Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti-American
Options
Comments
-
I think you misunderstood his point, which was about hypocrisy. Also I think you're confusing the Russian Federation with the CIS.Street Byte wrote:The respective members of the CIS might disagree with that, they would publically, but then they would suffer the same fate as Chechnya.0 -
Street Byte wrote:The respective members of the CIS might disagree with that, they would publically, but then they would suffer the same fate as Chechnya.
The CIS(Commonwealth of Independent States) is NOT RUSSIA!
Look at wikipedia....the CIS is made up of the states which formely were part of the USSR with the exception of Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia who are part of the EU.
Chechnya is part of Russia itself and as such the Kremlin has every right to dictate how it is governed.....whether right or wrong.0 -
Street Byte wrote:Firstly any Anti-war movement had 9 years to organise an Anti-war movement against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - and it wholly failed to materialse
youreally believe this do you? You really believe nobody opposed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? You believe only John rambo and the US opposed that invasion and nobody else?
By the way did you see Rambo III? You might note it was dedicated to the muJIHADeen fighters who opposed those pesky commie Ruskies. Did you notice that? do you also accept that the Us supported Bin Laden and the MuJIHADeen in afghanistan? wake up for Gods sake.
The Taliban are but one faction in Afghanistan. A faction singled out by the so called "war on terror" policy. The Us supported Bin Laden and the MuJIHADeen when it suited them so they contributed to the destruction of Afghanistan at that time. You remember that time dont you? that was about when the Us supported Mobutu, Marcos and the Sandinastas against democratically elected governments! You see I don't operate double standards. I opposed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and I opposed Saddam at the time -when the US supported him! you can't have it both ways.- Russia destroyed Afghanistan, not America. Given the Orwellian slaughter house that the Taliban reduced the country to, it is to the shame an infamy of the Anti-war movement that they opposed the liberation of that courtry after decades of suffering.
Did you support the MuJIHADeen and Saddam in the eighties? I didn't.
Mainstream Anti-war movements, especially in this country,
What country is "this country"have been hijacked a long time ago by people with no interest in protesting against China or Russia. Blunt Anti-Americanism has allowed them to claim that Serb carnage in Kosovo was the fault of America, and for non-sensical views like this to go unopposed and unquestioned.
i suppose you will now deny the US bombed Yougoslavia on the day of the colombine incident?justify what went on in the Kosovo pocket either but your blinkered view doesen't seem to be aware enough to comprehend that the US participated in coloniooalism on a grand scale since the late nineteenth century backed up by a militarism which grew to surpass the rival states of russia Germany France and England.
Not on FOX NEWS ist doesn't!
Any Anti-war movement has enough air time to get its views across on any threatre it wishes to talk about -
I don't know what that meansbut has failed wholly. And it should be added without any critism from the Anti-war rank and file (or certainly to no effect).
The US authorities must share in the balme if they commit military forces or pay for private armies or sell weapons to prople who use tham! Likewise Russia Germany etc. But the biggest trader of weapons is the US.So I can only concluede that the more we rant about America the less people's focus is on other areas. When we wake up to the reality of how far things have been let slip - we blame america again (comment about China).
The US is also involved in more incurtions and military "advice" than anyone else. YES we can blame the US authorities (not Americans since they didnt ask for this or ascent to it- although if the US can blame Germans for what happened in WWII then ???)
We can also bleam the other smaller fry.
But my point was on human rights abuse. Why dont the US point to communist Chinas abuse of human rights as strongly as they did in the past?
Why do they insist that Palestine follow the agreements by the book when Israel hasn't done so?
Do you know what double standards are?0 -
There is no point in holding a mass protest against something that pretty much everybody disagrees with. Russia was condenmed by everybody when they were invading Afghanistan. Protests are there in order to try to force governments or institutions to change their policies, so why would there be protests against the Russian war in Afghanistan if everyone was on the same side. There were most likely protests against the Russian embassy and against russian dignitaries if they visited during that time, but i was too young back then to have any involvement in them or to know very much about them now.Street Byte wrote:Firstly any Anti-war movement had 9 years to organise an Anti-war movement against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - and it wholly failed to materialse - Russia destroyed Afghanistan, not America. Given the Orwellian slaughter house that the Taliban reduced the country to, it is to the shame an infamy of the Anti-war movement that they opposed the liberation of that courtry after decades of suffering.
