When you say "Big Media" do you mean "Big Media, except for the protectors of truth and knowledge at Fox News and the wanna-be panderers to right, sucking up for some ratings points, at CNN" or "Big Media" in general?
Whether its true or not Fox has gotta be all over this. Who's in charge over there. Murdoch is gonna have to kick some ass over this.
<strong>When you say "Big Media" do you mean "Big Media, except for the protectors of truth and knowledge at Fox News and the wanna-be panderers to right, sucking up for some ratings points, at CNN" or "Big Media" in general?
Whether its true or not Fox has gotta be all over this. Who's in charge over there. Murdoch is gonna have to kick some ass over this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. Big media is the "Liberal media let's not tell the truth in the news section because the ed board wants to make Bush look bad by opposing action in the face of Iraq's material breach NYT I'm looking at you and don't get me started on the government controlled media in France."
No. Big media is the "Liberal media let's not tell the truth in the news section because the ed board wants to make Bush look bad by opposing action in the face of Iraq's material breach NYT I'm looking at you and don't get me started on the government controlled media in France." </strong><hr></blockquote>
You guys have really run with a story that lacks support. Do a google search on the guy's name in quotes. Here's an excerpt from this <a href="http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=247"; target="_blank">Debka interview,</a> which, BTW, may be the source of the story.
[quote]There’s a place called Ouja, near Tikrit. It’s a peninsula of sand dunes. I saw with my own eyes bunkers that move from place to place inside the dunes, underground. It is simply unbelievable. It is done by remote control.
<hr></blockquote>
Did you guys even check sources? This is really silly.
It simply demonstrates the lengths some of you are willing to go to make a case for war, for death, for injury. I watched Platoon again the other night. I suggest you war mongers go see it and remember what the hell you are advocating. I love the last line, about how he hopes that the coming generations of Americans study history to prevent politicians selling them a war.
<strong>giant, did you even check to see if that article you linked was referring to the same bodyguard?
c'mon library man, i expect more than that.
looks to me like those aren't the same person, although their stories are similar.
are you sure it's the same person in both stories?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is referring to the same person. Did you even research it? They 'used a different name' in that interview. There are whole lines lifted from it (but slightly modified, even!).
Are you just being a jerk to me because you want to 'believe' in war? You expect more from me?!?! You think that by being cocky you can verify this BS?
You have latched onto a story that ran only in one Australia newspaper with no verifiable sources. This is just silly!
Do any of you here after hearing or reading Powells speech still doubt that Iraq is in breach of the UN resolutions put to them? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Do any of you here after hearing or reading Powells speech still doubt that Iraq is in breach of the UN resolutions put to them? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Even were this to be true (and I make no claims as I haven't read or heard it yet) Resolution 1441 doesn't authorize war in the even that it is breached.
Even were this to be true (and I make no claims as I haven't read or heard it yet) Resolution 1441 doesn't authorize war in the even that it is breached.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the Speech:
POWELL: Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.
so now everyone wants to skirt the issue? How many times does someone have to point out the inconsistencies before you people get it?
And what is up with looking in every knook and cranny for a reason to go to war? You've turned that into the goal and forgotten about what we really should be aiming to do.
How can you people even come on this forum with that shit at this point?
You people eat this up to the point that you are discussing the 'liberal media' and 'big media.' You have no idea what you are talking about! You can't even realize the truth behind the one stupid little BS article that started the whole discussion, yet you think you can make educated statements about the media and the validity of it's actions regarding THIS ARTICLE! Insane.
There's nothing wrong with not necessarily being right about something. What is wrong is forming opinions without a proper understandin of the facts. This becomes all the more severe when that opinion advocates killing people.
And fellowship: disappear again. You pretend to advocate love and then come out with comments like "These Anti-War types need to join in the world support for Saddam to come clean if they want no war. If they want war they should continue to support Saddam and he will let it go to his head that not all the world is against him so he will fight thus war. STUPID LEFT WINGERS" that are not only so far from reality but also show you have no real investment in the religion you pretend to belong to. Just like the militant islamists have hijacked islam, people like you have hijacked christianity.
What the hell does Powell's view mean? Nothing. The US wanted war language put directly into the Resolution but it couldn't get the votes. So, even if Powell disagrees, the U.N. purposefully excluded war language in order to force the issue to a vote were it ever necessary.
What the hell does Powell's view mean? Nothing. The US wanted war language put directly into the Resolution but it couldn't get the votes. So, even if Powell disagrees, the U.N. purposefully excluded war language in order to force the issue to a vote were it ever necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it means a heck of a lot more than yours sir. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
[quote]"Liberal media let's not tell the truth in the news section because the ed board wants to make Bush look bad by opposing action in the face of Iraq's material breach NYT I'm looking at you and don't get me started on the government controlled media in France."<hr></blockquote> Oh you must mean the Big Media of "Bush has a bold economic plan Big Media." Though Fox News the other day did run a very helpful show on how a war could mean an upswing in jobs in certain sectors of the economy.
Operation Make Them Forget About the Economy is in the muthafscking house. Get your war on big fella.
Wow. Good argument. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
So does that mean you realize the U.N. excluded authorizing war or not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They did not exclude authorizing war, but they did work to tone down the wording so that when such a time as this occurred they would be able to once again try to avoid making the tough decisions they are so good ad not making.
[quote]It is referring to the same person. Did you even research it? They 'used a different name' in that interview. There are whole lines lifted from it (but slightly modified, even!).
