liberals, who I suppose are sort of centre right, are now calling themselves conservatives, and then there are people like Rudolph Guiliani who started out as a "republican-liberal" candidate (to do with New York politics don't ask), and so on. It's a fucking mess. If only people could have stayed with the original words. Oh, and somewhere in the mix we seemed to loose "progressive." I don't know where they went I think they also may be liberals now too.

Funny thing, when I was in the UK this summer, it seems like "new" labor shies away from being called socialist now too. I remember when the labor party was all about calling itself socialist. Probably because the leadership is not now, but there still has to be a lot of socialist MPs on the benches.

On the other hand, I do like the inches,

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Hee Hoo. That may be what the dictionary says, but it isn't what the liberals in the US beleive. They darn sure aren't tolerant when it comes to the right wing concertatives.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount;

This they are. They like to take our tax dollars and give it freely and gednerously to others. They love to raid the Social Security system to help fund their tax and spend programs then tell everyone that SS is going broke. They insist that they can manage our SS $ better than we can. They want to give social benefits to those who have broken the law (illegal aliens) instead of deporting them. Yes, they are a generous liberal benefactors who give freely of the tax payers money.

Lol why you arguing with me? I just gave the definition :-P lol if you find problems with the phraseology you can email comments@dictionary.com

Actually, that's exactly right. Every country has the right to remove foriegn troops from it's soil with as much violence as it likes; that's the whole thing about sovereignty.

In fact, if an actual _country_ had attacked your home soil that would constitute an act of war and you would also be justified in returning the favour - the trouble is that it wasn't a country but a terrorist organisation that attacked; they don't HAVE a home country to attack. This does not (or at least shouldn't) give you the green light to go off and invade an unrelated country that you've been wanting to invade for a while.

So what do you do about terrorism?

Look, I accept there are different viewpoints about the who what where and why of terrorism. But if a foreign nation is harboring terrorists inimical to your nations interest and that have attacked you, surely you are allowed to invade said country in furtherence of your security aims. Otherwise what do you do. Hope the Taliban gets bored?

And my overall point was that the US administration was doing what it believed to be in the best interests of security for the US. It's supposed to do that, and doing it doesn't make it a "global threat". That's all.

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me.Like the US never interferes in other countries? We're expressing /opinions/, which you seem to find threatening. Why?

Like the US never interferes in other countries? We're expressing /opinions/, which you seem to find threatening. Why?


I think it has something to do with our “everyone is against us” mentality that has been becoming very prominent. We are big and always under the spotlight and that pisses some people off that we are watched so much and told what to do all the time by everyone

Ehh doesn’t bother me one way or the other

Like the US never interferes in other countries? We're expressing /opinions/, which you seem to find threatening. Why?

We don't mind expressing Opinions, however, when you are Judging... that's different. No one likes to be judged... even you I'd wager.

Lol why you arguing with me? I just gave the definition :-P lol if you find problems with the phraseology you can email comments@dictionary.com

Not arguing with you at all. Just trying to give a definition of what is now concidered liberal in American pollitics in light of the dictrionary definition of liberal.

Liberal, centrist, concertative, left wing, right wing which ever your politics are, if you are in the US today, are registered to vote, and have not already done so, get your buns out to the poll and cast your ballot.

Yes.

Do you Role Play your country with your beliefs or do you assume the role of "someone" else?

I make my decisions as I would myself.

So what do you do about terrorism?

Look, I accept there are different viewpoints about the who what where and why of terrorism. But if a foreign nation is harboring terrorists inimical to your nations interest and that have attacked you, surely you are allowed to invade said country in furtherence of your security aims. Otherwise what do you do. Hope the Taliban gets bored?