There wouldn't be so many anti american rallies in Ireland, if the Irish government wasn't facilitating the Americans in their war against Iraq. The protests aren't so much aimed at the Americans, they're aimed at the Irish Government and the Irish media and the Irish people to try to force them to use whatever influence they have to condenm the illegal and immoral actions of the U.S.
then you organise protests against China or russia if you're so opposed to them. go on if it's so easy. You don't know anything about the anti war movements. Many of the anti war activists are also anti capitalists and anti globalisation activists, so they're focused on the actions of the worlds hegemonic superpower, America. If you're so concerned with the crimes of Russia and China, then you organise protests against them. You will be joined and supported by the same people you are condenming now from your comfortable chair.Mainstream Anti-war movements, especially in this country, have been hijacked a long time ago by people with no interest in protesting against China or Russia. Blunt Anti-Americanism has allowed them to claim that Serb carnage in Kosovo was the fault of America, and for non-sensical views like this to go unopposed and unquestioned.0 -
Akrasia wrote:
then you organise protests against China or russia if you're so opposed to them. go on if it's so easy. You don't know anything about the anti war movements. Many of the anti war activists are also anti capitalists and anti globalisation activists, so they're focused on the actions of the worlds hegemonic superpower, America. If you're so concerned with the crimes of Russia and China, then you organise protests against them. You will be joined and supported by the same people you are condenming now from your comfortable chair.
If someone protested against china or russia in the US then they would be observed by the spooks grouped in the same catagory of people who protest on other things. The spooks are not concerned with the right or wrong or political leanings of issues they are interested only in what they consider a threat and that may well amount to anything that affects their operation.
For them the perfect world is probably a world of Agent Smiths.
0 -
Advertisement
-
There are protests against China and Russia whenever they land in Ireland.
Nowhere near the same scale, not even in the same league. The crimes and misdemeanours may be similar, but people arent interested unless its a chance to protest against the US. Its very, very little to do with the perceived wrongdoing.Presumably you are opposed to russian and chinese actions too, so presumably you were out there standing in front of cars and protesting against russia and china? Oh right, you weren't because you like to sit on your ass and criticise others.
You assume I think protests are worth a damn. Theyre not, and Ive explained many times why theyre not. Saddam was still overthrown and Shannon is still being used. I dont believe theyre effective without being translated into votes at the ballot box. You do, so youll have to explain why everyone was so hyped up about protests against disagreeable US policies and not bothered about protesting disagreeable Chinese/Russian policies. And you wont be able to do so without admitting the reaction isnt based on the policy.whenever russian or chinese dignitaries are in Ireland, there is never a media build up before hand and very often we only find out they are even coming on the day they arrive.
Find an embassy then? Or an ambassador? Surely the Chechyens deserve better than being told "Russian imperialism and oppresion/blood for oil? Hmm not really what were into - call us when the Americans invade, kthxbye"I have absolutely zero trust in the U.S. military.
Fine, but it blinds you to the very facts in the story you link to. The story you linked to noted that it was from a training squadron. You then leaped to describing it as a fully armed combat jet, and then claimed they were lying because they said they hadnt lost any plane/fin in the *region* - again assuming the worst possible interpretation to the point of twisting it. Theres distrust, and then theres wilful misinterpretation of the facts. Have you considered if you could do this, that a lot of the "indie/political" news sources are doing the exact same thing? Each misinterpretation reinforcing the other, to the point where you utterly disbelieve the possibility the US military could tell the truth because so many others have "proven" they lied about some other case/incident?you have yet to show how Chavez is committing any crimes. You claim he wants to hold 25 year elections, but that is based on nothing by speculation by right wing anti chavez commentators
And conservitives in the US believe Bush is sent by God to lead a moral rebirth of the country and his detractors are godless left wing anti bush commentators...Ironic isnt it?of course a state monopoly on media is awful. but are you claiming that we should only accept either one of those two options
Thats not what were discussing though? Its rating the US media, and I believe it is arguably healthier - all other things being equal - for discourse to have 5 media corporations dominating a market, than it is to have 1 state corporation dominating a market. I find the assumption that the US media is the worst media in the developed world (a climbdown from Clownbags original position admittedly) doesnt really hold up, or at least theres no reason to think so given were so well informed on the wrongdoing of the US president and so badly informed on the wrongdoing of our own politicians....it's not just about protecting parent companies, it's about protecting the entire system on which they base their power.
As I said, theyre not going to be college communist rags, but we have college communist rags for dreaming about "tearing down the oppressive capitalist slave system!1!one1!
You know ISAW, I just glanced at your post a day or so back and thought - "Ill get back to that later." Im so sorry I didnt actually read it, because its comedy gold. Or perhaps Fox News are paying people to post stupid, easily dismissed crap about them so they can smear any genuine criticism by association?You are mis representing the facts
Glick was asked to vacate the studio because security felt O Reilly was going to physically attack him! [source in transcript below]
Yes, I provide a link to the actual video of the interview where I can see/hear what was said and you provide a transcript typed by someone who tells me what they saw/heard....I dont care what the *transcript* says, I can look at the damn video and see/hear for myself. Sure, it could be edited, but its a small bit harder to do than editing a transcript...Your source is biased.
LOL - Its the actual recording of the actual event ffs. What youve got is a transcript of Glick talking to *Al Franken* for Outfoxed *about* the interview and crowing about how he trained for it? My source is biased? You havent even got a source for the interview. Christ, its Al Franken who makes the claim O'Reilly threatened Glick, and even then he cant quite recall what O'Reilly said - not surprising, was he even there? Pathetic.You information is wanting and needed to be shown up for that.
