News Is U.S. Foreign Policy Driven by Ideology or Strategic Interests?

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
1. There were elections in April.
2. Yes, Arafat lost. Mahmoud Abbas won. He has since resigned because Arafat refused to relinquish power. His successor then resigned for the same reason.
3. Arafat was rejected in this election.

Sharon has nothing to do with this and he had no part in selecting Abbas. That simply isn't true. The vast majority of the land that was to become "Palestine" including the now occupied territories belonged to Syria and Jordan. Palestine did not become a country because they (and Egypt) wouldn't allow it.

Thanks Russ. But your first remarks are not correct. Arafat was not rejected. Arafat did not refuse to relinquish power, that was not questioned even.
Please check: http://www.nad-plo.org/speeches/abumazen5.html .
Quote:
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to the PLC
April 29, 2003

"In the name of Allah the most Merciful, the Compassionate

(And He says:_ Do._ For Allah will see the results of your work and so will his Prophet and believers)

Brother and life-long comrade, President Yasser Arafat, President of the State of Palestine , Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, President of the National Authority ... "(end of quote).

The elections system is similar to France not like in USA. The President stays (like a king) during the elections for the Parliament. Only the Parliament is replaced, not the President. The President appoints the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a relative independency but finally the President must approve and co-sign.

Your second remarks. Indeed Sharon had nothing to do with the election of Abbas ... but Sharon refuses to recognize Arafat as a valid decision maker, although all previous Israeli Prime Ministers recognized and spoke directly (?) with Arafat. (I am not sure about Netaniyu) Who did signed the Oslo Agreements of 1993 ? Who did everything to destroy that peace agreement. You can not deny it: Sharon. He is not a peace maker. Sharon sees the United Nations as a hostile body, skewed in favor of the Palestinians.
Why is he now in Moscow? ( http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUSSIA_ISRAEL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME ). Officially (UN resolution, situation in Iraq, nuclear help of Russia to Iran) and unofficially? My speculation: talks about if Russia will react neutral on an attack on Syria (cfr. Wurmser's doctrine and the public comments of DeLay: Israel Air Force delivered the message in Damascus). We will see want it brings.

About the land Palestine we can discuss for hours and hours.
If you want to see the growth of the settlements check: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-10/11/article01.shtml (below that page: Zionist's Settlements Growth, and interesting below that: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal.

Israel can not accepts nukes in Iran but has their own, but that's very normal isn't it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thanks Russ. But your first remarks are not correct. Arafat was not rejected. Arafat did not refuse to relinquish power, that was not questioned even.
Please check: http://www.nad-plo.org/speeches/abumazen5.html .
Quote:
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to the PLC
April 29, 2003

That speech was made long before Abbas resigned. I'm sure you've read about it, but if you really want, I'll find you some articles on why he resigned.

Where's the double standard? I don't see us giving Iran a billion dollars, do you? Or Syria? ...We don't have to make every other country perfect before we dare criticize Israel.

Quite right, Zero - the US is consistent with regard to the issue - and we DO criticize and even exert control over Israel. Israel's restraint in both Gulf Wars for example wasn't a coincidence. No double standard there.

The double standard is from those on the other side of the issue of course. People protesting Israeli treatment of Arab citizens of Israel while terrorists are blowing up busses and Arab countries are oppressing their people. Its like a fire department ignoring a burning apartment to get a cat out of a tree.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


The double standard is from those on the other side of the issue of course. People protesting Israeli treatment of Arab citizens of Israel while terrorists are blowing up busses and Arab countries are oppressing their people. Its like a fire department ignoring a burning apartment to get a cat out of a tree.

I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other? How the atrocities of other countries somehow absolves Israel of responsiblity for its own horrible actions? Do we allow some criminals to go free because they aren't as bad as some other criminals? "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good', kat.

My comment was in regards to the site he linked and the comments I quoted. Comments and link... which you will find...directly above...my comments...So I would care to explain that it reflects...on that...one way or the other..and not Israel. Although, I probably would have been better to instruct him to stop creating omelets..anwering the 20 different directions he goes into in the course of one thread is a bit..wearying..at best. I can see how you were confused.

As to absolution for atrocities..I'm not looking for any absolution, I'd just like a little recognition and effort to end the worst of it, preferably starting with the worst of it. However, given that this is unlikely (or we'd be far more focused on other areas of the world) it would be nice to see the outrage correspond in direct correlation to the level of atrocities. When I see that they are consistently not, and consistently ignored or discarded..and consistently and overwhelmingly voiced in a manner that is so incredibly inbalanced that it quite literally blows the mind...one can only assume ignorance or bigotry. You take your pick.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...

