alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Tens of thousands of Iraqis denounce Saddam, Bush, Blair on second anniversary
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
But they are a free people, or at least until we give up dump another dictator in power and get our asses out of there.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='David85']Why? They want their country back.[/QUOTE]
Not to say their is uniform opinion, but those who were on the fence or who already hated us, things like abu ghraib, and other abuses, didn't help. And abu ghraib was a theme of the protest, they had a bunch of people playing out the pyramid scene (clothed, obviously).
Though it seems very few actually like us, the british seem to have a somewhat more favourable view, due to their more respectful and softer approach in day to day dealings, but nothing to get excited about. There is a sizeable percentage who want us gone asap, but feel that it isn't possible at the moment. Others (such as the protestors) want us gone now. I don't think many actually like us, or think we did this to help them, it's more of "you served your purpose, get out asap", when it's possible is more debatable. You get extremely few (I haven't heard one in a while) who actually wanted saddam, though some feel that the war and all that it brought wasn't worth it.
Not to say their is uniform opinion, but those who were on the fence or who already hated us, things like abu ghraib, and other abuses, didn't help. And abu ghraib was a theme of the protest, they had a bunch of people playing out the pyramid scene (clothed, obviously).
Though it seems very few actually like us, the british seem to have a somewhat more favourable view, due to their more respectful and softer approach in day to day dealings, but nothing to get excited about. There is a sizeable percentage who want us gone asap, but feel that it isn't possible at the moment. Others (such as the protestors) want us gone now. I don't think many actually like us, or think we did this to help them, it's more of "you served your purpose, get out asap", when it's possible is more debatable. You get extremely few (I haven't heard one in a while) who actually wanted saddam, though some feel that the war and all that it brought wasn't worth it.
I find it funny that they hate us, but if Saddam was still in power and they were saying "No Saddam" they would be killed.
We can't leave their country until it's stable. If we left today, it's very possible another Saddam would take power and they would be right back where they started. It's sad that they don't understand that.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lina
I'm shocked that Iraqis still hate the US.
[quote name='David85']Why? They want their country back.[/QUOTE]
LoL I thought she was being sarcastic.
Lina, if you're serious, then WOW...
Originally Posted by Lina
I'm shocked that Iraqis still hate the US.
[quote name='David85']Why? They want their country back.[/QUOTE]
LoL I thought she was being sarcastic.
Lina, if you're serious, then WOW...
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Kaijufan']I find it funny that they hate us, but if Saddam was still in power and they were saying "No Saddam" they would be killed.
We can't leave their country until it's stable. If we left today, it's very possible another Saddam would take power and they would be right back where they started. It's sad that they don't understand that.[/QUOTE]
Think about Cambodia, they hated the Khmer Rouge, but they weren't too thrilled with the Vietnamese occupation that overthrew the khmer rouge either (khmer rouge with Pol Pot also being the side the u.s. supported). Now, the khmer rouge was worse than saddam and the veitnamese occupation was worse than the u.s., but it's the same idea. Just because you got rid of your main enemy (and to sadr, saddam was the main enemy), doesn't mean you like what takes its place.
One of the main differences is how you see the occupation, many see it as something done entirely in u.s. self interest, and the country they are setting up will be under u.s. control, if not politically then economically, with the many industries and sources of revenue within Iraq. To many, the Iraq that will be left behind will be subservient to the u.s., not the Iraqis.
But, also, the bulk of support for the insurgency is due to the u.s. presence, it can be reasonably argued that if the u.s. withdrew Iraq would be able to sustain itself since the main reason for the resistance will have vanished, leaving it with little support and few recruits. That is also the opinion voiced by the majority of the foot soldiers in the resistance when interviewed (al jazeera and bbc have had a decent amount of interviews).
Look at Iraq today, many areas without electricity, or intermittent at best, poor water sanitation, various ranges of aggression, abuse, murders and torture by u.s. troops (off the top of my head, abu ghraib, drowning Iraqi's in a river, breaking into homes and rounding up large groups of men, checkpoint shootings of families, aggressive tank driving in streets and crowded areas, shouting at/ scaring locals, just overal showing them little regard etc.), and the whole u.s./palestine/israel situation (particularly overwhelming u.s. support for Israel), and the situation is not likely to be friendly for the occupier. The streets also aren't safe at night, particularly for women (most women interviewed say they had little fear of being outside at night before the invasion). Outsiders see the political advances, we don't live it day to day.