This is truly, and I deeply mean this, truly one of the most pathetic statements Ive ever seen on this board. Im not exaggerating. You'll accept a transcript from a document called "Outfoxed", which is predisposed in its very title to targeting Fox News as gospel in its presentation of the facts of an interview on Fox News but not a video of that interview?You have much to learn.
Thats just funny tbh. The sort of "learning" that it would take for me to accept a biased, second hand record of events as being more accurate than what my own eyes and ears tell me would involve Orwellian re-education camps.Give us a break! You just posted a totally distorted version of O Reilly interviewing Glick and you lecture people on "facts"?
Like I said, truly pathetic.Do you know what double standards are?
The anti-(american)war movement teaches by example...0 -
Sand wrote:
(a climbdown from Clownbags original position admittedly)
Yes clownbag is not a blind follower and can admit when he gets carried away in the heat of the moment. If you can't admit when you made a mistake then theres not point engaging in debate. A person unwilling to learn and re state their position more acuratly is not worth engaging with,
a person like _ _ _ _ ?
I propose we start calling .....
anti-chavez people anti-venezuelan,
anti-blair people anti-english
anti-bertie people anti-Irish (If your Irish and not a FF supporter your un-Irish)
anti-castro people anti-cuban
It’s a bit silly isn’t it? Just because you don't agree with a particular person or administration doesn't mean you’re against a country and all its citizens and everything it has ever done. The anti-American phrase is all spin to discredit people who dis-agree with the bush administration. The domestic spin on anti-American is un-American to describe Americans who are not happy with the administration. Sure there might be people out there who hate everything about America but it is not right to discredit people with serious concerns about American foreign policy by portraying them as somehow racist against Americans and to portray American citizens as traitors if they disagree with it is wrong too.0 -
Yes clownbag is not a blind follower and can admit when he gets carried away in the heat of the moment. If you can't admit when you made a mistake then theres not point engaging in debate. A person unwilling to learn and re state their position more acuratly is not worth engaging with,
a person like _ _ _ _ ?
Ah cmon now Clownbag, you re-qualifed Americas media as being the worst in the developed world, as opposed to the entire world. Thats not admitting you made a mistake, its making the same one all over again.I propose we start calling .....
anti-chavez people anti-venezuelan,
anti-blair people anti-english
anti-bertie people anti-Irish (If your Irish and not a FF supporter your un-Irish)
anti-castro people anti-cuban
Thats right Clownbag, your commentary on the American media was clearly a reasoned, well thought out view - not a lazy, knee jerk denouncement of the US for heading yet another "Worst in the world" list. If Ive got a problem with Chavez, I criticise Chavez and his emasculation of the institutions of government in Venezeula. I dont claim Venezeula has the "worst executive/legislature in the world -ever!!!". Thats the difference.It’s a bit silly isn’t it? Just because you don't agree with a particular person or administration doesn't mean you’re against a country and all its citizens and everything it has ever done.
Youd think so wouldnt you? Doesnt appear to be the case when it comes to the US though. By the way, theres nothing like asking a "concerned opponent of the Bush administration" to give an overview of American history - did you know that the imperialistic, racist, genocidal Americans exterminated millions of defenceless native Americans? Those bastards eh? But wait thats not all...(at this point its good to pull up a chair and relax while they drone on).The anti-American phrase is all spin to discredit people who dis-agree with the bush administration.
Bollocks tbh. You didnt offer disagreement, you just portrayed an aspect of American society/culture (in this case the media) as being "the worst ever". Like I said, I dont expect you to accept your comments as an example of anti-americanism because whats so remarkable about them?ure there might be people out there who hate everything about America but it is not right to discredit people with serious concerns about American foreign policy by portraying them as somehow racist against Americans and to portray American citizens as traitors if they disagree with it is wrong too.
You have serious concerns about American foreign policy then? Is it that US foreign policy "the worst" in the whole world, or the developed world? Do you have a serious interest in the foreign policy of Ireland and the EU, or are you more concerned with US policy? The only people discrediting serious concerns are those throwing comments like yours around the place pretending theyre somehow valid.0 -
Sand wrote:
You know ISAW, I just glanced at your post a day or so back and thought - "Ill get back to that later." Im so sorry I didnt actually read it, because its comedy gold. Or perhaps Fox News are paying people to post stupid, easily dismissed crap about them so they can smear any genuine criticism by association?
funny how you didnt even read something you then go on to comment on isnt it?Yes, I provide a link to the actual video of the interview where I can see/hear what was said and you provide a transcript typed by someone who tells me what they saw/heard....I dont care what the *transcript* says, I can look at the damn video and see/hear for myself. Sure, it could be edited, but its a small bit harder to do than editing a transcript...
You video link is only part of the argument. the link you provided adds a deal of comentary on the video. the transcript I provided shows exactly what was said in the exchange. do you deny the transcript?