What to do? Well, try modelling your response on the experiences of countries that have had years of experience of dealing with terrorist threats, like Spain and the UK. Both these countries learned long ago that fighting the terrorists doesn't work. Find out why they feel the way they do. If any of your behaviour has caused offence to people in the past, work to correct that through dialogue (remember that it's not just the terrorists who are upset with you - there will be many more people who hate you for exactly the same reasons, but who do not condone violence). Change things to make everybody happier, but leave the terrorists in no doubt that this wasn't as a result of your actions.

Simply: undermine their motives; give them no excuses; make their actions completely unjustifiable.

How will you possible hope to achieve this through war?

What to do? Well, try modelling your response on the experiences of countries that have had years of experience of dealing with terrorist threats, like Spain and the UK. Both these countries learned long ago that fighting the terrorists doesn't work. Find out why they feel the way they do. If any of your behaviour has caused offence to people in the past, work to correct that through dialogue (remember that it's not just the terrorists who are upset with you - there will be many more people who hate you for exactly the same reasons, but who do not condone violence). Change things to make everybody happier, but leave the terrorists in no doubt that this wasn't as a result of your actions.

Simply: undermine their motives; give them no excuses; make their actions completely unjustifiable.

How will you possible hope to achieve this through war?


As far as I understand the motives for 9/11 they were:

1. US support for a sovereign Isreal.

2. That our troops were in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi's

3. Being the Great Satan.

We have since withdrawn our troops from Saudi, but I don't see option 1 and 3 as negotiable really.

Prior to 9/11 there was an ongoing dialog about the status of Isreal and the US was begining to loose patience with the Isrealis. Those days are gone.

Also the entire situation is different to the UK and Spanish experience. Didn't those terrorists object to the occupation of their countries by the UK and Spain. I don't recall the US occupying any countries in the middle east. Plus ETA and the IRA never planned terrorist attacks intended to kill thousands of civilians. Al-queda did, and it's stated aim was to do so again.

As a footnote, I believe prior to 9/11 and subsequent to the first world trade center attack we were trying exactly what you suggested. Many people in this country feel that the risk of another 9/11 is to great to justify a dialog approach.

Watch Fox News (or read anything of Murdock's empire for that matter) for a few seconds and any notion of being 'fair and balanced' is down right laughable. The only people who believe wholeheartedly that Fox News is balanced are the same people who believe without a doubt that the Democratic party is a front for the Socialists. I suggest the excellent book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken for those interested in the destortions of Fox news and our friends Bill O' Reilly, Sean Hannity et. al.

Furthermore, it is disgusting that anyone would belittle the sacrifice of the European people during those wars. They all fought bravely no matter their side. Furthermore, to speak specifically of France (who obviously has received the brunt of conservative attacks on national character), I say this, were it not for France's aid during the Revolution it is highly likely that this nation of ours across the Atlantic would not exist. Again, to speak of France (merely because the right is SO noisy on the subject) to call the French "surrender monkeys" and the like is to ignore the bravery of the Free French during the Nazi occupation.

Well I think they shouldn't have been in many of these wars in the first place... And why the hell use things like cluster bombs or depleted uranium? There's NO WAY you can justify things like that.


So Americans fight to win!

ERM yeah, I did read it. :rolleyes:
So what if the US gave the most? It STILL failed to meet it's obligation and gave the LOWEST PROPORTION of GDP, which is the only relevant measure here, since it's unfair to compare an economy say, the size of Norway with the US.

Another tree hugging idiot that thinks we should give everything away. Nothing will placate a moron of this degree! I say screw them and give nothing. We are NOT obligated to give anything, we do it because we want to!!!!!

Another tree hugging idiot that thinks we should give everything away. Nothing will placate a moron of this degree! I say screw them and give nothing. We are NOT obligated to give anything, we do it because we want to!!!!!
And now that you got that off of your chest, you can maybe read it again? He was merely pointing out that while the USA gives the biggest sum, it gives the lowest proportion (per person if you will). That somehow indicates that it is indeed the rest who are "giving everything away". Of course you shouldn't do that. Only if you want to.

Yes, that is indeed what I meant. I was just checking...


