I don't have a problem with freeing oppressed people, but this country will go broke if we try to help everyone.

 

I think that first, we should solve our domestic problems, before devoting so much money and resources to wars.

756273[/snapback]

 

If we knew how to fix our domestic problems we wouldnt have to be at war. All the govt does is throw money at things to fix them and that isnt the way htings work.

756285[/snapback]

 

 

so instead we throw money into various wars to try to convert them into what we are not.

 

brilliant!

Great discussion everyone. I especially liked the 2Juan's post about a manifest destiny, but in global terms. Very interesting reference.

Great discussion everyone. I especially liked the 2Juan's post about a manifest destiny, but in global terms. Very interesting reference.

756531[/snapback]

 

 

 

so does that mean that its like a new age imperalism then?

Great discussion everyone. I especially liked the 2Juan's post about a manifest destiny, but in global terms. Very interesting reference.

756531[/snapback]

so does that mean that its like a new age imperalism then?

756579[/snapback]

Some of our actions mirror what we did in the early 1900's, when we gained control of the Phillipines, Cuba, Guam, etc. after the Spanish-American War.

For example, if CNN puts up a story that makes Bush look bad, would you not claim thats the liberal CNN doing its thing again?

no way. I can't even figure out how you could have come to that conclusion.

 

Just because CNN has an obvious liberal slant doesn't mean I'd write off a negative story about Bush as "CNN being its old liberal self." That said, I watch enough CNN (quite a bit nowadays) to expect them to cover the story in a noticeably more negative light than they would a negative story about a democratic figure. That much is extremely obvious.

You know something you guys convinced me. Bush knew all along, he lied to all of us. He is trying to occupy Iraq for greed and power. I think Bush should be arrested and brought to justice. He should be tried for war crimes and Saddam should be given back power of Iraq.

 

Die Bush Die

 

All Hail Saddam :notworthy

For example, if CNN puts up a story that makes Bush look bad, would you not claim thats the liberal CNN doing its thing again?

no way. I can't even figure out how you could have come to that conclusion.

 

Just because CNN has an obvious liberal slant doesn't mean I'd write off a negative story about Bush as "CNN being its old liberal self." That said, I watch enough CNN (quite a bit nowadays) to expect them to cover the story in a noticeably more negative light than they would a negative story about a democratic figure. That much is extremely obvious.

756872[/snapback]

How exactly did the media treat the liberal democratic candidate Howard Dean dude? They destroyed him.

You know something you guys convinced me. Bush knew all along, he lied to all of us. He is trying to occupy Iraq for greed and power. I think Bush should be arrested and brought to justice. He should be tried for war crimes and Saddam should be given back power of Iraq.

 

Die Bush Die

 

All Hail Saddam :notworthy

756903[/snapback]

 

 

:plain

 

 

we know that saddam was a menance on his people. but so are many dictators in this world, yet we go after saddam, you would have to think that there are other motives other than simply 'bringing freedom and democracy' to the people.

 

 

so that leads us back to this....

 

 

why iraq?

For example, if CNN puts up a story that makes Bush look bad, would you not claim thats the liberal CNN doing its thing again?

no way. I can't even figure out how you could have come to that conclusion.

 

Just because CNN has an obvious liberal slant doesn't mean I'd write off a negative story about Bush as "CNN being its old liberal self." That said, I watch enough CNN (quite a bit nowadays) to expect them to cover the story in a noticeably more negative light than they would a negative story about a democratic figure. That much is extremely obvious.

756872[/snapback]

How exactly did the media treat the liberal democratic candidate Howard Dean dude? They destroyed him.

756947[/snapback]

 

 

 

that still bites me in the ass.

How exactly did the media treat the liberal democratic candidate Howard Dean dude? They destroyed him.

756947[/snapback]

your point is?

 

the "unelectable" howard dean getting brutally assraped for the soundbite of his scream means the media isn't liberal?

 

you can't be serious.

F_M

 

We've had this discussion before about the "liberal media".

 

You dont believe that most media outlets put a "liberal" or "anti-republican" slant when reporting.

 

I'll admit that FOX News puts a "pro-republican" slant on their reporting. The only reason why they do this is because it is contradictory to the other networks.

 

I read somewhere during the election that Bush had something like 65% of articles and editorials were written in a negative view of him, whereas Kerry had only 40% of the articles and editorials written in a negative view of him.

 

Its just how it is. Its always been like that. It will always be like that.

 

The media may have hosed Howard Dean, but they werent doing it to Kerry.

 

Dont think for a second that I believe that the "liberal" media wouldnt go after a Democrat. Clinton proved that. The media goes with what sells, they eat their own.