Do you claim the transcript is actually false and the written exchange did not happen according to that actual transcript?
If you know anything about outFOXed they you would be aware that they recorded FOX news for several months. thats called "putting things into context"
The actual recording of part of a show. I don't deny that part happened. do you deny the actual transcript of the exchange? do you deny the transcript is actually what was spoken? If so please indicate where the transcript differs from the actual words spoken on air.LOL - Its the actual recording of the actual event ffs.
If you do that you have a serious case for Outfoxed actually changing the words spoken. Care to do so? I think not!
Wrong! It also includes a transcript of the exchange. Care to show me what part of that transcript is wrong?What youve got is a transcript of Glick talking to *Al Franken* for Outfoxed *about* the interview and crowing about how he trained for it?My source is biased? You havent even got a source for the interview. Christ, its Al Franken who makes the claim O'Reilly threatened Glick, and even then he cant quite recall what O'Reilly said - not surprising, was he even there? Pathetic.
My source is the original interview. If you think the transcript is wrong then care to please
indicate WHERE the transcript departs from the actual words stated? The reference to bias is NOT what was said which is the historical record in the transcript. The bias is the page you referenced which contains OPINION on parts of and not the whole actual transcript.
Great! then I suppose you can prove the transcript of what was stated in the interview is wrong? Please do so!This is truly, and I deeply mean this, truly one of the most pathetic statements Ive ever seen on this board. Im not exaggerating.
The actual interivew is in the film. The transcript is a transcript of the interview. If you find anything in the transcript of the film which departs from the actual words stated in the interview then would you care to please indicate where this transcript is in error?You'll accept a transcript from a document called "Outfoxed", which is predisposed in its very title to targeting Fox News as gospel in its presentation of the facts of an interview on Fox News but not a video of that interview?
You claim that this transcript is a "pathetic statement" . So please show whewr it is wrong and is not the actual words spoken.
You seem to be trying to attack the source as innacurate. Would you care to please show what part of the source (the transcript) is inaccurate with respect to the actual words spoken in the interview?
I think you wont since the transcript of what happened is correct. You may despise the commentary made about it but the page you referred to is mostly commentary on it. You may think that dismissing a source may make others ignore it but they can compare tghe transcript to the video as well. so please tell me where the transcript is wrong. Cany you do that? If you dont you lose credability. You try to discredit a transcript and undermine the written record of what was stated but I bet you cant show anywhere where this transcript departs from the actual words spoken. Can you?
If you cant then dont try to discredit it!Thats just funny tbh. The sort of "learning" that it would take for me to accept a biased, second hand record of events as being more accurate than what my own eyes and ears tell me would involve Orwellian re-education camps.
It isnt second hand! It is a written record of the exchange. If you can show where the written word departs for the words which were spoken then care to do so? I dont think you will.Like I said, truly pathetic.
Like I stated prove your point by reference to evidence and not by trying to appeal to how people feel. If the transcript is wrong then show where it does not actually state what was said in the interview. Can you do that? If you cant then your argument loses all credability.The anti-(american)war movement teaches by example...
I am neither anti American nor anti war. I have done national service. How many years have you done? Ill bet even if you have I have at least five more years than you. I am not a pacifist but I am not a militarist.
Now are you going to back up your accusations that the source transcript is wrong or are you going to back down?0 -
You said you'd rather have 5 corporations control the media than one state run monopoly. Which developed country has a state monopoly on media?Sand wrote:Ah cmon now Clownbag, you re-qualifed Americas media as being the worst in the developed world, as opposed to the entire world. Thats not admitting you made a mistake, its making the same one all over again.0 -
Advertisement
-
Singapore?0
-
Street Byte wrote:The respective members of the CIS might disagree with that, they would publically, but then they would suffer the same fate as Chechnya. recently the Kremlin removed directly elected leaders in favour of appointed presidents. This is despite each country having both ethnic and cultural histories that existed long before Russian came to its zenith. Our ignoring of this issue is convienient, as it allows us to go on thinking that there are far less oppressed people on the world and most that feel the pinch do so at America's behest.
As mentioned before I was talking about the hyprocrisy. Recent American administrations make a HUGE deal about putting forward the principles of freedom, free expression, equality, anti-racism etc. and then does the opposite. When criticised they ignore it, or jump to another subject. Guess thats what politicians do. Whereas Russia nor China claims any different to what they're doing. They may prevent foreign journalists from entering the area freely, but they don't lie half as much as what we hear from the US admin. (I'm not saying they don't lie, or release misinformation. I'm sure they do)
I saw a great program last night where it showed some of Putins 2 hour questions/answers session with a thousand journalists from both domestic & Foreign journalists. these journalists could ask him whatever they wanted, if picked by the President. Now I'm sure there was some organisation whereby some of the questions were arranged beforehand, but there were a number of blinders that dealt with "sensitive" issues. I can't think of any countries president that would place himself in such a situation. I quite admire Putin for what he has done for Russia since he came to power. Can you imagine Bush in a smiliar situation?So America is not alone, or even the 1st amoung "oppressive" super powers. Both China and Russian maintain defacto empires, crushing any and all ethnic diversity and traditions that do not confirm to the central cultural rules of those respective countries, within goegraphic boundries that are enforced by brutality.
