NationStates Jolt Archive


American Media and Iraq…Let’s Vent

Salutus
28-08-2005, 22:23
You probably clicked the link figuring this was an America-bashing thread, so I’ll tell you right off that my intent in writing this was not to hate on America. I live in America and love the freedoms and opportunities available to me here. There is nowhere else I would rather live. That being said, as of late I have developed a bit of a disliking for both our media and several of the people running this country.

Let’s compare two articles on the same subject: oil. I recently read an article in previously-believable Time Magazine entitled “Why Gas Won’t Get Cheaper.” I highly encourage everyone to read it, because unless you are so conservative as to be certifiable, you’ll probably get a good laugh out of it. Go to http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1056298,00.html and subscribe to read the article. (If this doesn’t work, go to www.time.com, go to archive, and search the May 9, 2005 article by title). Basically, the article explains to the ignorant, gas-guzzling masses that gas is expensive because we have used up the ‘easy-access’ oil. In short, Time magazine - a major news syndicate - claims we’ve consumed most of the world’s pure crude and that there’s plenty of oil left, but this will be more expensive to drill and purify/refine. Here’s the beginning;

“You don't have to be a commodities trader to worry about West Texas crude. Most of us know the price of gasoline to the penny, and it's starting to really pinch. President Bush made the rising price of oil a focus of his prime-time news conference last week. But as Bush has acknowledged, lowering the price of oil isn't that easy. " You can't wave a magic wand," he said. Oil, unlike other products and services that are manufactured and sold, obeys the laws of geology, not just supply and demand. " You don't make more oil," says Sam Shelton, director of the Strategic Energy Initiative at Georgia Tech…”

How nice of them to clarify. I thought oil came from K-mart. Anyway, it goes on. Conveniently, the author seems to have completely forgotten how conflict leads to tension, and fails to acknowledge the impact the Middle East conflict might have on oil prices.

Now let’s take a look at a clipping from a Chicago newspaper, The Daily Herald. In a few sentences, this summarizes exactly what a Time writer spent several pages trying to avoid.

“The $3 mark: Gas sticker shock just keeps on coming” …Why does it cost so much? Among the reasons: Refining capacity is down, world tensions are high-epecially in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuala- and America’s huge demand for oil has been joined by China and India.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. And even if you don’t think it’s true, at least it’s slightly more believable than the time article. I might add that the same magazine held another article about the Pope which featured a large caption reminding us that “God has the power to give life as well as take it.” I thought the media was supposed to be objective? This blatant, in-your-face born-again Christian fundamentalist propaganda isn’t objective by ANY stretch of the imagination. These articles just go to show that the Media people have their own agenda, all the while hiding behind ‘freedom of the press.’

This morning’s Herald also had an article I couldn’t resist clipping.

“Protesters on both sides descend on Crawford”

“Several thousand people descended on President Bush’s adopted hometown Saturday, most in a cross-country caravan for a pro-Bush rally and others to support and anti-war demonstration led by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.
Bush supporters gathered for an event marking the culmination of the “You don’t speak for me, Cindy!” tour, which started last week in California. The crowd of about 1500 chanted, “Cindy, go home!” (let’s keep in mind that this woman’s 24-year-old son died in Iraq)
…At the pro-Bush rally several miles away, there were some heated moments when two members of Protest Warrior, a group that frequently holds counter protests to anti-war rallies, walked in with a sign that read “Say No to War – Unless a Democrat is President.” Many Bush supporters only saw the top of the sign and believed the men were war protesters, so they began shouting and chasing the pair out. One man tore up their signs. When Will Marean of Minneapolis kept repeating that he was on the Bush side and tried to explain Protest Warrior’s mission, one Bush supporter shook his hand and apologized. (good to see Bush has such high-caliber individuals on his side)
Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif. Started camping out off the road leading to Bush’s ranch on Aug. 6, soon after the president’s Texas vacation began. She vowed to remain unless he talked to her about the war with Iraq that claimed the life of her son Casey and more that 1870 other U.S. soldiers…
Bush has said he appreciates Sheehan’s right to protest and understands her anguish but will not change his schedule to meet with her.”

Did you know that the president’s unavoidably busy vacation schedule includes biking with Lance Armstrong? The article also features a timeless picture of Bush supporters that I will now describe to you. Front and center is a typical looking man wearing a patriotic T-shirt. To his left is another typical looking middle-aged man holding a sign that says, “Traitors not welcome in Texas.” To his right is an elderly man wearing (why not?) a cowboy hat and holding a sign displaying the debatable doctrine that “Bush is right, you are wrong.” I repeat: this woman’s son recently died in Iraq.