We can't leave their country until it's stable. If we left today, it's very possible another Saddam would take power and they would be right back where they started. It's sad that they don't understand that.[/QUOTE]
Think about Cambodia, they hated the Khmer Rouge, but they weren't too thrilled with the Vietnamese occupation that overthrew the khmer rouge either (khmer rouge with Pol Pot also being the side the u.s. supported). Now, the khmer rouge was worse than saddam and the veitnamese occupation was worse than the u.s., but it's the same idea. Just because you got rid of your main enemy (and to sadr, saddam was the main enemy), doesn't mean you like what takes its place.
One of the main differences is how you see the occupation, many see it as something done entirely in u.s. self interest, and the country they are setting up will be under u.s. control, if not politically then economically, with the many industries and sources of revenue within Iraq. To many, the Iraq that will be left behind will be subservient to the u.s., not the Iraqis.
But, also, the bulk of support for the insurgency is due to the u.s. presence, it can be reasonably argued that if the u.s. withdrew Iraq would be able to sustain itself since the main reason for the resistance will have vanished, leaving it with little support and few recruits. That is also the opinion voiced by the majority of the foot soldiers in the resistance when interviewed (al jazeera and bbc have had a decent amount of interviews).
Look at Iraq today, many areas without electricity, or intermittent at best, poor water sanitation, various ranges of aggression, abuse, murders and torture by u.s. troops (off the top of my head, abu ghraib, drowning Iraqi's in a river, breaking into homes and rounding up large groups of men, checkpoint shootings of families, aggressive tank driving in streets and crowded areas, shouting at/ scaring locals, just overal showing them little regard etc.), and the whole u.s./palestine/israel situation (particularly overwhelming u.s. support for Israel), and the situation is not likely to be friendly for the occupier. The streets also aren't safe at night, particularly for women (most women interviewed say they had little fear of being outside at night before the invasion). Outsiders see the political advances, we don't live it day to day.
Gothic Walrus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='Kaijufan']I find it funny that they hate us, but if Saddam was still in power and they were saying "No Saddam" they would be killed.[/QUOTE]
I could be wrong, but I thought that it was a good thing that we gave them the ability to do that. American troops don't shoot Iraqis solely because they don't like our country.
I could be wrong, but I thought that it was a good thing that we gave them the ability to do that. American troops don't shoot Iraqis solely because they don't like our country.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, also, the bulk of support for the insurgency is due to the u.s. presence, it can be reasonably argued that if the u.s. withdrew Iraq would be able to sustain itself since the main reason for the resistance will have vanished, leaving it with little support and few recruits. That is also the opinion voiced by the majority of the foot soldiers in the resistance when interviewed (al jazeera and bbc have had a decent amount of interviews).[/quote]
Of course the resistance wants us to leave. They can't win while we're there. Yeah, I'm sure Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi and his ilk will just give up the fight if U.S. troops left, sure.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Look at Iraq today, many areas without electricity, or intermittent at best, poor water sanitation, various ranges of aggression, abuse, murders and torture by u.s. troops (off the top of my head, abu ghraib, drowning Iraqi's in a river, breaking into homes and rounding up large groups of men, checkpoint shootings of families, aggressive tank driving in streets and crowded areas, shouting at/ scaring locals, just overal showing them little regard etc.), and the whole u.s./palestine/israel situation (particularly overwhelming u.s. support for Israel), and the situation is not likely to be friendly for the occupier. The streets also aren't safe at night, particularly for women (most women interviewed say they had little fear of being outside at night before the invasion). Outsiders see the political advances, we don't live it day to day.[/QUOTE]
Unless you've been to Iraq, which I doubt, I don't see how you know these things are true (other than certain exceptions, like the undeniable evidence from Abu Ghraib). At best the news is mixed, and there is a lot of spin as to how things are seen here as to what's happening there.