I never wished to suggest that the US is alone in this. But we have the hyprocrisy whereby the US admin will cry out against prison camps in China, or treatment of prisoners in Russia, when they've got Guantanamo Bay tucked away. When Russia declared all Chechnyan rebels as terrorists, we heard the outrage, and yet when the US did the same in Iraq, we're expected to simply accept it?
People have been raised all their lives through movies, and propaganda to believe that the US is better than that. Unfortuently for all of us, they're failing badly to deliver.The list does not end with those two three counties (hello Indonesia, Syria, Iran). Wide spread injustice is certainly not the dominion of just one nation no matter how we would like to think it is.
I think you're being quite naive here. I doubt anyone on boards actually thinks like that. The world is in constant conflict, and we've seen & heard about dictatorships all our lives. Just as we've heard about genocides, the restrictions of personal freedoms etc. However the US is focused upon because they "try" to order other countries into following certain conventions, when they can't be bothered themselves. People get annoyed at hearing this horse****e ALL the time.By way of example of how we are walking ourselves into a bleak future by concentrating on America:
Actually I don't think there's enough pressure being placed on the US at the moment. They're the worlds superpower, and they've got pretty much a free rein. Russia, China etc are all restrained by our mistrust going back decades, but we have a weak spot for the US because we remember Clinton, and a number of other US presidents that dealt with us fairly. You won't see sanctions on Russia or China, for the same reason we wouldn't see sanctions on the US. That would open a can of worms that none of us are really ready to face. For the sake of countries that provide no economic or political benefits to our own nations, we won't sacrifice a position of neutrality.
Otherwise we would have seen better responses in Africa over the last 30 years, or actual interventions in the M.East, or actions in S.America.America at least make representations on human rights when it has to operate in other nations spheres of influence. They are at least engaging with the world as it really is, not as we in Europe like to imagine it is.
Nope. Don't see it. They may go through the motions, but I haven't seen too much actual actions by them since Bush came to power. All I've seen is them blundering around making things more unstable day by day. Europe is taking its own sweet time, but I haven't seen any real resentment by other nations/peoples from that waiting. Whereas the level of resentment I've seen towards the US is increasing all the time. Perhaps its time for the US to sit down, and think a bit before replying with words or military force.0 -
-
Sand wrote:You have serious concerns about American foreign policy then? Is it that US foreign policy "the worst" in the whole world, or the developed world? Do you have a serious interest in the foreign policy of Ireland and the EU, or are you more concerned with US policy? The only people discrediting serious concerns are those throwing comments like yours around the place pretending theyre somehow valid.
may i answer to this one even if it's not adressed to me?
US foreign policy isn't the worst in the whole world, but it's certainly the one which put the most mess in the world. it's the one which conducted an unlegitimedl war in total disaccord with UN.
so they can critizising some countries of the middle est. they aren't better.0 -
Sand wrote:Ah cmon now Clownbag, you re-qualifed Americas media as being the worst in the developed world, as opposed to the entire world. Thats not admitting you made a mistake, its making the same one all over again.
How so? Maybe Clown Bag is wrong and the US are not the "worst in the world" whatever that means. Maybe they are "second worst" whatever that means. What are your units of "worseness" of media in democracies? Actually come to think of it let's begin by listing what you consider "deveoped" states shall we? let's try answering some questions with facts for a change and not opinion shall we? How many "developed countries with an independent media" are there and how do you propose we assess the quality of the media. "Truth in the news" might be a criterion to begin with.If Ive got a problem with Chavez,
You have every right to have a negitive opinion about whosoever you wish. But when you come here and broadcast that opinion you should support what you claim with evidence.I criticise Chavez and his emasculation of the institutions of government in Venezeula.
Emasculation? How did that happen? Institutions? which ones? when?I dont claim Venezeula has the "worst executive/legislature in the world -ever!!!". Thats the difference.
But you DO claim Chavez emasculated state institutions. which ones? when ? and how?Youd think so wouldnt you? Doesnt appear to be the case when it comes to the US though. By the way, theres nothing like asking a "concerned opponent of the Bush administration" to give an overview of American history - did you know that the imperialistic, racist, genocidal Americans exterminated millions of defenceless native Americans?
Actually it was the white anglo saxon protestant element who did this. Many of the other settlers didnt. And the Spanish French and others did the same to American natives before that. But there is no doubt that more recently the US has been Imperialist and racist. I mean slavery for GOds sake. Thats racist isnt it?Those bastards eh? But wait thats not all...(at this point its good to pull up a chair and relax while they drone on).
