NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hadar/hadar71.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese306.html
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9732

It's looking more and more likely.

Hardly the most authoritive nor neutral of sources.

Hardly the most authoritive nor neutral of sources.

yep. I still think there won't be war with the IRI

Hardly the most authoritive nor neutral of sources.

Aside from the BBC and the CBC, there is no such thing as a "neutral source."

Aside from the BBC and the CBC, there is no such thing as a "neutral source."
so cite something from the BBC and CBC smart one.

so cite something from the BBC and CBC smart one.

If I had something to cite, rest assured, I would. In the meantime, at least read the links. Whether you agree with them or not is inconsequential, just as long as you at least read them.

If I had something to cite, rest assured, I would. In the meantime, at least read the links. Whether you agree with them or not is inconsequential, just as long as you at least read them.

Yea...why should we read them if we know that they are biased and have an adgenda?

You are gonna post every article that guy writes aren't you?

Aside from the BBC and the CBC, there is no such thing as a "neutral source."

heh, you called the BBC 'neutral', must be a Brit.

You are gonna post every article that guy writes aren't you?

QFT

Yes, yes I still believe it.

Quite simply because invading Iran makes no sense on a variety of levels. Allow me to list them for you.

1) The world wouldn't stand for it. They couldn't do anything about it militarily, but we'd lose every last shred of credibility as a nation populated by sane human beings.

2) We can't. We're too busy with other things, like Iraq.

3) We'd just be helping the terrorists. They'd like nothing more than to see the US go after a major power in the Middle East, particularly an Islamic government such as Ahmadinejad's. They'd be able to say-- with even more credibility-- that America was waging a war in Islam. After all, Iran has a religious government, Iraq's was secular.

It doesn't make sense, and I'd suggest that you leave your histrionics at the door next time.

If I had something to cite, rest assured, I would. In the meantime, at least read the links. Whether you agree with them or not is inconsequential, just as long as you at least read them.
Is all you do around here is post things from that site and declare them the Gospel truth? Because that's basicly what the past few threads are. Like I said before any site that claims that the NeoCons are the ones making muslims mad at the pope has little credibility.

There won't be war in Iran, what the hell can the US send? Every military unit is over extended, National Guard underfunded and under equipped, Armour divisions needed in Iraq. Airforce needed in Afghanistan, unless the Navy is going to invade Iran we have nothing to send. Despite what people claim the US military isn't a huge Jackboot world conquering army. Just parts of the world. And we've covered parts that we can't even secure. So no invasion, at least for a long time.

If I had something to cite, rest assured, I would. In the meantime, at least read the links. Whether you agree with them or not is inconsequential, just as long as you at least read them.

It's not a question of whether we agree with the guy or not, its about the validity and bias of the source. The man has an axe to grind with the bush administration, period.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hadar/hadar71.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese306.html
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9732

It's looking more and more likely.

You know, there was a thread just like this in the summer of '04 and the summer of '05? My skepticism is immense, and I'm drunk nonetheless.

heh, you called the BBC 'neutral', must be a Brit.

And the CBC, must be Canadian...

And the CBC, must be Canadian...

not familiar with the CBC, but to anyone outside of Britain who actually watches the BBC, calling it unbiased is like calling CNN unbiased.

not familiar with the CBC, but to anyone outside of Britain who actually watches the BBC, calling it unbiased is like calling CNN unbiased.

The BBC and CBC are unbiased. Are you one of those people who thinks Fox news is unbiased?

Aside from the BBC and the CBC, there is no such thing as a "neutral source."
Especially if it's a politician.

not familiar with the CBC, but to anyone outside of Britain who actually watches the BBC, calling it unbiased is like calling CNN unbiased.
CBC is the Canadian version of the BBC, only it actually has good programming.

CBC is the Canadian version of the BBC, only it actually has good programming.

BBC has good programming, as long as you don't watch World Service - or anything that's not channel 1 or 2.

not familiar with the CBC, but to anyone outside of Britain who actually watches the BBC, calling it unbiased is like calling CNN unbiased.

BBC IS unbiased. Fact.

BBC IS unbiased. Fact.

HaHaHa.......you are to funny. Are you in comedy? Do you know Chris Rock and the likes? Wow are you hilarius. BBC US unbiased...LMFAO oh my please stop. FACT... OMG......I think I'm having a stroke.....this is to much. :D

The BBC and CBC are unbiased. Are you one of those people who thinks Fox news is unbiased?

That same question could be turned around on you.

Do you think that maybe you believe that BBC/CBC are unbiased because you merely don't object to what they're saying?

Come on. Use your critical thinking skills...

That same question could be turned around on you.

Do you think that maybe you believe that BBC/CBC are unbiased because you merely don't object to what they're saying?

Come on. Use your critical thinking skills...

No. I believe they are unbiased because they don't take sides in the stories they report on.

HaHaHa.......you are to funny. Are you in comedy? Do you know Chris Rock and the likes? Wow are you hilarius. BBC US unbiased...LMFAO oh my please stop. FACT... OMG......I think I'm having a stroke.....this is to much. :D

Oh, go away you annoying little n00b. If you can't say something nice, or can't back anything you say up, don't say nothing at all. Get my drift?

That same question could be turned around on you.

Do you think that maybe you believe that BBC/CBC are unbiased because you merely don't object to what they're saying?

Come on. Use your critical thinking skills...

No, the BBC genuinely offer fact without any kind of slant to it, without any added opinion to agree or disagree to. On areas where opinion can be offered, such as Newsnight or Question Time analyses, a wide range of viewpoints are interviewed or questioned.

Oh, go away you annoying little n00b. If you can't say something nice, or can't back anything you say up, don't say nothing at all. Get my drift?

I apologize I just found that to be very hillarious So I voiced my opinion, however, it was a bit extreme so If I annoyed you I am truly sorry.

No, the BBC genuinely offer fact without any kind of slant to it, without any added opinion to agree or disagree to. On areas where opinion can be offered, such as Newsnight or Question Time analyses, a wide range of viewpoints are interviewed or questioned.

Late night News 24 is also pretty good. But the BBC suffers from the same pressures that any high profile news agency does, and as it is an arm of the government it has less lee-way on where to fight back.

However, like any news broadcaster, you have to look at each story and ask yourself the same questions each time.

It is certainly much better than most UK news, nearly on a par with Channel/More 4.

Fox News, don't get me started, at least they put their Bias out in the open.

and cummon

No. I believe they are unbiased because they don't take sides in the stories they report on.
so, the BBC is Unbiased because...they're unbiased? circular logic much?

Just becasue you happen to agree with the BBC's bias, doesn't mean it is unbiased.
I'll admit it, the BBC is a good source of news, they do their work and gather and present the facts, do not however mistake this for being 'unbiased'