 

Republican bashing is very profitable. The media knows it. Im sure majority of CNN watchers are in the so called "blue states", very large population bases.

How exactly did the media treat the liberal democratic candidate Howard Dean dude? They destroyed him.

756947[/snapback]

your point is?

 

the "unelectable" howard dean getting brutally assraped for his scream means the media isn't liberal?

 

you can't be serious.

756960[/snapback]

Its an example that CNN doesnt treat democrats less negitivley than Bush. You said you know enough about CNN to know they treat Bush more negitively than democrats. Dean's scream didnt become a big deal until the media played it over and over and over again. Its a perfect example of the media treating a democratic figure in as much a negative light as they treated Bush. And just recently CNN got all over Robert Byrd for his filibuster as Nazism comments. Dude come on. Im listing these examples because democrats arent getting this supposed benefit that people claim they are.

positive reports about soldier deaths, using incorrect intel, or coming to false conclusions would be hard to report on in a positive light i would think. and there are bunch of people on the radio that are far from liberal really the complete opposite. and radio is part of media and means of how people get their news. it could be hard to be positive when there is only so much positive stuff to talk about.

How exactly did the media treat the liberal democratic candidate Howard Dean dude? They destroyed him.

756947[/snapback]

your point is?

 

the "unelectable" howard dean getting brutally assraped for his scream means the media isn't liberal?

 

you can't be serious.

756960[/snapback]

Its an example that CNN doesnt treat democrats less negitivley than Bush. You said you know enough about CNN to know they treat Bush more negitively than democrats. Dean's scream didnt become a big deal until the media played it over and over and over again. Its a perfect example of the media treating a democratic figure in as much a negative light as they treated Bush. And just recently CNN got all over Robert Byrd for his filibuster as Nazism comments. Dude come on. Im listing these examples because democrats arent getting this supposed benefit that people claim they are.

756970[/snapback]

Dont pass it by the media to have done that to Howard because they wanted Kerry to run for President, figuring he ws more electable than Howard. I only say this because the media is that ARROGANT to do something like that.

 

Rathergate coming out a week before the election. It was concluded that the story was rushed and they did not go through the regular procedures to "authenticate" the documents.

positive reports about soldier deaths, using incorrect intel, or coming to false conclusions would be hard to report on in a positive light i would think. and there are bunch of people on the radio that are far from liberal really the complete opposite. and radio is part of media and means of how people get their news. it could be hard to be positive when there is only so much positive stuff to talk about.

756975[/snapback]

Do you deny that the media reports the negatives in Iraq FAR more than the positives coming out of Iraq.

 

When was the last time you heard about a school opening up in Iraq? A hospital being built? A library opening? A police station being opened? Police officers and soldiers being hired everyday? A businessman opening up his own business?

 

All these things happen in Iraq, some everyday some weekly, but they happen all the time. You never hear a report on it.

 

Does a murder in Miami make news in Iraq? How about a dozen murders in Miami, does that make news in other parts of the world?

 

Do conservatives have their radio network geared toward ALL consrvative views?

I think if Kerry had done it they would have fried him too. Look at what happend to Dukakis. I mean they showed him in the tank over and over and over again, and he already had the nomination. And speaking of Dukakis, it was CNN anchor Bernard Shaw who put Dukasis in the position of having to either compromise his values or seem cold when he asked him the famous "If your daughter were raped, would you change your mind on the death penalty?" question. Can you imagine if they asked Bush "If your daughter was gay, would you change your mind on the gay issue?" I mean isnt that a perfect counter example?

 

To me the above example tells a glaring difference. If a democratic is exposed by the media, its the democrats fault. If a republican is exposed, its the media's motive.

 

Is it possible that everytime you guys spot a democrat getting reemed by CNN it doesnt hit you? If its been drilled in that CNN is anti Republican, what would make you catch it when its anti democrat?

positive reports about soldier deaths, using incorrect intel, or coming to false conclusions would be hard to report on in a positive light i would think. and there are bunch of people on the radio that are far from liberal really the complete opposite. and radio is part of media and means of how people get their news. it could be hard to be positive when there is only so much positive stuff to talk about.

756975[/snapback]

Do you deny that the media reports the negatives in Iraq FAR more than the positives coming out of Iraq.

 

When was the last time you heard about a school opening up in Iraq? A hospital being built? A library opening? A police station being opened? Police officers and soldiers being hired everyday? A businessman opening up his own business?

 

All these things happen in Iraq, some everyday some weekly, but they happen all the time. You never hear a report on it.

 

Does a murder in Miami make news in Iraq? How about a dozen murders in Miami, does that make news in other parts of the world?

 

Do conservatives have their radio network geared toward ALL consrvative views?