Damn you Americans and alternative words!!! Try having to use American textbooks, where all the measurements are in outdated systems and organs and hormones have different names! It drives me crazy! *head explodes*

Must not be too outdated if your country has switched to OUR textbooks!!!!!

Yeah, I often question the american habit of misdescribing liberal myself. If you are a socialist, just say so, nothing worng with it and it's a perfectly legitimate philosophy - although I don't agree with it.

But renaming liberal over here has caused no end of trouble. Our left-wingers are now "liberals." But the actual liberals, who I suppose are sort of centre right, are now calling themselves conservatives, and then there are people like Rudolph Guiliani who started out as a "republican-liberal" candidate (to do with New York politics don't ask), and so on. It's a fucking mess. If only people could have stayed with the original words. Oh, and somewhere in the mix we seemed to loose "progressive." I don't know where they went I think they also may be liberals now too.

Funny thing, when I was in the UK this summer, it seems like "new" labor shies away from being called socialist now too. I remember when the labor party was all about calling itself socialist. Probably because the leadership is not now, but there still has to be a lot of socialist MPs on the benches.

On the other hand, I do like the inches,

I myslef am neither liberal or conservative.
I am Hedonist!!!!!!

The girls like the inches too!!!!!

So what do you do about terrorism?

Look, I accept there are different viewpoints about the who what where and why of terrorism. But if a foreign nation is harboring terrorists inimical to your nations interest and that have attacked you, surely you are allowed to invade said country in furtherence of your security aims. Otherwise what do you do. Hope the Taliban gets bored?

And my overall point was that the US administration was doing what it believed to be in the best interests of security for the US. It's supposed to do that, and doing it doesn't make it a "global threat". That's all.

If you help my enemy you are my enemy!

Any questions?

Want me to draw you a picture?

And now that you got that off of your chest, you can maybe read it again? He was merely pointing out that while the USA gives the biggest sum, it gives the lowest proportion (per person if you will). That somehow indicates that it is indeed the rest who are "giving everything away". Of course you shouldn't do that. Only if you want to.

Another tree hugging idiot that thinks we should give everything away. Nothing will placate a moron of this degree! I say screw them and give nothing. We are NOT obligated to give anything, we do it because we want to!!!!!

witty

Some examples:
* Fox news presented the war in Iraq far to victorious, as if all goes well for the people in Iraq now.
* On several occasions people of Fox News spoke about the 'Re-election of Bush' or something like that, instead of speaking about the 'Elections for presidency'
* In "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly was just disgustingly brutal against people with different opinions (saw a fragment with a guy who signed a petition against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, although his father was killed on 9/11).

What do Americans think of this? And what about the other television channels?

FoxNews was accurate in the reporting of the initial invasion. It was an extremely quick victory. Since then they've been fair. FoxNews has covered the bombings, the scandels, and the setbacks. They just happen to also throw in the positive things happening outside of the Sunni Triangle unlike all the other networks. They're still being accurate.
I'm sure the quote you heard: "Re-election for Bush" was made by Sean Hannity. He's a right winger who's upfront about his views. He's paired up with Alan Colmes who says things like, "Countdown to the election of John Kerry". They're both partisan guys who root for their guy. Nothing wrong with that.
And I think I know who you're talking about with O'Reilly. He was a younger guy brought in soon after 9/11? I saw that interview; the entire thing. The guy was nuts. He believes Bush allowed the strike. He was against even the invasion into Afghanistan. O'Reilly was understandably pissed off at him. I was yelling at the screen myself watching that.

Watch Fox News (or read anything of Murdock's empire for that matter) for a few seconds and any notion of being 'fair and balanced' is down right laughable. The only people who believe wholeheartedly that Fox News is balanced are the same people who believe without a doubt that the Democratic party is a front for the Socialists. I suggest the excellent book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken for those interested in the destortions of Fox news and our friends Bill O' Reilly, Sean Hannity et. al.