Of course the resistance wants us to leave. They can't win while we're there. Yeah, I'm sure Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi and his ilk will just give up the fight if U.S. troops left, sure.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Look at Iraq today, many areas without electricity, or intermittent at best, poor water sanitation, various ranges of aggression, abuse, murders and torture by u.s. troops (off the top of my head, abu ghraib, drowning Iraqi's in a river, breaking into homes and rounding up large groups of men, checkpoint shootings of families, aggressive tank driving in streets and crowded areas, shouting at/ scaring locals, just overal showing them little regard etc.), and the whole u.s./palestine/israel situation (particularly overwhelming u.s. support for Israel), and the situation is not likely to be friendly for the occupier. The streets also aren't safe at night, particularly for women (most women interviewed say they had little fear of being outside at night before the invasion). Outsiders see the political advances, we don't live it day to day.[/QUOTE]
Unless you've been to Iraq, which I doubt, I don't see how you know these things are true (other than certain exceptions, like the undeniable evidence from Abu Ghraib). At best the news is mixed, and there is a lot of spin as to how things are seen here as to what's happening there.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Of course the resistance wants us to leave. They can't win while we're there. Yeah, I'm sure Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi and his ilk will just give up the fight if U.S. troops left, sure.[/quote]
Al zarqawi is not in it for Iraqi independence, he is not prone to peace in any form, and his group contains the bulk of international fighters. This demonstration was held by Al-Sadr, and populated by Iraqis. Without the support of local Iraqi's the resistance, all forms, will be in serious trouble, more than it already is, regardless if its leaders are still in place or not.
The breaking into homes rounding up men (have seen videos of this with scared families and soldiers being very aggressive), incident of drowning Iraqis (the soldiers were charged, not sure of the ruling), poor water sanitation, intermittent electricity, abu ghraib (like you said), checkpoint shooting, shouting at locals (not bad in a sense, but it is when trying to build amicable relationships and showing locals you're not so bad), the Iraqis hatred of Israel, incredible rise in crime rates, include rape (and countless interviews with women stating their fears), kidnapping, and adding to that unemployment and malnutrition and hunger among children, have all been heavily documented, and most even on video. The aggressive tank driving I got from journalist reports from the BBC who had driven with u.s. soldiers, that's the only one that seems to lack heavy documentation of what I've mentioned. I should also add the fact that many u.s. soldiers seem to hate the Iraqis (often using those words in interviews) can't be good for developing good relations. Again, being nice might not seem like much, but it goes towards giving the occupation a human face.
Al zarqawi is not in it for Iraqi independence, he is not prone to peace in any form, and his group contains the bulk of international fighters. This demonstration was held by Al-Sadr, and populated by Iraqis. Without the support of local Iraqi's the resistance, all forms, will be in serious trouble, more than it already is, regardless if its leaders are still in place or not.
The breaking into homes rounding up men (have seen videos of this with scared families and soldiers being very aggressive), incident of drowning Iraqis (the soldiers were charged, not sure of the ruling), poor water sanitation, intermittent electricity, abu ghraib (like you said), checkpoint shooting, shouting at locals (not bad in a sense, but it is when trying to build amicable relationships and showing locals you're not so bad), the Iraqis hatred of Israel, incredible rise in crime rates, include rape (and countless interviews with women stating their fears), kidnapping, and adding to that unemployment and malnutrition and hunger among children, have all been heavily documented, and most even on video. The aggressive tank driving I got from journalist reports from the BBC who had driven with u.s. soldiers, that's the only one that seems to lack heavy documentation of what I've mentioned. I should also add the fact that many u.s. soldiers seem to hate the Iraqis (often using those words in interviews) can't be good for developing good relations. Again, being nice might not seem like much, but it goes towards giving the occupation a human face.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Think about Cambodia, they hated the Khmer Rouge, but they weren't too thrilled with the Vietnamese occupation that overthrew the khmer rouge either (khmer rouge with Pol Pot also being the side the u.s. supported). Now, the khmer rouge was worse than saddam and the veitnamese occupation was worse than the u.s., but it's the same idea. Just because you got rid of your main enemy (and to sadr, saddam was the main enemy), doesn't mean you like what takes its place. [/quote]
While its possible that the new government wont be very friendly to us (and if they don't have to like us if they don't want to, because it would be their right as a country to not like us, just like some countries all aroud the world don't like us right now), its important that we let them get to a point where they can decide if they like us or not. However, it's important that we make sure the new government isn't a new dictatorship, or we could be right back where we started.