If you think that slavery and indian massacres and holocausts are droning and dreary
then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I don't share that opinion. I think we should pay attention to these events.You have serious concerns about American foreign policy then? Is it that US foreign policy "the worst" in the whole world, or the developed world? Do you have a serious interest in the foreign policy of Ireland and the EU, or are you more concerned with US policy? The only people discrediting serious concerns are those throwing comments like yours around the place pretending theyre somehow valid.
The Irish are respected world wide and are not empire building. I do have an interest in policy however. But take civil rights. In amnsty any branch will not get concerned with issues close to home. Thus an Irish Branch might deal with beheadings in china, Prisions in colombia, Massacres in East Timor, but not likely Irish policy or abuse in N Ireland for example.
this thread happens to be about chavez and accusations that he is building a dictatorship. THe Us happed to support a military of him when he was democratically elected. as such US foreign p[olicy has direct bearing on the issue.
I may also oppose Chinas human rights record but it has no bearing on support for military dictatorships in Venezuala has it?0 -
Hobbes wrote:How fuking stupid or better yet, how much damage does Bush have to do before he is impeached/kicked out? How far are you willing to push it? I mean hes already fuked the USA as a super power and put it so far into debt your great grandchildren are screwed, you have an illegal war, coverup after coverup on dodgy dealings, sat back and did nothing during Kathrina, sat back and did nothing for most of the morning of 9/11, supporting administration who publically outed a CIA agent (treaon offense), supporting the detaining of people without rights, crippling your own troops.
The list goes on, and he still has just under 1000 days to completly **** things up. Even money says he does some **** with Iran.
no..I'm not anti-American either O_o, but am glad to see some justice being served
1000 days left? Lets hope this gets the ball rolling.0 -
Wrong! It also includes a transcript of the exchange. Care to show me what part of that transcript is wrong?
Right actually, it is a transcript of Outfoxed, with Al Franken talking to Glick. But I just want to applaud for a moment. You launch into a bitter attack on my source - the video of the interview of Glick by O'Reilly - calling it biased, a misrepesentation of the facts, and claiming that the information was wanting. You then present a transcript of an interview about the interview as being a better source.
When shown up, you then try to support your information source by reference to my sourcethe same video of the interview that you portrayed as biased and faulty previously. Do you recognise just how stupid that is? Your defending your source by reference to what you consider a bad source.
Id respond to your other posts and stuff, but lets face it. Your posts so far contain a high degree of ... poor reasoning - as demonstrated above - and you posting them, and me responding to them doesnt do either of us any favours. Its time for me to declare victory and go home.may i answer to this one even if it's not adressed to me?
US foreign policy isn't the worst in the whole world, but it's certainly the one which put the most mess in the world. it's the one which conducted an unlegitimedl war in total disaccord with UN.
so they can critizising some countries of the middle est. they aren't better.
Unfortunately the US is landed with the responsibility of its foreign policy running the world. European nations have effectively abdicated influence outside the EU. Which is nice, but look at the situation in Darfur? Everyone asks why isnt the US there defending its principles - why isnt the EU with its rapid reaction forces? Isnt this what they were supposed to be for? The unfortunate reality is that the UN is serving Chinas demand for oil (Sudan supplies it, China vetoes anything that threatens that supply), so to protect the refugees there, EU forces would have to ignore the UN to do so. This is not impossible because European nations have always ignored the UN, so whats stopping them? Whose responsible for the mess in Darfur? The US, The EU and its member states? The UN? China? The US is powerful in that it can influence any situation in the world, but it cannot decide all of them.0 -
Sand wrote:Unfortunately the US is landed with the responsibility of its foreign policy running the world. European nations have effectively abdicated influence outside the EU. Which is nice, but look at the situation in Darfur? Everyone asks why isnt the US there defending its principles - why isnt the EU with its rapid reaction forces? Isnt this what they were supposed to be for? The unfortunate reality is that the UN is serving Chinas demand for oil (Sudan supplies it, China vetoes anything that threatens that supply), so to protect the refugees there, EU forces would have to ignore the UN to do so. This is not impossible because European nations have always ignored the UN, so whats stopping them? Whose responsible for the mess in Darfur? The US, The EU and its member states? The UN? China? The US is powerful in that it can influence any situation in the world, but it cannot decide all of them.
It breaks my heart to see whats happening in Sudan!
Now the Rapid Reaction Force (60,00 troops incl. Naval & Air Forces) should be sent there as well as a couple of those Battle Groups to stabilise the area!
Instead the EU is funding its proxy the African Union(Dictators Club!) to take care of the situation....of which they are doing a terrible job!
Africans protecting Africans instead of sending out images of colonial Europeans!0 -
Sand wrote:Right actually, it is a transcript of Outfoxed, with Al Franken talking to Glick. But I just want to applaud for a moment. You launch into a bitter attack on my source - the video of the interview of Glick by O'Reilly - calling it biased, a misrepesentation of the facts, and claiming that the information was wanting. You then present a transcript of an interview about the interview as being a better source.