756979[/snapback]

 

no i will not deny that a lot of negative news comes out of iraq. but i never hear fox news, rush, or any of the other conservative news sources come at me with the school openings or anything like that. its not like the conservative news sources are acting too much different than the liberal media sources.

 

if you have a problem with the media, have a problem with all media, because when did you hear about any of those things you listed on conservative news sources?

 

and when the murders are of americans it is different. it is our boys being killed over there, so how can you not want to hear about that? if iraqi tourists were killed over here i am sure they'd report about it in iraq. when we are in control of another country like we are in iraq and spending our money to help it out, what goes on over there becomes our priority. unless you want to ignore where you money is going.

 

put on hannity, rush, laura, bortz, and any other number of conservatives with radio shows. they call out and mock liberals. as much as i watch cnn i have never heard them say anything along the lines of "conservatives are just stupid, they need our help, we want to heal the conservatives," because a number of those shows say things like that about liberals everyday. no... not biased at all.

and when the murders are of americans it is different. it is our boys being killed over there, so how can you not want to hear about that? if iraqi tourists were killed over here i am sure they'd report about it in iraq. when we are in control of another country like we are in iraq and spending our money to help it out, what goes on over there becomes our priority. at least you want to ignore where you money is oing.

 

 

Exactly. A LOT of Iraqis have died over there and a lot of liberals are upset that those numbers are presented by CNN. The media presentation of Iraq could have been a lot worse than it was.

And just recently CNN got all over Robert Byrd for his filibuster as Nazism comments. Dude come on. Im listing these examples because democrats arent getting this supposed benefit that people claim they are.

756970[/snapback]

And were a republican to liken his opponents to nazis, CNN would rake him over the coals harder than they did Byrd. I watch CNN enough to know that for sure.

 

I could sit here and cite numerous examples of Fox criticizing republicans or dropping a pre-election DUI bombshell. Is that enough to say Fox doesn't have a conservative bias? Of course not.

 

In general, democrats are treated better and republicans are treated worse on CNN. I'm not even saying that as a partisan republican or right-winger (something I'm not--I've voted for about as many dems as reps in my short voting-age lifetime). I don't mean to cop out and come off as a condescending tool, but liberal bias in most of the media (particularly in a specialty outlet like CNN) is so obvious and easy for most people to perceive that I'd rather not even continue debating it.

 

I'm not saying the bias is necessarily deliberate, but when you pack a 20-man newsroom with 16 liberals, it's tough to make a product that is entirely objective.

And thats certainly your perogative to see CNN as generally treating democrats better than republicans. I guess it just bothers me that everytime a Republican is critisized, its the fault of the liberal media out to get him. Even if the media doesnt do a good job of keeping things fair, thats not enough to be a good scapegoat. Thats pretty much what Tom Delay is using right now as his way of trying to get out of his mess. And thats pretty much how this was brought into the thread. People being critical of Bush's foreign policy is just written off as the liberal media screwing Bush over. At what point has that generalization became a full blown excuse? Janet Reno and Bill Clinton didnt get to use the liberal media argument when Waco blew up in their face. So Bush shouldnt either.

Its the manifest destiny. In the 1800s it was our justification to spread religion, capitalism and democracy to the mexicans and the rest of the west. Now it is our justification to spread those things through the world things dont change. As an arrogant nation we force our system on others nothing shocking really

756161[/snapback]

 

 

 

may be the same philosophy but you need a different term.

 

 

manifest destiny only extended to the pacific.

756165[/snapback]

 

 

Current U.S. foreign policy and Manifest Destiny really don't have much in common, you'd be better off calling it good ole' fashioned Imperialism but even that isn't very accurate.

 

I think people on both sides are buying too much into the alleged idealogy and morality behind going into war with Iraq, whether it being freeing the Iraqi people from oppression banter from conservatives or conspiracy theories of imperialism from liberals. These are simplistic talking points brought to the fore by political parties and really aren't rooted in reality.

 

There are concrete reasons for going to war with Iraq and they have nothing to do with democracy, imperialism, an Al-Queda/Ba'athist alliance, or spreading American values of obesity, reality shows, and born again Christianity.

 

Iraq wasn't going to bomb any of our cities or send marine divisions to our beaches but could Saddam bomb or invade his neihbors? Absolutely, he would and has before. A Ba'athist Iraq has been an anchor for instability and tension in the Middle East for decades and deep down Jordanians, Kuwaities, Saudis and even governments hostile to us like Syria and Iran are RELIEVED, that a wild card like Saddam who has invaded two countries and has acounted for a million deaths in the region is out of power. Governments in that region and around the world who have money invested in that region all wanted him taken out whatever their political stance on the issues may be.