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']I could be wrong, but I thought that it was a good thing that we gave them the ability to do that. American troops don't shoot Iraqis solely because they don't like our country.[/QUOTE]
I know. I don't really mind them doing it, but I find it funny. I bet they like being able to protest like that now without fear of death.
While its possible that the new government wont be very friendly to us (and if they don't have to like us if they don't want to, because it would be their right as a country to not like us, just like some countries all aroud the world don't like us right now), its important that we let them get to a point where they can decide if they like us or not. However, it's important that we make sure the new government isn't a new dictatorship, or we could be right back where we started.
I really hope Iraq doesn't become a subservient of the US, but their own country. I hope that's what our government is planning.
Its very possible that they could support themselves if we left, but I think it would be best if we made sure their government is establish before we leave.
I hope that we are able to help out the Iraqs, but don't forget we are at war right now. Our troops can't act like it's peace time. While conditions over in Iraq aren't great for the people, they rarely are for any country after a war.
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']I could be wrong, but I thought that it was a good thing that we gave them the ability to do that. American troops don't shoot Iraqis solely because they don't like our country.[/QUOTE]
I know. I don't really mind them doing it, but I find it funny. I bet they like being able to protest like that now without fear of death.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Think about Cambodia, they hated the Khmer Rouge, but they weren't too thrilled with the Vietnamese occupation that overthrew the khmer rouge either (khmer rouge with Pol Pot also being the side the u.s. supported). Now, the khmer rouge was worse than saddam and the veitnamese occupation was worse than the u.s., but it's the same idea. Just because you got rid of your main enemy (and to sadr, saddam was the main enemy), doesn't mean you like what takes its place. [/quote]
While its possible that the new government wont be very friendly to us (and if they don't have to like us if they don't want to, because it would be their right as a country to not like us, just like some countries all aroud the world don't like us right now), its important that we let them get to a point where they can decide if they like us or not. However, it's important that we make sure the new government isn't a new dictatorship, or we could be right back where we started.
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']I could be wrong, but I thought that it was a good thing that we gave them the ability to do that. American troops don't shoot Iraqis solely because they don't like our country.[/QUOTE]
I know. I don't really mind them doing it, but I find it funny. I bet they like being able to protest like that now without fear of death.
While its possible that the new government wont be very friendly to us (and if they don't have to like us if they don't want to, because it would be their right as a country to not like us, just like some countries all aroud the world don't like us right now), its important that we let them get to a point where they can decide if they like us or not. However, it's important that we make sure the new government isn't a new dictatorship, or we could be right back where we started.
I really hope Iraq doesn't become a subservient of the US, but their own country. I hope that's what our government is planning.
Its very possible that they could support themselves if we left, but I think it would be best if we made sure their government is establish before we leave.
I hope that we are able to help out the Iraqs, but don't forget we are at war right now. Our troops can't act like it's peace time. While conditions over in Iraq aren't great for the people, they rarely are for any country after a war.
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']I could be wrong, but I thought that it was a good thing that we gave them the ability to do that. American troops don't shoot Iraqis solely because they don't like our country.[/QUOTE]
I know. I don't really mind them doing it, but I find it funny. I bet they like being able to protest like that now without fear of death.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Kaijufan']
Its very possible that they could support themselves if we left, but I think it would be best if we made sure their government is establish before we leave.
[/quote]
that's my opinion.
This is the problem, in order to stabilize Iraq we must act like the war is over, while simultaneously preventing the resistance from inflicting damage to either us, or its terrorist branches from harming the Iraqis. That's the situation that we created, compounded by our own mistakes, and for Iraq to be stable we need to take care of these problems as we would without the ongoing fighting. If you simply dismiss that hardships as "it's too bad", then the reasons for the resistance support will not be taken care of. You need to improve the living conditions as much as possible, to minimize the sense of hopelessness and poverty, and minimize aggression (and again, verbal aggression plays a role as well) and violence on the part of american troops. In a country where public support for an occupation is questionable at best, you'll never win simply by fighting.
Besides we invaded, if the option is more hardship for our troops or more hardships for Iraqis, it should be our troops that face them.
