Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

example of how the media is liberally biased
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Oct 17 15:53:04 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The failure brigade
by Mona Charen




There is a marked tendency among those on the left to believe the worst about the United States. This is particularly true when it comes to military action.


Before the war in Afghanistan, the failure chorus warned that Afghan fighters had withstood the mighty British and Soviet empires, that the winter weather would paralyze our troops and that the Taliban could count of the aid of Islamists worldwide. Before the Iraq War, the negativity brigade warned darkly that our troops would be subject to poison gas or chemical attack (yes, the same people who are now loudly proclaiming that Iraq never possessed those weapons); that the Israelis would be drawn into the conflict thus igniting a larger regional war; that Muslims worldwide would unite against us; that the price of oil would skyrocket; that Iraq's oil fields would burn out of control creating an environmental catastrophe; and that patriotic feeling would cause the Iraqis to fight to the death against us just as the Russians had fought the Nazis at Stalingrad.

Once the war had begun, many in the press declared that we had become bogged down in a quagmire after only a few days of fighting. When the Iraqi armed forces capitulated in the south, we were told that this was a clever way to draw us into a sustained "house by house" battle in Baghdad that would take months or years to win, if we won at all.

When Baghdad fell just three weeks after the war had begun, we were told that not since Nebuchadnezzar's time had Baghdad experienced such a terrible spate of looting and crime. The United States and Britain had just demonstrated that an enlightened coalition could liberate a nation enslaved by a tyrant in three weeks with very few civilian casualties, very little damage to the nation's infrastructure and extremely low casualties for the coalition itself. But the news media in Britain and the United States were singing lamentations.

Where oh where were the precious antiquities from the Iraqi Museum? (They were all fine, it turns out.) Why is the electricity still not functioning properly? Why are there shortages of water? What about the street crime?

Once each problem is solved, a new lament is discovered. I must say I predicted this back in February. It was just after Baghdad fell, and there was rejoicing in the streets. I was giving a talk at the local Barnes and Noble bookstore (it was on C-SPAN) and was asked, "What will the liberals say now?" I responded, "Well, in about a month they'll be complaining that Iraq is not yet a functioning democracy."

Does this drumbeat of negativity have any effects? I think it does. The first baleful effect is that the press is failing in its duty to provide the news straight. Yes, there are ambushes on our soldiers and bombings of embassies, and these must be covered. And there is a certain amount of lawlessness, and that, too, should be reported. But there are a great many aspects of the rebuilding of Iraq that the press is failing to convey.

More than 45 countries have offered military assistance in rebuilding Iraq, and that number now rises with this week's Security Council resolution pledging more aid. Thirty thousand Iraqis have traveled to Hungary for military and police training. The United States is training thousands of Iraqi police, with 34,000 already on the job. It isn't quick or easy to find suitable police in a country where, for 30 years, eligibility was determined by family or political connections -- to say nothing of a willingness to commit any human rights abuse in the name of the regime.

U.S. and international efforts are also rebuilding sports stadiums, schools, hospitals and power grids. They are doing so in the face of sabotage and murder. A little appreciation from home could go a long way.

Moreover, the Saddamists and Islamists who have gathered in Iraq to defeat us are not acting irrationally. They have historical reasons to believe that if they can inflict enough casualties on the United States, we will run. They cite Somalia, Lebanon and Vietnam.

What we are doing in Iraq is right morally and strategically. And it is succeeding on the ground. But the press has the power to distort reality. By presenting an overly bleak picture of the challenges we face, they can demoralize us.





 
addi Posted: Fri Oct 17 17:31:37 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Let's sit back and take a good look at the situation...

1. We have a Pres. that decided long before it became a reality that we were going to war with Saddamn. If the "facts" gathered by our intelligence didn't quite say what he wanted them to then the damaging ones could be convienently overlooked and the questionable or disbuted ones could be pounded out on Fox News over and over again and presented as fact; "We know Saddamn has weapons of mass destruction". "We know that he is trying to buy aluminum tubes in Africa to develop a nuclear arsenal" "We know he has close ties to al Quida and is in league with the 9/11 terrorists" "Saddamn poses an imminent threat to the US."

2. Against the wishes of the vast majority of UN member nations we invaded Iraq. With a strong coalition of us, England, and a few other nations that went along with the charade, not because they so much backed Bush, but because they knew if they didn't we would find a way to turn our backs in the future to their needs (aid, loans, defense, etc..) France, Germany, Russia could weather our indignation, the FEW others that backed us couldn't afford to piss us off. Outside of Britain who else has combat troops over there that amount to anything? Some coalition!
"More than 45 countries have offered military assistance to help rebuild Iraq". What kind of assistance? How many thousands of soldiers are these 45 countries going to send to REPLACE our overworked soldiers? How much money will they provide to the effort? *crickets chirping*
I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not holding my breath untill Washington changes it's bullheaded mentality about who has to be in charge.