Well, yes you do pay for it...in many ways..what immediately comes to mind would be the money we give to egypt and the money we give to the U.N. and how that is disbursed to nations..including the PA (which helped fund Arafats "retirement" nest /sarc) But, really..Israel didn't receive much of anything from us until after they'd been repeatedly attacked by surrounding countries. With the money we give to Egypt..you'd think the least they could do would be to secure their borders and prevent tunneling and arms movement into gaza. We won't even get into their human rights record, vitriolic, hate filled media...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Well, yes you do pay for it...in many ways..what immediately comes to mind would be the money we give to egypt and the money we give to the U.N. and how that is disbursed to nations..including the PA (which helped fund Arafats "retirement" nest /sarc) But, really..Israel didn't receive much of anything from us until after they'd been repeatedly attacked by surrounding countries. With the money we give to Egypt..you'd think the least they could do would be to secure their borders and prevent tunneling and arms movement into gaza. We won't even get into their human rights record, vitriolic, hate filled media...

Let me ask you a question, kat...by the numbers you posted a few months ago, Israel kills 4 noncombatant Palestinians for every 6 combabtants. Many organizations, including human rights activists and the United Nations, see a problem with the actions of the Israeli government and military in regards to Palestinians. Do you see any room for improvement in the actions of Israel's gov't or troops, independent of what anyone else does?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by pelastration


I said 'rumors', remember. That was what the guy (a military expert of a military academy) said too: there are rumors ...
I repeat what I wrote:
"1. Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). ". I said what you can read. Read it. ... when Arabs in general are going to say that in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). In every war and 'occupation' there is the perception ... and iff the Iraqies believe that Iraq is sold by the Americans to Israel then you will have a real massacre. Every Iraqi will attack soldiers. Now then I wrote: "If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.", meaning if that rumor of that analyst would become 'reality or disclosed' then you have a very serious problem.

I did read what you said and I have no interest in helping you spread nasty rumors about jews ruling the United States. Iraq or the world for that matter.

I think you know exactly what this is all about. There is evidence that US and Israel are very close. The whole group around Bush is pro-Israel and guys like DeLay. So why try to hide this kat, it's reality. If the international community (UN) wants a condemnation of Israel on some issues or repeats that Israel needs to apply some previous resolutions ... you always have a veto from US. Why did Arafat was acceptable for US during Camp David and signing the 1993 Olso Agreement but since Sharon is in power ... US confirms that Arafat is a non-acceptable negotiator.

One, would only hope that they're not dealing with Arafat now..becuase they learned their lesson from the Camp David experience and are not foolish enough to fall into the same trap twice. I don't have a problem with Delay or the administration being pro-israel. Although there are many times when I see them as less pro-israel then opportunistic.

"codes of conduct" are really applied when you watch European TV. A number of images will not be shown in US Channels. I remember seeing myself on BBC a reportage of a peace march to the encircled Arafat HQ to bring food ... where Israeli soldiers were beating with their guns a number of women till bleeding. Then I went to CNN ... and the only thing that was shown where people marching and singing, and then (just) stopped by soldiers. These soldiers have also a profound interest in journalists. Some are no longer with us. Yes that must be fun software!

BBC is not the epitome of honest reporting, particularly in regards to Israel. I don't watch U.S. television. I try to rely on factual information. Direct transcripts of speaches, bills, referendums etc...not "rumors" on some "radio show" by "some general" I also rely on first hand reports from family members in the middle east in regards to certain areas and events. I also rely on several U.N. workers, and members of an organization that develops meetings and events with Palestinian and Israeli teens and adults. BTW have you actually read the transcript of Delay's speach? or just relied on someone else's understanding of it?

So no comment on Wurmser.

I think I've made my position clear. I'm not ready to go off on another one of your tangents..maybe you should resolve the issues you approached previously and statements you've already made prior to delving into wurmser.

Not interested in World War IV?

I'm kinda fond of trying to stick to facts and not creating a future that does not yet exist. Maybe we should stick to winning WWIII first eh?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Let me ask you a question, kat...by the numbers you posted a few months ago, Israel kills 4 noncombatant Palestinians for every 6 combabtants. Many organizations, including human rights activists and the United Nations, see a problem with the actions of the Israeli government and military in regards to Palestinians. Do you see any room for improvement in the actions of Israel's gov't or troops, independent of what anyone else does?