Ummm, why is the 'Murdoch' empire always brought into this? His company owns it, yes, but not all of it is so biased (well, thats what you think anyway).

I dont know how it is in the US with other News Corp. companies, but the media which News Corp. owns here in Australia (they own a lot), i think, is fair and balanced.

But oh well, it will soon be a US company, another great Australian successful company that is goneee, so its all in your hands now.

Must not be too outdated if your country has switched to OUR textbooks!!!!!

Well, ahhh, our state departments of education usually buy the cheapest textbooks based on the curriculum. So dont be so surprised that we use YOUR textbooks.

Originally Posted by Cowboy EKt
Must not be too outdated if your country has switched to OUR textbooks!!!!!


Well, ahhh, our state departments of education usually buy the cheapest textbooks based on the curriculum. So dont be so surprised that we use YOUR textbooks.
I'm at university so the books cost me upwards of $100 each. woo.
But we're talking quite specialised fields here, so there are a limited number of textbooks available, and it just happens that some of them are American, or American editions of say, German texts. (Good ol' Lehninger Biochemistry)

And yes, they are outdated. The international scientific community has long since moved on. moles/litre please... not.. what the hell is? grams/decilitre?

Oh, and I don't know why I bother. Cowboy Ekt, you're an idiot.

I won't be satisfied with this election until they do at least 4 recounts, and on the third vote, mysteriously through out several hundred ballets.

Calm down, everyone needs a hobby and We are the biggest and best target that no one can resist trying to prove they are better than us.

After all, every Government has their scandals (cough! Prince Charles cheating on Lady Diana, Cough!) that was plastered for all the world to see. Every country has their troubles with their government (Cough! parlament/house duking it out physically Cough!) so let's take their critisisms and their barbs cuz when the real trouble starts, we all know who everyone's gonna turn to for help.

Charles and Diana Royals not Gorvernment.

Where were the americans in Aden Borneo N Ireland Falklands we don't always ask for help.

I live in Belgium and yesterday we had a documentary on television about Fox News... It is clearly a republican stronghold and in nothing 'Fair and Balanced', what they claim to be.

They support Bush and promote fear for terrorism. In fact they are using everything they can in order to give the victory to Bush.

Some examples:
* Fox news presented the war in Iraq far to victorious, as if all goes well for the people in Iraq now.
* On several occasions people of Fox News spoke about the 'Re-election of Bush' or something like that, instead of speaking about the 'Elections for presidency'
* In "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly was just disgustingly brutal against people with different opinions (saw a fragment with a guy who signed a petition against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, although his father was killed on 9/11).

What do Americans think of this? And what about the other television channels?

Words can't describe how sick I am of this. Fox News lets both sides on, and there is no reason to believe they are a republican stronghold.

As far as your examples go:

CNN and such ONLY showed the negative parts of the war, so Fox News showed both, therefore, everyone said, Oh Fox news must be wrong.

The only person on Fox News that I've heard refer to it as anything like "the re-election of Bush" is Sean Hannity. But Alan Colmes refers to it as the "election of Kerry", so they cancel each other out. That's why their show is entertaining.

O'Reilly rags on everyone. It's not just Kerry. Besides, even if he did, you can't judge a whole station on just 1 person. Or else you would all have to admit that MSNBC is liberal (which it is) because of Chris Matthews.

Fox News is WAY more fair and balanced than the other ones and you know it. So just stop.

Realize, Fox News is a bastion of Republicans but everyone else, (CNN, DATELINE etc. ) are all Democratic strongholds as well. Dateline does an article on Bush's failing economy, yet they only show one factory in rual America and only say that this is the situation all over America... no statistics, no other examples.

Remember MEMOGATE... they were so HOT to show something damming of BUSH that they didn't even spot the HUGE and OBVIOUS mistakes in the letters. Normally (I'll admit) they do check their sources and try to go over all documents with a fine tooth comb... kinda funny that they missed this one.