Wrong! Outfoxed taped FOX for several months. They analysed the commentary on FOX. Now part of the movie included the whole interview between Glick and O reilly. It also included what O Reilly stated about this interview months later. O reilly lied about Glick.
I didnt include a link to the video since I wanted to provide access for text excerpts to both the original interview (which is the transcript) AND to subsequent comments made
about the interview by O Reilly. As such the OutFOXed transcript contains the interview but it also contains much much more.
The transcript is not an interview about the interview. It contains the original interview in it! the advantage of a transcript is that you can refer to particular instances in the interview and also cut and paste text. You cant do that with a video. But as I stated if you can find something in the video which is not in the transcript then please care to type it out? Can you do that? I think not!
What is biased is all the extra text commentary on the web page which features your video. The outFOXed movie and the transcript contains sever EXTRA O Reilly comments not in the video. comments for months later where O Reilly lies about the interview. He is mis representing the facts and the page you gave as a source is also doing that. It is biased.When shown up, you then try to support your information source by reference to my sourcethe same video of the interview that you portrayed as biased and faulty previously. Do you recognise just how stupid that is?
I didnt say you video was not the actual video. I showed you to a source which explained why Glick stated what he stated in the video but also contained a text transcript of the video. But in addition it supplied source material of O REilly months laterlying about the exchange. If you look elsewhere you will also note O REilly claimed he only told a guest to shutup or suggested that should do so perhaps once or twice. they then go on to list several instances of O Reilly telling people to shut up.
The reason for my reference to the transcript is that people will also have a source to the bias and mis representation by FOX outside of that particular interview and even outside of the O Reilly Factor.
Part of The Outfoxed transcript is a transcript of the Glick Oreilly exchange but the OutFOXed transcript has much much more! The source you provide also has much more. It is not in the identical interview the two sources supply but the different commentary on the exchange which indicated the bias. OutFOXed clearly shows that O Reilly lied about the interview months later!Your defending your source by reference to what you consider a bad source.
I dont think you will. I think you will run away from the questions you were asked and you wuill run away from providing evidence to support your claims.Id respond to your other posts and stuff, but lets face it.Your posts so far contain a high degree of ... poor reasoning - as demonstrated above -
I have just shown above where you are WRONG! But go on then list three examples of poor reasoning in my posts. you claim it so put up or "shut up" as O reilly might say.and you posting them, and me responding to them doesnt do either of us any favours. Its time for me to declare victory and go home.
If you want to run away then that is up to you. Others here can judge for themselves of you are answering the questions you were asked or whether they believe your unsupported allegation that there are logical inconstiencies in my statements.
This folks coming from someone who claims that not mentioning Hugo chaves was involved in a coup in 1992 but asking if he was aware that the military were involved in a coup to oust chaves over ten years later is the same as not knowing anything about chaves!
Sand also made veiled references to invoking the "wrath of the mods" and "insults" but supplied no backup for this either! Sands allegations here have feet of clay!
Landed? who landed it on the US? From what surce did the US get the authority of policing the world when they have five per cent of the population of the world? and about ten to twenty of percent of them voted? and of those who voted most of them did not vote Bush for presidency but in fact more of them voted for his opponent! So from where does this authority flow?Unfortunately the US is landed with the responsibility of its foreign policy running the world.
Rousseau once commented on this. In socviety the strong manipulate the weak and rationalise their might with specious arguments about justice. "If we are to have a prince" said Pliny to Trajan "it is so that he may preserve us from having a master"European nations have effectively abdicated influence outside the EU.
Not true! Martinique? Guiana? Diego Garcia! Romania, Turkey To name a few places. there is a very very long list.
But the US cant just arbitarily deside they have power over other nations in order to save them from harm which ia the "law of the strongest" which they created their nation to to counteract. Such arbitary power which flows from no source cant serve as a foundation for rights of society nor consequently for instituted inequality...Which is nice, but look at the situation in Darfur? Everyone asks why isnt the US there defending its principles - why isnt the EU with its rapid reaction forces? Isnt this what they were supposed to be for?
Everyone? I think not! By the way supporting corrupt regimes and dictators in africa
(which old colonialist Euro powers do and which new the newly colonial imperial US also do is doubly wrong and points to the suggestion that one had been better to tackle the cause of the problems in the first place rather than react to the ramifications of those causes.
Methinks you seem to demand a great effort to save people drowing in the river but you don't think to walk upstream and see who was throwing them in in the first instance!The unfortunate reality is that the UN is serving Chinas demand for oil (Sudan supplies it, China vetoes anything that threatens that supply),
china does not have a UN general assembly veto. It has a security council veto! China is a communist country. Even after the cold war it is still communist. the Us openly trades with China. Even including the cold war I would suggest that China used the security council veto LESS than the US did!so to protect the refugees there, EU forces would have to ignore the UN to do so. This is not impossible because European nations have always ignored the UN, so whats stopping them?