I'm going to answer this with you condition that you also answer a tough question...of my choosing...afterwards.

Yes, I think there is always room for improvement.
The first would be to remove the majority of the settlements, forcibly(as will be neccesary). This would reduce the need for a lot of the check points and closures. I don't think it will reduce the animosity or even the suicide attacks against Israel but it will reduce the restrictions on the Palestinian civilians and also cut out the incredible expense of keeping a protective force in place for 20 families here and another 2 dozen there. This to me is insanity and I'm not sure what could possibly be the strategy of such a thing. Although, clearly there are/can be political benefits. So of course Sharon will have to deal with the fallout from this and it could cost him his position. But, this is the reality of Democracy, isn't it?
The problem a lot of Israeli's (who don't live in the settlements) are concerned that the Palestinians will take this as a "win" and that terrorist attacks will increase not decrease.
The second is to complete the security fence. And I KNOW I KNOW the outrage..but really...it's the best hope I see to bring any kind of security to the Israeli's without bringing tanks into the gaza strip and west bank on a regular basis. BUT I would say..that in the case of the fence..getting rid of the settlements would cut down on this meandering wall that will create pockets of literally enclosed palestinian villages and people.
Third-any abuse by Israeli soldiers must be treated very seriously and punished. Israeli actually does a better job at this then most countries, actually then all that I am familiar with..there is definitely room for improvement. Reducing the need for checkpoints and closures would cut down on this as well.

I have more thoughts on this but I"m out of time. I'll get back to you.

 

[Zero]

Thanks, Kat...appreciate you taking the time. I look forward to answering your question as best I can.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by kat
I don't have a problem with Delay or the administration being pro-israel. Although there are many times when I see them as less pro-israel then opportunistic.
BBC is not the epitome of honest reporting, particularly in regards to Israel. I don't watch U.S. television. I try to rely on factual information. Direct transcripts of speaches, bills, referendums etc...not "rumors" on some "radio show" by "some general" I also rely on first hand reports from family members in the middle east in regards to certain areas and events. I also rely on several U.N. workers, and members of an organization that develops meetings and events with Palestinian and Israeli teens and adults. BTW have you actually read the transcript of Delay's speach? or just relied on someone else's understanding of it?

BBC is worldwide considered giving the most objective news. I remember that BBC called the killing of Palestines - without any form of process - 'murder'. Of course they called that in both ways. But the Israeli ambassador protested against that term. The same is now happening with the 'WALL' ... which Sharon wants to call a 'fence'. Also you speaks in next post about a fence.
To me a fence is a barrier made of posts and wire or boards. And a Wall is a Wall. The WALL Sharon is building is even higher then the Wall of Berlin was. Btw, a fence is also a receiver of stolen goods, or a place where stolen goods are bought.

If you have an electronic transcript of DeLay's speech in the Knesset ... or a link ... that would be very interesting to put it here. Thanks.

I think I've made my position clear. I'm not ready to go off on another one of your tangents..maybe you should resolve the issues you approached previously and statements you've already made prior to delving into wurmser. I'm kinda fond of trying to stick to facts and not creating a future that does not yet exist. Maybe we should stick to winning WWIII first eh?

Winning ... so in your opinion WWIII started?
If Bush puts David Wurmser in charge Bush has the intention to create a future after or similar to Wurmser's extreme views.

 

[kat]

continued...
Israel should insist that the PA takes over policing of the west bank and Gaza strip and if they are unable than they should insist that it is with the help of the EU or NATO. There is too much distrust and anger between the two sides to allow for Israel to assist in the turnover in the manner they did the last time, yet it's doubtful that the PA can actually police their own country. It's also likely that if there were a case where the focus was not Israel they would turn on each other even more brutally then they do when disagreeing today. The other problem is that in the past, without Israel prescence life for civilian Palestinians becomes worse(believe it or not) there must be a transfer of power..to those who will uphold human rights. The responsibility for this needs to be laid at the feet of the international world. It is not something the Israeli's can do, and it is not something the PA would willingly to do.
Israel also needs to stop taking money from the U.S., it's tied them to our whims, our whims have not always been beneficial to them or to their "road" to peace.
Once the fence is completed, having removed the settlements and leaving the westbank, gaza and east jerusalem to the palestinians, Israel should hold tight to it and if it or they are attacked by Palestinians it should be viewed as an act of war.
Israeli's should improve their public relations department by infusing it with funds instead of cutting funding and by hiring capable people who understand todays information world.
Israeli's should invest greater amounts into the Israeli Arab populations education and health care, they should not only condemn anti-arab actions but prosecute them diligently. They should promote tolerance and acceptance of the Israeli Arab population.