The war in Iraq, how come only Fox News reports when the schools are open and running when they first opened. They reported when portions of the infrastructure are repaired. They report on civilians happily greeting US / British soldiers on the street. Mind you, they also report the other stuff including the atrocities committed by US soldiers and they do demand accountabiliy.

When Fox New is wrong, they do admit it... publicly and are forthright... not like other services that try to "blame their sources (Memogate)" or turn a blind eye untill confronted with overwhelming evidence (L.A. Times, N. Y. Times, Wall Street Journal)

Try watching it reguarly instead of only tuning in once a month. You'll see Bill O'Reilly tearing into Bush as well. He's been demanding the President explain the lack of WMD's and even saying the President has to Apologiese to the American People for the Missing WMD just as loudly as everyone else.

Don't forget, people have been desgusintly brutal with Bill also, at least with O'Reilly, he'll come at you while you're looking for the attack. not like the cowards who will blindside him by making him think the interview is about something else.

Fair and Balanced... compaired to the other News Service... They are!


This is an absolutly staggering load of crap.
CBS has sat on plenty of stories because they would make the Bush administration look bad. Hell, they didn't air a MOVIE because the White House asked them not to.

There is NO bastion of liberalism on network TV, or even cable TV. CNN used to be a bit liberal when Ted Turner owned it himself but now they're all corporate mouthpieces. And corporate interests are Republican interests. I can already hear you responding that this is a cliche, but there's a reason that this is the case. Because it's true.

It is true that there are individual newscasters who are democrats and don't like Bush, but they have to make their bosses happy. And their bosses are pretty much all republicans. If they weren't you'd hear as much about them as you do about George Soros.

...And I think I know who you're talking about with O'Reilly. He was a younger guy brought in soon after 9/11? I saw that interview; the entire thing. The guy was nuts. He believes Bush allowed the strike. He was against even the invasion into Afghanistan. O'Reilly was understandably pissed off at him. I was yelling at the screen myself watching that.

Um, you do know that he edits his show to make those he "interviews" look bad right? Chops their statements up, leaves statements out of context etc. I've never gotten to see that particular interview uncut, but he did have Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on and when I heard his routine in a different interview it was like night and day. Comedians never update their acts. Joan Rivers still compares choosing between Kerry and Bush to choosing her favorite Menendez Brother, just like she compared it to choosing between Gore and Bush and French and Italian dressing.

Bill O'Reilly's show isn't news. Even if Fox's "hard" news counted as news, which it doesn't, Bill O'Reilly's show would still be fiction.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Hee Hoo. That may be what the dictionary says, but it isn't what the liberals in the US beleive. They darn sure aren't tolerant when it comes to the right wing concertatives.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount;

This they are. They like to take our tax dollars and give it freely and gednerously to others. They love to raid the Social Security system to help fund their tax and spend programs then tell everyone that SS is going broke. They insist that they can manage our SS $ better than we can. They want to give social benefits to those who have broken the law (illegal aliens) instead of deporting them. Yes, they are a generous liberal benefactors who give freely of the tax payers money.

That's funny, you talk about liberals and taxpayers as though they are two distinct groups. Last time I checked liberals still pay taxes. Conservative corporate leaders on the otherhand don't.

And the idea of being tolerant of intolerance is just laughable.

I live in Belgium and yesterday we had a documentary on television about Fox News... It is clearly a republican stronghold and in nothing 'Fair and Balanced', what they claim to be.

They support Bush and promote fear for terrorism. In fact they are using everything they can in order to give the victory to Bush.

Some examples:
* Fox news presented the war in Iraq far to victorious, as if all goes well for the people in Iraq now.
* On several occasions people of Fox News spoke about the 'Re-election of Bush' or something like that, instead of speaking about the 'Elections for presidency'
* In "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly was just disgustingly brutal against people with different opinions (saw a fragment with a guy who signed a petition against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, although his father was killed on 9/11).