<hr></blockquote>
if two people with similar jobs within the same regime left a few months apart, would you expect their stories as to what's going on to be similar or different.
if they're the same, wouldn't that be an indication of the veracity of the stories, not that they're lies?
if they were different, wouldn't that just indicate that the two people were just making it up?
They did not exclude authorizing war, but they did work to tone down the wording so that when such a time as this occurred they would be able to once again try to avoid making the tough decisions they are so good ad not making.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
Whether its true or not Fox has gotta be all over this. Who's in charge over there. Murdoch is gonna have to kick some ass over this.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
<strong>When you say "Big Media" do you mean "Big Media, except for the protectors of truth and knowledge at Fox News and the wanna-be panderers to right, sucking up for some ratings points, at CNN" or "Big Media" in general?
Whether its true or not Fox has gotta be all over this. Who's in charge over there. Murdoch is gonna have to kick some ass over this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. Big media is the "Liberal media let's not tell the truth in the news section because the ed board wants to make Bush look bad by opposing action in the face of Iraq's material breach NYT I'm looking at you and don't get me started on the government controlled media in France."
<strong>
No. Big media is the "Liberal media let's not tell the truth in the news section because the ed board wants to make Bush look bad by opposing action in the face of Iraq's material breach NYT I'm looking at you and don't get me started on the government controlled media in France."
Calm down and take your meds.....er Dr. Scott.
[quote]There’s a place called Ouja, near Tikrit. It’s a peninsula of sand dunes. I saw with my own eyes bunkers that move from place to place inside the dunes, underground. It is simply unbelievable. It is done by remote control.
<hr></blockquote>
Did you guys even check sources? This is really silly.
It simply demonstrates the lengths some of you are willing to go to make a case for war, for death, for injury. I watched Platoon again the other night. I suggest you war mongers go see it and remember what the hell you are advocating. I love the last line, about how he hopes that the coming generations of Americans study history to prevent politicians selling them a war.
c'mon library man, i expect more than that.
looks to me like those aren't the same person, although their stories are similar.
are you sure it's the same person in both stories?
<strong>Anywhere I can see Powell online?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html</a>;
<strong>giant, did you even check to see if that article you linked was referring to the same bodyguard?
c'mon library man, i expect more than that.
looks to me like those aren't the same person, although their stories are similar.
are you sure it's the same person in both stories?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is referring to the same person. Did you even research it? They 'used a different name' in that interview. There are whole lines lifted from it (but slightly modified, even!).
Are you just being a jerk to me because you want to 'believe' in war? You expect more from me?!?! You think that by being cocky you can verify this BS?
You have latched onto a story that ran only in one Australia newspaper with no verifiable sources. This is just silly!
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Do any of you here after hearing or reading Powells speech still doubt that Iraq is in breach of the UN resolutions put to them?
Even were this to be true (and I make no claims as I haven't read or heard it yet) Resolution 1441 doesn't authorize war in the even that it is breached.
<strong>
Even were this to be true (and I make no claims as I haven't read or heard it yet) Resolution 1441 doesn't authorize war in the even that it is breached.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the Speech:
POWELL: Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.
And what is up with looking in every knook and cranny for a reason to go to war? You've turned that into the goal and forgotten about what we really should be aiming to do.
How can you people even come on this forum with that shit at this point?
You people eat this up to the point that you are discussing the 'liberal media' and 'big media.' You have no idea what you are talking about! You can't even realize the truth behind the one stupid little BS article that started the whole discussion, yet you think you can make educated statements about the media and the validity of it's actions regarding THIS ARTICLE! Insane.
There's nothing wrong with not necessarily being right about something. What is wrong is forming opinions without a proper understandin of the facts. This becomes all the more severe when that opinion advocates killing people.
And fellowship: disappear again. You pretend to advocate love and then come out with comments like "These Anti-War types need to join in the world support for Saddam to come clean if they want no war. If they want war they should continue to support Saddam and he will let it go to his head that not all the world is against him so he will fight thus war. STUPID LEFT WINGERS" that are not only so far from reality but also show you have no real investment in the religion you pretend to belong to. Just like the militant islamists have hijacked islam, people like you have hijacked christianity.
<strong>
From the Speech: </strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell does Powell's view mean? Nothing. The US wanted war language put directly into the Resolution but it couldn't get the votes. So, even if Powell disagrees, the U.N. purposefully excluded war language in order to force the issue to a vote were it ever necessary.
Different cultures, don'tcha know?
<strong>
What the hell does Powell's view mean? Nothing. The US wanted war language put directly into the Resolution but it couldn't get the votes. So, even if Powell disagrees, the U.N. purposefully excluded war language in order to force the issue to a vote were it ever necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it means a heck of a lot more than yours sir. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>
Well, it means a heck of a lot more than yours sir. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. Good argument. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
So does that mean you realize the U.N. excluded authorizing war or not?
Operation Make Them Forget About the Economy is in the muthafscking house. Get your war on big fella.
<strong>
Wow. Good argument. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
So does that mean you realize the U.N. excluded authorizing war or not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They did not exclude authorizing war, but they did work to tone down the wording so that when such a time as this occurred they would be able to once again try to avoid making the tough decisions they are so good ad not making.
say one thing, do another.
gotta love politics.
<hr></blockquote>
if two people with similar jobs within the same regime left a few months apart, would you expect their stories as to what's going on to be similar or different.
if they're the same, wouldn't that be an indication of the veracity of the stories, not that they're lies?
if they were different, wouldn't that just indicate that the two people were just making it up?
<strong>
They did not exclude authorizing war, but they did work to tone down the wording so that when such a time as this occurred they would be able to once again try to avoid making the tough decisions they are so good ad not making.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. They excluded authorizing war.