Your question (Zero):
Ignoring any argument you might want to offer against the right of Israel to even exist or any temptation you might have to argue the wrongs of the Israelis etc...
Assuming that Israeli's have taken all steps possible to make peace with the Palestinians, and they are still being attacked daily and the PA fails to control those people who are attacking and murdering Israeli's..what methods do you believe are 1. okay to use? and 2. would actually be effective?...#2 may or may not be morally acceptable to you, the only requirement would be that they are effective in providing security for the Israeli's.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by pelastration
BBC is worldwide considered giving the most objective news.

If you want to believe that, that is your choice. I choose not to, I also choose to keep in mind that there is a reason that there is a media watch site who's sole purpose is to note BBC's faulty reporting. Just don't expect me to take the word of the BBC in any argument you offer. In other words, I hope you have other sources if you expect me to believe...you.

The same is now happening with the 'WALL' ... which Sharon wants to call a 'fence'. Also you speaks in next post about a fence.
To me a fence is a barrier made of posts and wire or boards. And a Wall is a Wall. The WALL Sharon is building is even higher then the Wall of Berlin was. Btw, a fence is also a receiver of stolen goods, or a place where stolen goods are bought.

Unfortunately the high concrete barrier your speaking of is only across the area of the highway and other areas in which the palestinian snipers are fond of picking off women and small children. The rest of it is ...a fence.

If you have an electronic transcript of DeLay's speech in the Knesset ... or a link ... that would be very interesting to put it here. Thanks.

It's online, you can google it if you'd like to see it.

Winning ... so in your opinion WWIII started?
If Bush puts David Wurmser in charge Bush has the intention to create a future after or similar to Wurmser's extreme views.

I think there is a definate possiblity that we may look back to this time period and realize that it was the beginning of world war 3. As for wurmser, maybe. Time will tell. I'm more concerned with the extreme religious veiws that are eminating from the ME.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...

Point well taken Zero, but do you have any idea what our trade deficit is with China?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Point well taken Zero, but do you have any idea what our trade deficit is with China?

That's a beef for another thread, Russ...and trust me, we probably agree on trade deficits too.

 

[McQueen]

Haven't any of you guys heard of the MCarthy hearings ... ! Anyway for what it's worth , I don't think anyone , let alone the Saudis (Iraqis were not involved in 9/11) should be able to perpetrate as obscene an act as 9/11 and get away with it . Call me old fashioned but that's what I believe. I also believe that if Bush hadn't gone in when he did , things could have gotten worse. Having said that , the time to call in the UN is long past , if you try to mix money with politics you are going to end up paying the price, especially in an issue as sensitive as this one. This is a world issue , let the countries of the world have a hand in deciding what to do.

 

[FZ+]

I also choose to keep in mind that there is a reason that there is a media watch site who's sole purpose is to note BBC's faulty reporting.

And guess what? That media watch is from the daily telegraph, hardly an independent newspaper, with an unblemished record.

Meanwhile, investigation shows that the BBC is indeed biased - towards the US point of view on issues such as the Iraq war. The myopia here is staggering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3356222,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078652,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078833,00.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,941493,00.html

In these cases, direct transcripts are the biggest problem. Official statements are too easily relied on, and most often flawed - it being unlikely that you would be able to access all such data.


Delay's speech? This one?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-delay073003.asp

This is a load of BS. A combination of religious posturing, lying about facts, using emotion where there should be calm thought about the way ahead, telling people what they want to hear, false comparisons to Auschwitz, huge misconceptions about the power and connection of Arafat's government, ignorance of the fact arafat is democratically elected, scapegoating, us vs them naivety, imcomprehension of the neccessity of diplomacy and the futility of force against such an amorphous target, self congratulatory self-delusionment, moral blindness over Israeli war crimes and other nonsense. If this is the official line of the US government, then it is worse than I ever thought.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
And guess what? That media watch is from the daily telegraph, hardly an independent newspaper, with an unblemished record.