What do Americans think of this? And what about the other television channels?


They are a private organization owned by a private individual. It's called freedom of speech yo.

Why you Europeans Can't keep keep your nose out of American politics is beyond me. All I know this country bailed Europe out in two World Wars.

Sorry for bringing this up again but I feel like answering this question...even though it was answered many times.
It's a bit hard to keep our noses out of American politics with all the American TV shows on all the time. I'm from Australia and we hear all about you on the news all the time, and most of it isn't good so we come hear to complain about you often. Also, we have to take intrest in your actions because they would effect us as well, eg. War in Iraq, terrorist attacks, Bush being re-elected (this is bad since our PM currently is sucking up to Bush)

This is an absolutly staggering load of crap.
CBS has sat on plenty of stories because they would make the Bush administration look bad. Hell, they didn't air a MOVIE because the White House asked them not to.

There is NO bastion of liberalism on network TV, or even cable TV. CNN used to be a bit liberal when Ted Turner owned it himself but now they're all corporate mouthpieces. And corporate interests are Republican interests. I can already hear you responding that this is a cliche, but there's a reason that this is the case. Because it's true.

It is true that there are individual newscasters who are democrats and don't like Bush, but they have to make their bosses happy. And their bosses are pretty much all republicans. If they weren't you'd hear as much about them as you do about George Soros.

Oh, good if you already hear my response then you already know this...
There's a difference between the TELEVISION STATION like CBS and it's NEWS PROGRAMS. THE STATION did not air the Moore's movie but then no one else aired the anti-Kerry movie on free broadcast also. The News Programs however, feel that it's their responsibility to air whatever they think the people should know. Now, you say their news programs did not air alot of Anti-Bush news. Like what? I can't imagine any US news program refusing to air NEWs. They may not air graphic pictures/videos, but they will never censor themselves like that.

Oh, and you hear more about Micheal Moore then George Soros.

Fox news was pretty much cheerleading the President into Iraq, but so were pretty much all the other American news channels. The whole idea behind Fox news was to have right-ish competitor for the left-ish CNN. The difference being that the bias shone by CNN and other main-stream American TV news is generally a personal one, where's at Fox it's their policy. And while CNN reportedly has the leftist bias of Ted Turner, the rightist bias at Fox News is more or less contrived. They're pandering to conservatives who feel betrayed by the "liberal media".

Those on both the right and the left feel that news media are biased against them. In a sense, they're both right. The predominant bias is towards government. Although, I would say that most main-stream American journalists, especially in TV news, tend to root for Democrats.

I think O'Reilly's a piece of shiat, but he's a commentator, not a journalist. He's paid to give his opinion. His "no spin" BS and the whole Fox "fair and balanced" thing is really over the top though.

I think O'Reilly's a piece of shiat, but he's a commentator, not a journalist. He's paid to give his opinion. His "no spin" BS and the whole Fox "fair and balanced" thing is really over the top though.
Truth be told, I watch O'Reilly only for the "Rediulus item of the day" Just as I watch Neil Cavuto for his "My Word"

As a conservative and a frequent viewer of fox news I can say with confidence that O'Reilly is an ass. I cannot watch him without becoming incredibly frustrated. All he does is attack people who come on his show, it doesnt matter what they say, he just goes for the jugular. I saw a reporter come back from Iraq after 3 months and was telling O'Reilly how many Iraqis supported the removal of Saddam and O'Reilly just beat him up over it. The guy had just spent time in Iraq, he KNEW what was going on, but for some reason O'Reilly felt the need to berate him. Furthermore, O'Reilly is not that conservative. He is against the death penalty and for the legalization of marijuana.

Also, if you think Fox presented the war as a complete victory for the US and that every is just fine over there you obviously haven't watched it. Fox IS fair and balanced, its just seems extremely conservative because all of the other news organisations are so far to the left.