3. American citizens are paying for this war (he only wants a measley 87 billion this time around). Even after the latest UN agreement it's known that a verbal show of support by the UN members is totally different than actually giving a large amount of money to help offset the huge burden we're dealing with. Bush and company got us into this mess with their "we don't need you attitude", and now we (the citizens) are left to pay the bill for his F**king arrogance.

4. There is no way to defend against the attacks our soldiers are subject to. They're being picked off everyday, along with aid workers, Iraqi citizens, and new government officials. The deaths won't end untill we leave. The attacks might lessen if Bush would swallow his pride and agree to take a back seat to a UN led operation there. But that would mean having to report to an outside authority and a real Texan doesn't do that. So the suicide bombers and the landmines will continue to pick us off every day.

Now go write a story about the Iraq War and put a positive spin on it.

"What we are doing in Iraq is right morally and strategically."

yeah, whatever buddy. :(




 
Mesh Posted: Fri Oct 17 17:31:39 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The failure brigade
>by Mona Charen
>
>
>
>
>There is a marked tendency among those on the left to believe the worst about the United States. This is particularly true when it comes to military action.
>
>
>Before the war in Afghanistan, the failure chorus warned that Afghan fighters had withstood the mighty British and Soviet empires, that the winter weather would paralyze our troops and that the Taliban could count of the aid of Islamists worldwide. Before the Iraq War, the negativity brigade warned darkly that our troops would be subject to poison gas or chemical attack (yes, the same people who are now loudly proclaiming that Iraq never possessed those weapons); that the Israelis would be drawn into the conflict thus igniting a larger regional war; that Muslims worldwide would unite against us; that the price of oil would skyrocket; that Iraq's oil fields would burn out of control creating an environmental catastrophe; and that patriotic feeling would cause the Iraqis to fight to the death against us just as the Russians had fought the Nazis at Stalingrad.
>
>Once the war had begun, many in the press declared that we had become bogged down in a quagmire after only a few days of fighting. When the Iraqi armed forces capitulated in the south, we were told that this was a clever way to draw us into a sustained "house by house" battle in Baghdad that would take months or years to win, if we won at all.
>
>When Baghdad fell just three weeks after the war had begun, we were told that not since Nebuchadnezzar's time had Baghdad experienced such a terrible spate of looting and crime. The United States and Britain had just demonstrated that an enlightened coalition could liberate a nation enslaved by a tyrant in three weeks with very few civilian casualties, very little damage to the nation's infrastructure and extremely low casualties for the coalition itself. But the news media in Britain and the United States were singing lamentations.
>
>Where oh where were the precious antiquities from the Iraqi Museum? (They were all fine, it turns out.) Why is the electricity still not functioning properly? Why are there shortages of water? What about the street crime?
>
>Once each problem is solved, a new lament is discovered. I must say I predicted this back in February. It was just after Baghdad fell, and there was rejoicing in the streets. I was giving a talk at the local Barnes and Noble bookstore (it was on C-SPAN) and was asked, "What will the liberals say now?" I responded, "Well, in about a month they'll be complaining that Iraq is not yet a functioning democracy."
>
>Does this drumbeat of negativity have any effects? I think it does. The first baleful effect is that the press is failing in its duty to provide the news straight. Yes, there are ambushes on our soldiers and bombings of embassies, and these must be covered. And there is a certain amount of lawlessness, and that, too, should be reported. But there are a great many aspects of the rebuilding of Iraq that the press is failing to convey.
>
>More than 45 countries have offered military assistance in rebuilding Iraq, and that number now rises with this week's Security Council resolution pledging more aid. Thirty thousand Iraqis have traveled to Hungary for military and police training. The United States is training thousands of Iraqi police, with 34,000 already on the job. It isn't quick or easy to find suitable police in a country where, for 30 years, eligibility was determined by family or political connections -- to say nothing of a willingness to commit any human rights abuse in the name of the regime.
>
>U.S. and international efforts are also rebuilding sports stadiums, schools, hospitals and power grids. They are doing so in the face of sabotage and murder. A little appreciation from home could go a long way.
>
>Moreover, the Saddamists and Islamists who have gathered in Iraq to defeat us are not acting irrationally. They have historical reasons to believe that if they can inflict enough casualties on the United States, we will run. They cite Somalia, Lebanon and Vietnam.
>
>What we are doing in Iraq is right morally and strategically. And it is succeeding on the ground. But the press has the power to distort reality. By presenting an overly bleak picture of the challenges we face, they can demoralize us.
>
>
>


Hif, this does to raise some good points. The low intencity guerrilla war should to be covered by media, but as also should the good things that are happen over in Iraq.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Oct 17 17:32:30 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ha, addi beet me by two seconds.


 
addi Posted: Fri Oct 17 17:34:51 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>Ha, addi beet me by two seconds.