Meanwhile, investigation shows that the BBC is indeed biased - towards the US point of view on issues such as the Iraq war. The myopia here is staggering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3356222,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078652,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078833,00.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,941493,00.html

In these cases, direct transcripts are the biggest problem. Official statements are too easily relied on, and most often flawed - it being unlikely that you would be able to access all such data.

1. We were discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation in regards to the BBC and I did say "particularly in regards to Israel"
2. I'm not sure which site your referring to in regards to the daily telegraph? www.bbcwatch.com[/url] ? [url]www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com[/url] ? http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/BB2003.htm [URL=http://www.globalbritain.org/BBC/BBC%20Front%20page.htm]Global Britian?[/URL] [PLAIN]http://www.bbcbias.org/ Or maybe Camera's sections on the BBC http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Dishonest_Reporting_Award_for_2002.asp are these ALL the telelgraph sites?

 

[Zero]

Is this like the 'liberal media bias' lie(it is important to call it exactly what it is, which is an intentional falsehood.) that you hear about American media outlets?

Anyhoo, this is not the place for this discussion...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Is this like the 'liberal media bias' lie(it is important to call it exactly what it is, which is an intentional falsehood.) that you hear about American media outlets?

The liberal media bias isn't a lie and it isn't even hidden. Its right there for you to see if you choose to. Many big names in the media are very open about their political afiliation. They make speaches, write books, give commentaries, etc. And that's just those in TV. In print, its for some reason even more acceptable to report your opinion as news mixed in with other news.

Zero, I'll certainly give you that Fox leans to the right. But the reason there is a backlash against them is they are the ONLY major news source that leans to the right. You can measure how far a news source leans to the left by how much attention they give Fox (or Rush for that matter).

 

[Njorl]

There was a survey done about 10 years ago in which 92% of journalists self-identified as liberal. This was hyped by conservatives to no end. What conservatives left out of their ravings was that the same survey showed that 84% of editors self-identified as conservative. Here is a link to a modern survey. It shows that the press are to the left of the people on social issues, but the the right of the people on economic issues.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

I would have thought that the last presidential election would have laid to rest the whole "liberal-media bias" myth. The press crucified Gore, even the NY Times gave more favorable press to Bush than to Gore.

I think one reason that conservatives think the press is liberal is because the press is fairly incompetent. Conservatives seem to think incompetence is a liberal trait. The explosion of press outlets has led to a drastic decrease in the quality of reporting. If airline pilots had the same level of competence it would be raining Boeings. Consider how often the ENTIRE press corps gets a story wrong, and how rarely you hear a story about the entire press corps getting a story wrong. They are a bunch of self-protective, poorly educated, glory mongers with average intelligence who portray themselves as oracles.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The liberal media bias isn't a lie and it isn't even hidden. Its right there for you to see if you choose to. Many big names in the media are very open about their political afiliation. They make speaches, write books, give commentaries, etc. And that's just those in TV. In print, its for some reason even more acceptable to report your opinion as news mixed in with other news.

Zero, I'll certainly give you that Fox leans to the right. But the reason there is a backlash against them is they are the ONLY major news source that leans to the right. You can measure how far a news source leans to the left by how much attention they give Fox (or Rush for that matter).

That's pretty well wrong, Russ. There isn't some huge liberal media machine. Some celebs are liberal, some are conservative. The editors and owners, the ones in control, are predominantly conservative. Generally, the media is liberal only compared to the people who call it liberal. Being to the left of Fox News doesn't make you liberal. Most of the center and moderate right is also left of the right-wing minority. Since they don't want to admit that they are the minority, they claim a bias against them. Like usual, though, claiming victim status is a standard strategy for a minority seeking a break.

And, the reason for a backlash against Fox is because there isn't a whole lot of journalism going on there...a whole lot of mouthpieces for Bush selling America their right-wing lies, though. Fox isn't a news channel at all, it is a visual op-ed page, with a serious right-wing bent and a lack of objectivity or respect for the truth.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Njorl


I think one reason that conservatives think the press is liberal is because the press is fairly incompetent. Conservatives seem to think incompetence is a liberal trait.[/B} The explosion of press outlets has led to a drastic decrease in the quality of reporting. If airline pilots had the same level of competence it would be raining Boeings. Consider how often the ENTIRE press corps gets a story wrong, and how rarely you hear a story about the entire press corps getting a story wrong. They are a bunch of self-protective, poorly educated, glory mongers with average intelligence who portray themselves as oracles.