And what do you know, we’ve reached the issue of the Iraq war. Time and again, intense debates have brought us full circle to the question of, “Why did we go?” You might ask, (and would certainly be justified) “What business does a country whose top industries include eating and falsifying intelligence have in a country whose top industries include making weapons of mass destruction (not really)?” Here’s my theory, and take it how you will: oil. Think about it; tensions in the Middle East were high enough after Afghanistan, and oil prices got jacked up. Here’s some pros and cons of the argument;

Con: Well, this sucks, the Afghanis are mad at us, tensions are high, now OPEC’s increased oil prices. Gee, it would suck if this got to the point where we had to seize oil by force, but it’s always a possibility.
Pro: Hey, what if we had a ton of U.S. troops stationed near oil, if only just to make our presence felt? Better yet, let’s prop up a democracy in a part of the world we’d like to see a government more friendly to ours! And why not? We forced our way into Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Panama…
Con: How do we justify this? Nobody wants to hear their son died for oil.
Pro: Well…. Saddam’s an asshole… let’s just say we’re finishing what we didn’t in the first Gulf War by kicking him out. We’ll just falsify some of this intelligence and be on our way!

Well, NSers, what do you think? What’s the deal with the media? Why did the U.S. go to Iraq? I know there are holes in my argument, as with many arguments. I’m interested in hearing what others have to say, as long as it doesn’t degenerate into flaming and personal attacks. Yes, I respect your right to believe what you will, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, just as you don’t have to agree with me.
Tactical Grace
28-08-2005, 22:28
Erm, the Time article is correct. I'm not sure what your issue is with it. There is a political dimension to it too, but it cannot be denied that the world's production capacity is maxed out.
Call to power
28-08-2005, 22:33
oil is so high because people think there are tensions in the middle east (think about it this way at least less people are using cars)
Salutus
28-08-2005, 22:39
Erm, the Time article is correct. I'm not sure what your issue is with it. There is a political dimension to it too, but it cannot be denied that the world's production capacity is maxed out.

my issue is that i find time's spin on it less believable due to their indirect denial of conflict's impact on prices. the herald article acknowledges both the production capacity and conflict aspects.
Salutus
28-08-2005, 22:40
oil is so high because people think there are tensions in the middle east (think about it this way at least less people are using cars)

i'm not sure i understand what you're saying... that iraq was a conspiracy to get people to use their cars less? i would say anything that involves an invasion and 2000 casualties is a very real conflict.
Salutus
28-08-2005, 22:50
bump
Call to power
28-08-2005, 22:59
i'm not sure i understand what you're saying... that iraq was a conspiracy to get people to use their cars less? i would say anything that involves an invasion and 2000 casualties is a very real conflict.

no that oil prices and Iraq have nothing to do with each other (other than some big shot economist who thinks he's smart saying there is tension in the middle east to look clever)
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:07
oil is so high because people think there are tensions in the middle east (think about it this way at least less people are using cars)

people think there are tensions in the middle east because there is a war being fought there.and america invading iraq for the oil is an old story.everyone knows that was the only reason bush went to war.stopping saddam was just a useful cover.its a ferocious load of crap.

when saddam was arrested/captured the war was said to be over.despite the end of the war US forces are still occupying iraq and there is still fighting and deaths,possibly more before the war ended

no that oil prices and Iraq have nothing to do with each other (other than some big shot economist who thinks he's smart saying there is tension in the middle east to look clever)


are you ignoring the fact that there is a significant amount of oil in Iraq?or did you not know that?
Amefri
28-08-2005, 23:08
Americans are spoiled.

And I say this as a proud, spoiled American.

The gas price has been wavering between 5-6$ if you exchange the currency from pounds (how the @(#& do you make that L sign, anyway?), in the UK, last I checked. They've been paying double our price, while we moan and groan.

News to the American public: GET OVER IT.

The economy has highs, the economy has lows. We're not in the Great Depression. I'm sick of hearing idiots complaining. I'm sick of hearing hollywood moviestairs saying they'll leave the country if X person gets (re)elected. You know what? DO IT. You suck at acting anyway, I don't like you, GO. None of them ever leave. They forget they ever made the pledge and go on with their lives. They can't leave behind their billion dollar mansions which they could easily somehow be trying to use to somehow be fixing the economy or the nation's debt or something.

That's just it, people need to accept it and get on with their lives.

What really steams me though is:

"This war is all for oil!"
*Two months later*
"Because of this war we don't have any oil!"

You know, considering we're supposedly @#(&ing guarding their oil mines or WTFever I've heard, if we were really filthy american dogs I'm pretty sure we'd be sucking out their oil by now if there's this mass crisis because the "enormous lack of oil" is caused by the war and is sending our economy into a spiraling depression or whatever.