Mesh, I swear I would never beet you! I'm not that kind of guy. : )


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Oct 17 17:45:13 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>meshuggah said:
>>Ha, addi beet me by two seconds.
>
>Mesh, I swear I would never beet you! I'm not that kind of guy. : )


*sigh* i guess it is beat then :)


 
addi Posted: Fri Oct 17 17:51:23 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>addison said:
>>meshuggah said:
>>>Ha, addi beet me by two seconds.
>>
>>Mesh, I swear I would never beet you! I'm not that kind of guy. : )
>
>
>*sigh* i guess it is beat then :)

You are such a good sport! and funny too.

BTW hif. You know my verbal abuse of Bush and conservatives isn't meant as a personal attack on you. I appreciate the chance to spout off my opinions and if you weren't here presenting the other side I'd rarely get the opportunity. Ya knowz I luvz ya! (not in the I want to "beet" you kind of way, but in the "as a fellow human being kind of way")


 
mat_j Posted: Sat Oct 18 08:07:13 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  George Bush tried to put spoons in my ass! :(


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Oct 18 11:22:10 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>George Bush tried to put spoons in my ass! :(

ya need the spoons to sort of make room for the gerbils don't ya ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Oct 18 11:24:57 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Let's sit back and take a good look at the situation...
>
>1. We have a Pres. that decided long before it became a reality that we were going to war with Saddamn. If the "facts" gathered by our intelligence didn't quite say what he wanted them to then the damaging ones could be convienently overlooked and the questionable or disbuted ones could be pounded out on Fox News over and over again and presented as fact; "We know Saddamn has weapons of mass destruction". "We know that he is trying to buy aluminum tubes in Africa to develop a nuclear arsenal" "We know he has close ties to al Quida and is in league with the 9/11 terrorists" "Saddamn poses an imminent threat to the US."
>
>2. Against the wishes of the vast majority of UN member nations we invaded Iraq. With a strong coalition of us, England, and a few other nations that went along with the charade, not because they so much backed Bush, but because they knew if they didn't we would find a way to turn our backs in the future to their needs (aid, loans, defense, etc..) France, Germany, Russia could weather our indignation, the FEW others that backed us couldn't afford to piss us off. Outside of Britain who else has combat troops over there that amount to anything? Some coalition!
> "More than 45 countries have offered military assistance to help rebuild Iraq". What kind of assistance? How many thousands of soldiers are these 45 countries going to send to REPLACE our overworked soldiers? How much money will they provide to the effort? *crickets chirping*
>I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not holding my breath untill Washington changes it's bullheaded mentality about who has to be in charge.
>
>3. American citizens are paying for this war (he only wants a measley 87 billion this time around). Even after the latest UN agreement it's known that a verbal show of support by the UN members is totally different than actually giving a large amount of money to help offset the huge burden we're dealing with. Bush and company got us into this mess with their "we don't need you attitude", and now we (the citizens) are left to pay the bill for his F**king arrogance.
>
>4. There is no way to defend against the attacks our soldiers are subject to. They're being picked off everyday, along with aid workers, Iraqi citizens, and new government officials. The deaths won't end untill we leave. The attacks might lessen if Bush would swallow his pride and agree to take a back seat to a UN led operation there. But that would mean having to report to an outside authority and a real Texan doesn't do that. So the suicide bombers and the landmines will continue to pick us off every day.
>
>Now go write a story about the Iraq War and put a positive spin on it.
>
>"What we are doing in Iraq is right morally and strategically."

so what about the original point ? the press only gives the liberal point of view. the only place you get both sides as far as i can tell is fox. and because they show BOTH sides, the liberal press lamasts them as being a conservatives only club. what a crock of shit that is.
>
>yeah, whatever buddy. :(
>
>


 
mat_j Posted: Sat Oct 18 21:10:52 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  George Bush put Gerbils into my anus


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Oct 19 08:10:49 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>George Bush put Gerbils into my anus

how you like them ?


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]