Njorl

Lol, thanks for the chuckle. I think you may have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

 

[Zero]

I know the media is incompetent...and that is a completely different thread, I'm telling you! Stay on topic, folks, come on!

 

[pelastration]

... liltle out focus too but nice

One the few good things of Bush is imo that he pushed the bumper sticker industry.
Check the Bush parody website http://www.gwbush.com .
Some very creative people there. I special like the bumpersticker (An American flag with:) I Don't Have to Like Bush to Love America.
Another nice one is: DEMOCRACY ... was getting old anyway.

enjoy.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by kat
I did read what you said and I have no interest in helping you spread nasty rumors about jews ruling the United States. Iraq or the world for that matter.

Kat, as you can read below that this idea lives in Iraq, and it will have it's influence. Maybe you will say that what is written is not exactly what I argued to be happening in Iraq. You can claim now that Mariam Fam of Associated Press is also spreading nasty rumors. Maybe you can ask here for hard proof or a written transcript?
-----
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/314/world/Some_Mosul_mosques_in_the_fron:.shtml

Some Mosul mosques in the front line of the battle with Americans By Mariam Fam, Associated Press, 11/10/2003 01:58

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) It was Friday prayers at Haibat Khatoun mosque, and the imam faced worshippers to deliver a fiery sermon accusing American troops of insulting the Muslim holy book and trampling the honor of women.
''It's not enough for them to defile the land, they also wanted to defile God's book and then violate the sanctities of Muslims,'' the preacher shouted, his words carried into the street by loudspeakers. ''The grandsons of monkeys and pigs, who don't know their mothers or fathers, trespass on the book of God!''
Moustafa Mohammed, a 19-year-old college sophomore squatting in the mosque, listened in anger and pain. ''Islam today is being humiliated,'' he said. ''We ask God to make us victorious. They are hurting Muslims. ... It's horrible.''
...
A group of Sunni clerics in Mosul, the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, issued a statement Friday warning people against cooperating with U.S. forces. ''Beware of supporting the occupiers and know that contacting them, without a legitimate necessity, is sinful,'' it said.
...
Sheik Abdel Jawad Mohammed Safo: ''I always stress that the people ruling over us are nonbelievers,'' he said. ''We always say that this war is a religious war. ... It's a war between Arabs and Jews; America is a mere toy in the hand of the Jews.''
...
Lt. Col. Chester C. Egert, a chaplain with the 101st Airborne Division, said some imams also argue ''that U.S. soldiers or coalition forces are causing decadence and a decrease in morality.'' ''Occasionally there will be during the calls for prayer, out of the minaret, there will be some type of call for an uprising against coalition,'' he said.
Egert said not all mosques are centers of opposition. He said many clerics support U.S. forces and urge worshippers to cooperate, while others don't venture into politics in their sermons. ''In general, I don't think the population is inclined to buy into jihad or fighting against the coalition,'' Egert said.

Saleh Khalaf, director of the office that oversees mosques and other places of worship, traces anti-U.S. sentiment to nonreligious sources.''The talk of the preachers is a result of the social pressure in their areas,'' he said. ''For instance, the neighborhood lacks services and there's a lot of unemployment. If these things are taken care of, I promise ... that 95 percent of the problems between the coalition forces and the people will be solved.''

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
I would have thought that the last presidential election would have laid to rest the whole "liberal-media bias" myth. The press crucified Gore, even the NY Times gave more favorable press to Bush than to Gore.

What did you make of the fact that virtually the entire press corps called the election in favor of Gore at 8:00pm? Yes, that's incompetence, but the direction of the incompetence is telling to me: wishful thinking. When they err, they err to the left.

That's pretty well wrong, Russ. There isn't some huge liberal media machine.

I never said there was, Zero. Though you may think everything is a conspiracy, don't assume everyone else does too. The liberal media bias isn't a conspiracy, hidden adjenda, or otherwise. Its mostly a reflection of the personal beliefs of those in the media. Incompetent or not, the members of the media are humans. So what they do and say will reflect their personal beliefs.

Now, I said "mostly" because its a little bit of a chicken or egg scenario. Does the media make reporters liberal or are liberals more likely to become reporters than conservatives? I would suggest the latter. Certain fields tend to attract certain types of people.