I again thing you mean ignore the security council? do you? So you suggest that European militaristic powers should act just like the Us does and disregard the security council or theUN and act Unilaterally???
You do know who set up the UN and whay dont you? You do realise that Germany and Japan tooled up before WWII using this reasoning? And you claim I am specious?Whose responsible for the mess in Darfur? The US, The EU and its member states? The UN? China?
This is the first pertinent question you have asked. Why dont you start by defining "mess" and what existed before the "mess"?The US is powerful in that it can influence any situation in the world, but it cannot decide all of them.
But (in spite of your lecturing me on logic) you only cobntradict yourself here! Above you say the US was "landed" with responsibility of police frocing the world!0 -
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407210006
Here is a clip where Bill O Reilly misrepresented Jeremy Glick, It did not come from outfoxed, the first clip is where O Reilly used his "talking points memo" to misrepresent Glick, the second is a clip of the Glick interw itself.
Here is More Bill O Reilly, and how he deals with those who disagree with him
http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/audio/oreilly-200508170010.mp3
Cutting people's microphone, just like he did with Glick. This clip comes from his Radio Factor Show
Again Bill O Reilly both misrepresented Glick, and disrespected a guest who disagreed with him.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509220012
O'Reilly interview with Phil Doneghue.
If this is not enough to convince you that Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and a scumbag, then there is little hope for you.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sand wrote:I'm not interested in defending Fox News (I dont watch it, and Ive yet to see any compelling reason to change that), but I googled a link to the video. O'Reilly kept it reasonably civil ...
this is strange. what search terms did you use? Ironically, I also googled "O Reilly Glick interview"
The first response was:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/oreillyglick.htm
and it contains a transcript!
The second response is your reference.
The third is this:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/
Under the heading "the infamous Glick interview"
It even contains a phrase you used yourself!
they this: http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_02_02.htmlFinally, Bill has no other recourse but throw in the towel and pretend to claim victory
under the heading "bully Bill"
the next a wikipedia article with both the video and the above transcript I just supplied you with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Glick_(author)
Next: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002046.shtml
contains both a transcript and copy of the video.
Then : http://www.newshounds.us/2004/07/22/oreilly_lies_about_jeremy_glick_again.php
Again shows where O Reilly misquotes Glick.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170010
So of the ten sources on the first page of a google search your source only appears ONCE! why did you use that source? The other sources provide transcripts of the interview. Your source provides excerpts and commentary on them.
I believe you have much to learn. Your research of the issue is seriously wanting. You are now aware of several sources which show O Reilly lying and which show him cutting people off and telling them to shut up. I suggest yu go and read them and try to show me where he was right in doing what he did.0 -
I read that interview. O'Reilly is a disgrace- first of all in the manner in which he treated his guest, second in his shocking refusal to see the truth as anything other than a warped view of reality- he essentially refuses to accept the historical fact that the US armed and trained the mujahideen, and that they caused enormous destruction and killed many civilians in Panama (thousands), Iraq (hundreds of thousands), Vietnam (millions).0
-
oreillysucks.com wrote:Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, the channel's most popular host, declared on his September 17 broadcast that if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S., "the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble-- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads." O'Reilly went on to say:
"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period."
O'Reilly added that in Iraq, "their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.... Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam." If Libya's Moammar Khadafy does not relinquish power and go into exile, "we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand."
That's so hilarious. Essentially Bill O'Reilly's point is: if a country's government has even a tenuous link with an attack on another, the second country may hold the civilians of the first country responsible and kill them indiscriminately.
This essentially justifies 9/11. The Arab people are, by O'Reilly's logic, entitled to attack US civilians indiscriminately due to their government's involvement in attacks against Arabs.
Incidentally, it would also entitle such countries as Vietnam, Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Chile, Lebanon, Cambodia, Laos, Libya, Sudan and Cuba to wantonly murder and starve Americans.0 -
sorry,
decided to move this post to a new thread titled Bush Immigration speech.0 -
According to this site....
http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/
Here is the reason why everyone hates America.Root Cause I: The effects of globalization
People in many countries feel left out; they feel that they can never be a part of, or enjoy the benefits of, the globalization movement led by U.S. business expansion. They may lack the education, language and hi-tech skills. They may feel that U.S. companies have not truly engaged or partnered with them in a meaningful way.
Although that above comment appears to back up Root Cause III which is basically "Arrogance".0 -
-
Hobbes wrote:According to this site....
http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/
Here is the reason why everyone hates America.
Although that above comment appears to back up Root Cause III which is basically "Arrogance".
Ah but the same economic reasns apply to EU nations, and the imperialist reasons to euro military powers as well. the Us is not alone in suggesting an elite of its choosing live at a standard which others can not even aspire to. It is just the strongest nation in enforcing such inequality for the benefit of some of its people.0 -
Poor ole yanks, they have a daft lad running their country and running their reputation into the toilet and have got used to a high standard of living based on oil, which is gonna run out and leave them driving mopeds around.0
-
I think this sums up America at the moment0
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement