Wirehead Studios

please.. ive watched the bbc. . im so tired of hearing about the glorys or the european news media. there is no such thing as an objective media group and to believe one can excist is simply self delusion. just because a news group reports on the 1300 or so civillians that have been killed in the conflict so far more than it does the  the three million excecuted by saddam in the last 25 years dosent make it obejective.

They have stated themselves that they are pro-war, thus biased. No news channel should take sides in war or any other conflict. Fox News is as impartial as Iraqi Satellite news, although the content is less offensive and more sophisticated in terms of propaganda.


I never said TV-viewers were TOO bright.  :rolleyes:  


Yes... well, I too thought that the "BUSH KNEW!" thing was out of the line.
CNN hasn't performed as a good news channel should in the near history.
This concerns BBC, too. They BOTH staged and spread PROPAGANDA news about Iraqii soldiers slaughtering Kuwaiti children.


There are three groups in Iraq: Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. I think that a part  of the people who were in power (Shias) did indeed cheer to Saddam and a  part of them didn't cheer to Saddam. The truth is that the only thing that binded Iraq is now gone. Civil war is a real threat right now.


All these kinds of people who cheer to Bush and kick statues might be Sunni muslims, who were opressed by Saddam.


We all know what kind of man Saddam is. He is no different from other dictators, but ... he did keep order in the streets and didn't let people to steal stuff from places (including hospitals), unlike this communist :

"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has denied Iraq was falling into chaos.

"Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," he told reporters."

from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2941733.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2941733.stm)




Homo Sapiens Sapiens species have a tendency to LIE or make "good" things with other goals in mind. Most of his(or republicans, it's all the same) actions by far have been selfish and stupid(Kioto agreement, Patriotic Act 1). Why would I believe him now?

Bush is a voice of the Republicans, who want to make US more like USSR was. Patriotic Act 1 makes it possible to listen ALL people, who are in the US right now. That includes tourists. Your computer and bank account information can be sniffed, and they can get information about the books you buy and loan. This was meant to last only to 2005. Now they  want to continue it. What kind of FREE country could even CONSIDER these kind of actions?

Freedom is indeed relative.


Answer to you questions lies here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2941727.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2941727.stm)

More stuff from this link http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200304...09-111832-7811r (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030409-111832-7811r)

"Mishlawi, like the majority of Arabs, fears that Bush's ultimate aim was not to liberate Iraq but establish U.S. hegemony on the region.

"The purpose is to establish Israel as a dominating power in the region on behalf of the U.S.," he said."

It's still, however, unclear to me if this is the ultimate goal, but from what I've heard from the news, (Powells quote from GWB: "Iraq is a new tool for war against terrorism" AND the fact that US denied UN-lead Iraq) it might be the case.

Actually it is the Shiite muslims in the south of Iraq who hate Saddam the most, and the Sunni that his Baath party were formed from, not the other way around.  There's going to be a mix of opinions among Arabs regarding the US and what it's doing in Iraq.  I'm also appalled at your assertion that somehow order in the streets under a tyranical dictator is better than what's going on right now, while you turn around and accuse the leadership of the United states of wanting to form its own tyrrany.  Which is better then, tyrrany or anarchy?  As for Rumsfeld being stupid, then how is it the US pulled off this action in three weeks with minimal casualties?  This goes along with the myth that Bush is stupid that was propagated a while back.  Yet... this operation was a success.  It is unwise to underestimate someone's intelligence just because you do not like them or how they think.  (sarcasm) Nine out of ten panzer divisions surveyed were in awe and quite jealous of this operation.  The other ten percent admitted they were assigned to France.  (/sarcasm)  This was Blitzkrieg? and it worked.  We all know who was in charge of this.  I remember a lot of  "senior Pentagon officials" naysaying this and that while it was going on, yet nobody ever had their names.  They ALWAYS spoke under condition of anonymity.  I guess they didn't want to risk being wrong.  Pity.

As for people lying, sure, humans lie all the time, but I was referring to the day to day military briefings, and the threatened action towards Iraq if Hussein did not comply, and nothing else.  I'll admit that it's entirely possible that they're lying about other things, I've stated before I do not trust politicians of either camp.  That doesn't mean that they lie ALL THE TIME.  So far, Bush said to the Taliban:  "hand over Bin Laden or else".  They didn't, "or else" happened.  Bush said to Saddam "Hand over the weapons or else."  He didn't, "or else" happened.  I'll say one thing, when Bush threatens you had damned well better listen.  That's what I meant about "saying what they mean".  Let's keep it in context here.  As for Iraq falling into chaos, well yes there's some rioting and looting going on, but I remember two years ago this was happening in downtown Cincinnati.  I'm not surprised at all that people are making off with loot at a time like this.  When you cage people and beat them like a cruel person does to animals, keeping them in constant fear, then expect them to behave no differently when set loose for the first time.  This is just another push by the usual suspects to try to make the US look bad again like two weeks ago, that this is all somehow still a big failure, ad nauseum.  They're working on it, and order will come with time.

I do think the Kyoto agreement is stupid, and should not have been signed on in the first place.  As it stands by the US constitution any treaty not ratified by Congress is null and void.  I believe Clinton signed the treaty, but the Congress had not ratified it yet, so Bush was within his rights to back out since foreign relations fall under the executive branch of the US constitution.  All that treaty does to my knowledge is penalize rich industrial nations for producing carbon dioxide.  You want to get less carbon dioxide in the air, plant more trees instead of cutting them down.  Where is deforestation going on?  How about the Amazon basin?  Fleecing the US, which by the way is the usual goal of the United Nations, is not going to create less polution.  What will create less pollution is a push forward in cleaner technologies.  You can't invent water-to-hydrogen converters and hydrogen burning vehicles without money, without heavy industry to produce them, and without a consumer base to back up the markets.  That is, unless you want a socialist state and believe communism is better than capitalism.  Personally I detest the entire concept of money and economies, its quite unnatural, but history has written what socialism and Communism especally leads to, and it isn't a better world for all as people once thought.  Capitalism isn't much better, its still based on greed, but at least what is yours is yours instead of having nothing, and the state owning everything.  No, Kyoto was just another attempt to put a choke collar on the Super Power again because the rest of the world, especially the European Union, is jealous that they can't be.  It's about hurting the US, plain and simple.  The end result would not be a cleaner environment, just an outflow of money in the form of fines.  Besides, its been reported recently in a Harvard study (to a lot of people's amazement) that the world right now is cooler than it was back in the middle ages.  Wow, big surprise to me, I could have told them how damned cold it's been lately.  The entire concept of the earth getting warmer is just fine to me, do you have any idea how hot the earth was back when dinosaurs were still ruling this world?  Nice and balmy back in those times, and no pathetic human politics to deal with either.  Polution is a horrible problem, yes, but carbon dioxide is NOT pollution anymore than methane gas from bovines is.  If they think that cow farts hurt the environment somehow I'd love to see them try to measure how much methane was produced from a herd of apatosauruses...

And yes, I know all about the push to make the Patriot act permanent as well.  I think that is a bad idea, and I do question the logic behind it.  Historically, during WWII a lot of civil liberties were clamped down on because survival was at stake.  Later they were relaxed.  The same thing happened during the Cold War.  Remember McCarthy?  A lot of people are comparing the current hunt for terrorists to McCarthyism, when they were hunting for Communists.  People will make mistakes, as they always have, but if this threat of terrorism is eventually eliminated from the world, then I would imagine these concerns - and the laws passed during this time - would be relaxed as well.  We'll have to wait and see on that, but this threat IS a real threat, and unlike the "Evil Empire", as the Soviet block was referred to a while back, this threat is not quantifiable.  The USSR was a tangible, obvious foe, with clearly marked borders.  Terrorists are like an infection, spread throughout the whole world, infiltrating wherever they can.  Regardless of why they are there, they are, and the only things clear about them is their intentions.  I think the world is still trying to figure out how best to deal with it.  So far Bush's policy of "blow the bastards up" seems to be working for the moment.

*SNIP*

That's what galls me about the press.  How the hell do they know what the majority of Arabs think?  Done a public opinion poll lately?  Are cats going to start defining the opinions of the majority of house swallows now too?  Perhaps most Arabs indeed think this way, but this kind of blatant assumption making by a reporter is no different than a news station taking a pro-war stance, isn't it?  Funny, I thought the press was supposed to report facts, not state opinions, but then if that were true there wouldn't be an editorial page in every publication, now would there?

(Disclaimer:  Since a lot of people on this board like to take things personally that are not meant to be taken personally, this next paragraph is completely general in every way, shape, and form, and I'm stating so now so that there is no lack of clarity in this whatsoever.  If anyone takes offense to it, they do so at their own choosing, so please don't pester the bird about it.)

A lot of people are afraid that somehow the US is going to turn into a police state overnight because there's a "scary Republican" in the white house.  I remember five years ago when an equal number of people were afraid that somehow the US was going to turn into a police state overnight because there's a "scary Democrat" in the white house.  I seem to remember also having said this before in a previous rant.  Paranoid people will be paranoid no matter who's in charge.  Some people live their lives thinking there's Gestapo around every corner.  To the panic-striken, gutless paranoid wimps in the world, I say this: Quit your whining, and grow a spine.  If you're afraid of this, then go out, buy a gun, practice with it, and wait for that day to come.  If it does, join the resistance that will surely spring up as a result, and actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT WHEN IT HAPPENS.  If it doesn't, well, when you get old and have grandkids they'll have a nice heirloom.  Until then, live your lives and try to find something meaningful to do with them?  :rolleyes:  [/color]