I hate the media. I hate it. I hate how it exaggerates things, I hate how it doesn't check its sources, and I hate how it doesn't think before it broadcasts.

"YEAH, RALPH. AND IF THEY DUMPED TOXIC WASTE RIGHT HERE, THE ENTIRE CITY OF (INSERT) WOULD BE WIPED OUT FROM THE WATER SUPPLY. JUST THINK OF THAT."

I hate the media.
Salutus
28-08-2005, 23:10
no that oil prices and Iraq have nothing to do with each other (other than some big shot economist who thinks he's smart saying there is tension in the middle east to look clever)

thank you for proving to everyone that you are not worth listening to. now i don't have to.
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:11
....They forget they ever made the pledge.....

Em,what pledge?
Tactical Grace
28-08-2005, 23:11
my issue is that i find time's spin on it less believable due to their indirect denial of conflict's impact on prices. the herald article acknowledges both the production capacity and conflict aspects.
They didn't deny anything. They simply focused on one seriously under-reported contributory factor. There are articles on absence of refinery capacity and rising Chinese imports coming out of editors' every orifice, no-one really mentions geological limits on available production capacity. It is not intellectual fraud to write an article focusing on the issue - I have read entire books dedicated to the subject.
Amefri
28-08-2005, 23:11
when saddam was arrested/captured the war was said to be over.despite the end of the war US forces are still occupying iraq and there is still fighting and deaths,possibly more before the war ended

The current reason is supposedly allowing them to stablize their new government with help. How this ends is yet to be seen.
Amefri
28-08-2005, 23:13
Em,what pledge?

I'm sick of hearing idiots complaining. I'm sick of hearing hollywood moviestairs saying they'll leave the country if X person gets (re)elected. You know what? DO IT. You suck at acting anyway, I don't like you, GO. None of them ever leave. They forget they ever made the pledge and go on with their lives.

Reading comprehension is good.
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:14
The current reason is supposedly allowing them to stablize their new government with help. How this ends is yet to be seen.

Ya,i have heard that on the news.Although it doesnt seem to be workin,there were a number of bombings today,and there are almost everyday.iraqi civilians with improvised explosives are doing more than the well trained army.
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:16
Reading comprehension is good.

thanks,but you didnt say what pledge.do actors make some kind of pledge to live in america no matter the political situation?does anyone?
Salutus
28-08-2005, 23:18
thanks,but you didnt say what pledge.do actors make some kind of pledge to live in america no matter the political situation?does anyone?

yeah, in school every day we say the 'pledge of allegiance'

i pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of america
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation under god
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all
Call to power
28-08-2005, 23:23
thank you for proving to everyone that you are not worth listening to. now i don't have to.

ignorant eh? do you really think Bush would be willing to go to Iraq for it's oil even when it could mean losing an election and a tiny risk of another Vietnam?

the whole oil thing comes from the fact that we can now build a pipeline to send oil from the Caspian sea (which is now going to run though Afghanistan and Iraq) we could of got this oil at a much lower cost by avoiding going to war so why didn't we? :eek: do you think it could of been because there is no conspiracy...could Michel Moor just not like Bush!
Amefri
28-08-2005, 23:23
No. Various famous people were threatening to leave America if Bush got elected like we actually gave a damn about them. Said they'd move to Canada. Surprise surprise, when Bush got elected, NOBODY MOVED.
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:27
yeah, in school every day we say the 'pledge of allegiance'

i pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of america
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation under god
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all

really?i never knew that.do you have to say it,or is it optional?how patriotic,id say a lot of my friends,and people my age dont even know the national anthem.
Salutus
28-08-2005, 23:27
ignorant eh? do you really think Bush would be willing to go to Iraq for it's oil even when it could mean losing an election and a tiny risk of another Vietnam?

the whole oil thing comes from the fact that we can now build a pipeline to send oil from the Caspian sea (which is now going to run though Afghanistan and Iraq) we could of got this oil at a much lower cost by avoiding going to war so why didn't we? :eek: do you think it could of been because there is no conspiracy...could Michel Moor just not like Bush!

first, i never called you ignorant.
second, i'm willing to bet Bush would go to war in Iraq with enough justification, however shady...say, how about claiming there's WMD's there? did you even read the first post?
and finally, i have not heard of an oil pipeline running from iraq to the U.S. probably because there isn't one.
Salutus
28-08-2005, 23:30
really?i never knew that.do you have to say it,or is it optional?how patriotic,id say a lot of my friends,and people my age dont even know the national anthem.