Europeans (and all people who don't inhabit America for that matter) must understand that most Americans are completely clueless when the discussion turns to any subject that originates outside familiar territory. Most Americans cannot tell you anything about what's happening just a few hundred miles from where they live. Also, Americans have been brainwashed into believing that we are always number one, and always correct, even when we are not. I mean look at President Bush for the love of Pete.

Who's Pete?





Anyway, I tend to agree that the level of ignorance among USians is embarrassing, but we aren't entirely alone. I cannot find it now, but I saw survey once that showed that 25% of French high school students were unaware that France is a nuclear power and a bunch of other interesting facts about European ignorance. It's probably not as bad over there as it is here, but it's still pretty bad.

I Know that alot of Japanese Tourists who visit the Arizona Memorial never knew they bombed Pearl Harbor. and boy were they shocked! Apparently, they never learned about Pearl Harbor in their schools... of course they learn that the US Dropped the Atom Bomb on them...

BTW, my friend. a teacher in college (ESL) got into a discussion with several foreign students. They said that America having Slaves is wrong! so they should teach it in history because Slavery is unjust. He spent hours trying to convince them that altering the History books does not alter the history... it just makes it possible to repeat them.


"Those who do not learn History is Doomed to repeat them...
Those who do not learn History properly is just Doomed."

... Joan Rivers still compares choosing between Kerry and Bush to choosing her favorite Menendez Brother, just like she compared it to choosing between Gore and Bush and French and Italian dressing.

I like the Menendez Brothers analogy, but my favorite line is:
"Most elections are like trying to get lunch out of a vending machine. You have choices, but they're all bad for you." -- Phillip Boncer, Free State Project

I like the Menendez Brothers analogy, but my favorite line is:
"Most elections are like trying to get lunch out of a vending machine. You have choices, but they're all bad for you." -- Phillip Boncer, Free State Project

And sometimes, you don't get your choice.

And yes, they are outdated. The international scientific community has long since moved on. moles/litre please... not.. what the hell is? grams/decilitre?

Oh, and I don't know why I bother. Cowboy Ekt, you're an idiot.

Grams Deciliter are the scientific measures of weight as described in the metric system. Oh no I said metric system, thats not outdated system. Ounces, pints, are the outdated system.

Shows who the true idiot is!!!!!

Three weeks? Oh well I guess you guys really tried the diplomatic route. Gave it every chance there.

Yes you are right, the US was not attacked on its sovereign territory. The smoking hole in New York and the three thousand dead civilians are all a figment of our imagination :rolleyes: Jeez, at least we waited longer than three weeks before sending our millitary.

The subsequent actions are an attempt to defend out soveriegn territory from another such attack, and are prosecuted in furtherence of that aim.

But let me get you position straight. If Al-queda had invaded a sparsely inhabited island in the aluetian chain, we would have been perfectly justified in throwing our entire millitary at that island to regain the territory, even though no-one had died. And we could do this without the UN, without consulting anyone else and as fast as we possibly could.

If, on the other hand, several thousand of our civilians are killed, we should not go to where we believe the killers are and attempt to kill them before they do it again - because they are not on our sovereign territory. We should just sit there and hope they don't strike again or something. Therefore, land is more important than people, but whatever.

Also the invasion of Iraq was not illegal. The sole authority to declare or authorize war vests in the US congress. This is constiutional law. The US constitution cannot be ammended by treaty, and every treaty signed by the US has clawbacks so stating. The invasion of Iraq is perfectly legal as per US law, and is therefore perfectly legal.

And yes the falklands did affect the US. We did have relationships with interested parties in South America, and that doesn't just include Argentina.

This is off topic so I apologise to those who aren't interested, however.

At what point did I say the US wasn't attacked on its soveriegn territory? I didn't mention that at all. The attack against those who attacked you is fine, all well and dandy. They were in Afganistan, you attacked, fine. You were not condemned by anyone for your attack on Afganistan and the introduction of democracy to that Country is laudable.
The war in Iraq was different. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion (or at least none that could be confirmed). There were no WMD's. The reasons for going to Iraq were illegal because they didn't exist.