 

Could you realistically imagine peace in the Middle East with Saddam in power? Honestly? Do you have any idea how dangerous instability in the Middle East is to our security and our economy?

 

An enormous factor that lies at the heart bin Laden and his ilk's hatred of the U.S and Saudi Arabia comes from the Saudis going to more reliable Western powers instead of his Mujahadeen veterans from theAfghan-Soviet conflict TO EXPEL SADDAM FROM HOLY SOIL.

 

This fact flies in the face of the argument that "Saddam was no threat to us." or that " Saddam and bin Laden are allies against us!" Bin Laden absolutely abhorred governments like Iraq, Syria and especially Saudi Arabi who he perceived as pro-Western and tainted by infidels.

 

As for the WMD's he most likely had biological weapons BECAUSE WE SOLD THEM TO HIM TO USE AGAINST IRAN. Not only that he obviously used them to put down the Kurdish Peshmerga revolts. When asked about how he knew Iraq had bio-weapons Colin Powell responded, "We kept the receipt." Bio-weapons aren't exactly hard to obtain by an industrial nation, nor are they hard to hide or smuggle out of a desert nation and with his famous Al-Samoud missles he could easily have a conventional HE warhead swapped for a bio warhead and reach any target in the Middle East.

 

As for the spreading of democracy in the Middle East, what a freaking joke, if anything democracy is an agent of INSTABILITY with tribal cultures who respect only very strong authoritarian (but not totalitarian!) rulers. The objective of democracy in Iraq is absolutely dwarfed by the security and economic objectives of the war. Some of our staunchest allies are dictators and most are ROYALTY such as President Musharraf of Pakistan, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, and King Mohammed of Morocco. Are we going to attack our own Muslim allies because their countries are kingdoms and princedoms? Yeah, right.

 

Democracy in the Middle East is the stuff of Mickey Mouse politics and is alot more palitable to Americans than the colder security and economic motivations for the war. OK. I'm done.

wow, great post marlin nation. Lays the smack down on both sides. Too bad it was so late. I need sleep.

 

Good to see this thread continue with a lot of intelligent discourse and not having to be shut down.

I feel enlightened. Thanks marlinnation. It's obvious you approach this problem with a detached, reasonable mind and seem to have a pretty good understanding of helluva lot.

Its the manifest destiny. In the 1800s it was our justification to spread religion, capitalism and democracy to the mexicans and the rest of the west. Now it is our justification to spread those things through the world things dont change. As an arrogant nation we force our system on others nothing shocking really

756161[/snapback]

 

:thumbdown

Somebody has to take out evil like Saddam and we did. We are the only country strong enough and we have enough balls to go in and do it. If you don't like it then move to France. I don't care if we have to force democracy- I believe in right and wrong and Saddam was wrong. I was sick of hearing about Saddam killing his own people who only love him because they fear him and raping women. If arrogance means taking out evil then Im all for it. Just about the only state who doesn't agree is all the California quacks.

Its the manifest destiny. In the 1800s it was our justification to spread religion, capitalism and democracy to the mexicans and the rest of the west. Now it is our justification to spread those things through the world things dont change. As an arrogant nation we force our system on others nothing shocking really

756161[/snapback]

 

:thumbdown

Somebody has to take out evil like Saddam and we did. We are the only country strong enough and we have enough balls to go in and do it. If you don't like it then move to France. I don't care if we have to force democracy- I believe in right and wrong and Saddam was wrong. I was sick of hearing about Saddam killing his own people who only love him because they fear him and raping women. If arrogance means taking out evil then Im all for it. Just about the only state who doesn't agree is all the California quacks.

757782[/snapback]

 

Then why are you not up in arms over things like Rawanda, or a zillion other african nations where things like genocide took place where armies took rule over countries and wiped out millions of people? And we did nothing to help. Iraq is not the only place where injustices occurred if you are going to police some you need to police all over and not just push your agenda on other countries when it conviniences you. Also, are you planning to sign up for the army anytime soon? because it is hella easy to say we should go here, here, over there, under here, and back this way, when it is not you being sent time and again coming back in a body bag. is the world a better place without saddam from our perspective, yeah sure, why not? was it worth it? he is still alive, and will be for a while, meanwhile countless innocent people are dead. the real "enemy" who attacked us on 9/11 are still out there, and not even in iraq. when did we become a country to use first strike against people who did not attack us? maybe we should invade canada next, they have stones and are pretty close, they could do bad things to us oh no. if we went to iraq solely to help out the people and those poor poor citizens, why are we not in cuba, africa, in south america somewhere helping out those people? because that is not why we went to iraq. it is because they are vastly different than us, resemble the enemy and that is reason enough to force our agenda on them.