Now, to what Njorl said:

There was a survey done about 10 years ago in which 92% of journalists self-identified as liberal. This was hyped by conservatives to no end. What conservatives left out of their ravings was that the same survey showed that 84% of editors self-identified as conservative.

Setting aside the difference in the quantity of editors compared with the quantity of reporters and the fact that people in management jobs need to wear different "hats," editors are managers and businessmen. And the higher you go on the corporate ladder, the more conservative people become. This goes right along with what I said above.

I read somewhere (if you really want me to, I'll find it) that 92% of those in the media voted for Clinton in 1992.

Some celebs are liberal, some are conservative.

Don't even get me started on that (your statement though literally true is highly misleading, but that's not my main complaint). The place celebs hold in politics is disgraceful, even criminal. Why Jane Fonda (for example) wasn't arrested and charged with treason is beyond me. Sean Penn at least apologized (he realized what an ass he was). I'll give him props for that. The jury is still out on Jennifer Anniston (J.A., lol) and Brad Pitt though (I won't hold my breath).

 

[Zero]

Hmmm...no matter how you slice it, there really isn't much of a liberal media bias going on...unless you think the right-wing represents the center.

 

[pelastration]

BBC Video interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39575000/rm/_39575031_bush09_frost_full_vi.ram). Bush tried to make a (prudent) smile to Europe, talking about more cooperation with Europe (and France and Germany). Bush understands that he must find some allies to solve his Iraq problems (Plan B*). Once all 'contracts' have been signed to rebuild Iraq ... then others may join.

But Bush (and with him USA) has lost confidence of almost the entire planet. Bush said that 'Saddam was considered a dangerous man', but many many people in the world consider Bush also to be a dangerous man (unilateral attack on Iraq, mini-nukes program, biological weapons program US, Patriot Act, snake talks, misrepresentations, unlawful economic favoritism in Iraq, bringing people to justice (!), religious craziness, favors Israel, International Court...) because he really has WMB weapons and a lot of negative technology. Next to that Bush multiple actions creates more and more emotional 'contra reactions'. He is setting up 1,3 muslims against US and ... feeds himself future terror by imposing his perception of 'freedom' and 'peace' with the tough hand. Many consider Bush as a megalomanic who puts himself above international law (for personal gain, pride and ... probably because he was personally elected by God too) and infiltrates US economic structure inside other nations.

His statement like '...a world that is more free, and more peaceful, human rights ... American lead there ...' come over as hypocrite and just marketing. There is a different hidden agenda.
And about his 'I have a fine team of decent people', when these fine advisors say:' Yes Mr. President we will be executing' ... they mean by 'executing' maybe something different.

"In a poll published in The Times Tuesday, 59 percent of respondents said America's standing in the world has diminished under Bush's presidency, while 60 percent disapproved of his handling of the situation in Iraq." http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/11/britain.bush.poll.ap/index.html
(*) Plan B: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3274009.stm

Example of international mistrust against Bush: (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1068937808510&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724)
"Jean Chrétien, to a standing ovation during his farewell speech at the Liberal convention in Toronto.
The Prime Minister can't say it, but more than unilateralism, it was dishonesty that doomed George W. Bush's war on Iraq and soured much of the world on America.
Incompetence — exacerbated by imperial arrogance and cultural ignorance — turned the occupation into a nightmare.
Now, all those traits are in play in the American plan to ostensibly turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
The decision to hasten self-rule has little to do with installing real democracy. That's the patina the president needs to cover the panic suddenly gripping the White House.
The insurgency in Iraq is growing in intensity and expanding in geography. It will get much worse, according to a bleak assessment just offered by the Central Intelligence Agency."

Example of playing with fire:
The full text of the SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA of 16 OCTOBER 2003 AT 10.00 A.M. on: http://www.bernama.com/oicsummit/speechr.php?id=35&cat=BI
"39. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
Of course he refers to Bush who sent his young people to this second Vietnam.

And one of the many: http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Postwar Reconstruction
(WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003) — More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies contributed more money to the presidential campaign of George W. Bush—more than $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found."

 

[pelastration]

20 Questions for George W. Bush:
Americans Must Demand Straight Answers from Their President
by Glenn Scherer

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1115-08.htm

 

[pelastration]

Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent

18 November 2003

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".

His provocatively timed comments, on the eve of Mr Bush's arrival in London tonight, threaten to create severe embarrassment for the Prime Minister. They also come with talks under way on whether to re-admit Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party before his five-year exile ends.

more on: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=464783