Back to the Falklands. My timing was incorrect (I apologise). The Argentines landed a small military force on the islands on March 19. Britain requested that they leave to no response from Argentina.
April 2, Argentina invades Falklands.
April 10, EEC places trade sanctions on Argentina.
April 17, American meets Argentine junta, no effect.
April 30, Haigs mission terminated by US govt. Reagan declares US support for Britain and places sanctions on Argentina. British exclusion zone comes into effect.
May 1, first engagement of British aircraft with Argentinian airforce.
May 7, UN enters peace negotiations.
June 14, British defeat Argentines in Port Stanley.
June 20, formal end of war from Britain.
Leopoldo Galtieri resigned soon afterwards, paving the way for the restoration of democracy in Argentina.
So again, I apologise, it wasn't meant to say weeks, it should have read months...my bad.

Grams Deciliter are the scientific measures of weight as described in the metric system. Oh no I said metric system, thats not outdated system. Ounces, pints, are the outdated system.
Actually moron, in chemistry the moles/litre (aka molarity) measurement is the accepted norm. while grams and decilitres ARE metric, they're not SI units.
Stop making a fool of yourself. I won't be wasting my time resonding to any more of your posts.

We don't mind expressing Opinions, however, when you are Judging... that's different. No one likes to be judged... even you I'd wager.Doesn't bother me.

This is off topic so I apologise to those who aren't interested, however.

At what point did I say the US wasn't attacked on its soveriegn territory? I didn't mention that at all. The attack against those who attacked you is fine, all well and dandy. They were in Afganistan, you attacked, fine. You were not condemned by anyone for your attack on Afganistan and the introduction of democracy to that Country is laudable.
The war in Iraq was different. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion (or at least none that could be confirmed). There were no WMD's. The reasons for going to Iraq were illegal because they didn't exist.

Back to the Falklands. My timing was incorrect (I apologise). The Argentines landed a small military force on the islands on March 19. Britain requested that they leave to no response from Argentina.
April 2, Argentina invades Falklands.
April 10, EEC places trade sanctions on Argentina.
April 17, American meets Argentine junta, no effect.
April 30, Haigs mission terminated by US govt. Reagan declares US support for Britain and places sanctions on Argentina. British exclusion zone comes into effect.
May 1, first engagement of British aircraft with Argentinian airforce.
May 7, UN enters peace negotiations.
June 14, British defeat Argentines in Port Stanley.
June 20, formal end of war from Britain.
Leopoldo Galtieri resigned soon afterwards, paving the way for the restoration of democracy in Argentina.
So again, I apologise, it wasn't meant to say weeks, it should have read months...my bad.

Better way to state the terrorist situation in Iraq is to say; Terrorist presence in Iraq could neither be confirmed or disproved.

I still believe that what the US really thought was that Osama had crossed to Iraq and that was the true inspiration for attacking Iraq. But this is just my opinion and no proof one way or another.

Actually moron, in chemistry the moles/litre (aka molarity) measurement is the accepted norm. while grams and decilitres ARE metric, they're not SI units.
Stop making a fool of yourself. I won't be wasting my time resonding to any more of your posts.

Ok let me ask you this. What is it that Grams, Liters (you see I spell it properly for what I am talking about), CC's, ML's. mg's. mcg's, & meq's. These are all universal and used everyday in medicine. The outdated system of medicine was measured with grains and such, I didn't study in the medical field that far back and really could care less how they measured everything back then. I did however know some old Physicians that would order medicine in Grains and you would have to hunt down a conversion for grains into mg.

Now a real smart person would notice that I was speaking in medical terms and not chemistry cause of the similarities in the unit's. But you will also notice that all medicines use the Metric system of measurement as a standard!!!!!

And since you decided to flame and use personal attacks I decided I wouldn't stoop to your level!!!!!