yeah every morning we face the nearest flag and say it. supposedly it's required, but a lot of people just stay sitting or don't say certain parts, like 'under god' in protest. the 'under god' clause has been a source of controversy here, because some people want it removed. do you have something like that in ireland?
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:43
the whole oil thing comes from the fact that we can now build a pipeline to send oil from the Caspian sea (which is now going to run though Afghanistan and Iraq) we could of got this oil at a much lower cost by avoiding going to war so why didn't we? :eek: do you think it could of been because there is no conspiracy...could Michel Moor just not like Bush!

if anyone tries to build an oil pipeline in iraq now the insurgents will kill them and blow the pipeline to pieces.and if you can at some point in the future it's because american forces invaded and overthrew the reigning government(or dictatorship,whatever)
Call to power
28-08-2005, 23:46
first, i never called you ignorant.
second, i'm willing to bet Bush would go to war in Iraq with enough justification, however shady...say, how about claiming there's WMD's there? did you even read the first post?
and finally, i have not heard of an oil pipeline running from iraq to the U.S. probably because there isn't one.

1) Bush isn't some shady megalomaniac

2) yes I did read the first post

3) wow so what pipeline do you think insurgents have been attacking?
oh look it's not just one pipeline!: http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

and lets have two links:
http://members.tripod.com/~KELSAGHIR/Caspian/index#GEOPOLIT
(go down to map)
Ifreann
28-08-2005, 23:47
yeah every morning we face the nearest flag and say it. supposedly it's required, but a lot of people just stay sitting or don't say certain parts, like 'under god' in protest. the 'under god' clause has been a source of controversy here, because some people want it removed. do you have something like that in ireland?

nope,nothin like that.in the national anthem theres a part about pledging our lives to ireland,thats the closest we'd have to it.we dont have that many flags around either.the most patriotic thing we do in school is have irish classes.compulsary irish classes,although you can get an exemption if you're dyslexic or didnt go to primary school in ireland.
The Jovian Moons
28-08-2005, 23:57
This debate needs more moderates...
Bush screwed up Iraq and failed to close off the borders giving us the situation we have now.
Moore is a self centered mad man.
Salutus
29-08-2005, 00:00
1) Bush isn't some shady megalomaniac

2) yes I did read the first post

3) wow so what pipeline do you think insurgents have been attacking?
oh look it's not just one pipeline!: http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

and lets have two links:
http://members.tripod.com/~KELSAGHIR/Caspian/index#GEOPOLIT
(go down to map)

praise bush all you want, but he went biking with lance armstrong while a woman with a dead son was denied the chance to talk to him because he wouldn't change his schedule

the whole oil thing comes from the fact that we can now build a pipeline to send oil from the Caspian sea (which is now going to run though Afghanistan and Iraq) we could of got this oil at a much lower cost by avoiding going to war so why didn't we? this clearly implies that there is a pipeline being built to run oil from the caspian sea so that 'we' can run oil. 'we' meaning the united states. whether you meant to or not you wrote that the US was going to run oil from the caspian sea across the atlantic via pipeline. either you meant to write that, or your communications skills are seriously lacking.

and now, unfortunately, i must go, and will miss whatever incredibly witty comeback you come up with 15 minutes from now. goodbye
Salutus
29-08-2005, 00:02
1) Bush isn't some shady megalomaniac

2) yes I did read the first post

3) wow so what pipeline do you think insurgents have been attacking?
oh look it's not just one pipeline!: http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

and lets have two links:
http://members.tripod.com/~KELSAGHIR/Caspian/index#GEOPOLIT
(go down to map)

praise bush all you want, but he went biking with lance armstrong while a woman with a dead son was denied the chance to talk to him because he wouldn't change his schedule

the whole oil thing comes from the fact that we can now build a pipeline to send oil from the Caspian sea (which is now going to run though Afghanistan and Iraq) we could of got this oil at a much lower cost by avoiding going to war so why didn't we? this clearly implies that there is a pipeline being built to run oil from the caspian sea so that 'we' can run oil. 'we' meaning the united states. whether you meant to or not you wrote that the US was going to run oil from the caspian sea across the atlantic via pipeline. either you meant to write that, or your communications skills are seriously lacking.

and now, unfortunately, i must go, and will miss whatever incredibly witty comeback you come up with 15 minutes from now. goodbye
Call to power
29-08-2005, 00:16
snip

1) If Bush dropped his schedule for every protester ruining his vacation I think he would be swarmed in about 5 minuets

2) not in the U.S I mean we as in the west and more importantly the oil tycoons (if you read the sources you might learn something)

3) you seem to be either avoiding the truth or don't like the idea that you might be proven wrong either way don't insult me (anyone else wanna back me up here?)

4) 15 minuets because I tend to have other things to do besides wait for you to post which I must apology’s for not noticing you waited for just my post)