Its very possible that they could support themselves if we left, but I think it would be best if we made sure their government is establish before we leave.
[/quote]
that's my opinion.
This is the problem, in order to stabilize Iraq we must act like the war is over, while simultaneously preventing the resistance from inflicting damage to either us, or its terrorist branches from harming the Iraqis. That's the situation that we created, compounded by our own mistakes, and for Iraq to be stable we need to take care of these problems as we would without the ongoing fighting. If you simply dismiss that hardships as "it's too bad", then the reasons for the resistance support will not be taken care of. You need to improve the living conditions as much as possible, to minimize the sense of hopelessness and poverty, and minimize aggression (and again, verbal aggression plays a role as well) and violence on the part of american troops. In a country where public support for an occupation is questionable at best, you'll never win simply by fighting.
Besides we invaded, if the option is more hardship for our troops or more hardships for Iraqis, it should be our troops that face them.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is the problem, in order to stabilize Iraq we must act like the war is over, while simultaneously preventing the resistance from inflicting damage to either us, or its terrorist branches from harming the Iraqis. That's the situation that we created, compounded by our own mistakes, and for Iraq to be stable we need to take care of these problems as we would without the ongoing fighting. If you simply dismiss that hardships as "it's too bad", then the reasons for the resistance support will not be taken care of. You need to improve the living conditions as much as possible, to minimize the sense of hopelessness and poverty, and minimize aggression (and again, verbal aggression plays a role as well) and violence on the part of american troops. In a country where public support for an occupation is questionable at best, you'll never win simply by fighting. [/QUOTE]
I would say we acted like the war was over too soon and look where it got us: al-Sadr, Fallujah, in a word trouble. We're acting like we're at war because insurgent levels increased. We wanted to put the war part behind us, but things didn't fall into place for a number of reasons.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Besides we invaded, if the option is more hardship for our troops or more hardships for Iraqis, it should be our troops that face them.[/QUOTE]
Disagree. It's the Iraqis' country and they should fight for it themselves. If they're not willing to shed blood for freedom, as we did for our own country, then their freedom will never be sustainably achieved. We can help them get on their feet, but if they are too timid to stand up for themselves there's really nothing we can do. Hopefully Iraqi police and army recruits' motivation is a little stronger than mere money. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.
I would say we acted like the war was over too soon and look where it got us: al-Sadr, Fallujah, in a word trouble. We're acting like we're at war because insurgent levels increased. We wanted to put the war part behind us, but things didn't fall into place for a number of reasons.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Besides we invaded, if the option is more hardship for our troops or more hardships for Iraqis, it should be our troops that face them.[/QUOTE]
Disagree. It's the Iraqis' country and they should fight for it themselves. If they're not willing to shed blood for freedom, as we did for our own country, then their freedom will never be sustainably achieved. We can help them get on their feet, but if they are too timid to stand up for themselves there's really nothing we can do. Hopefully Iraqi police and army recruits' motivation is a little stronger than mere money. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']I would say we acted like the war was over too soon and look where it got us: al-Sadr, Fallujah, in a word trouble. We're acting like we're at war because insurgent levels increased. We wanted to put the war part behind us, but things didn't fall into place for a number of reasons.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, al-sadr only became violent (against the u.s.) AFTER we tried to crack down on him, particularly shutting down his paper.
That would be true if they initiated the conflict or, possibly, if they begged for our intervention. We pushed for the invasion and the occupation, we bear much more responsibility than if a civil war, with our assistance, resulted in the overthrow.
If I remember correctly, al-sadr only became violent (against the u.s.) AFTER we tried to crack down on him, particularly shutting down his paper.
That would be true if they initiated the conflict or, possibly, if they begged for our intervention. We pushed for the invasion and the occupation, we bear much more responsibility than if a civil war, with our assistance, resulted in the overthrow.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Unless you've been to Iraq, which I doubt, I don't see how you know these things are true (other than certain exceptions, like the undeniable evidence from Abu Ghraib). At best the news is mixed, and there is a lot of spin as to how things are seen here as to what's happening there.[/QUOTE]
That darn liberal media. Always trying to discredit "straight shooters" like George W. Bush and Tom Delay.
That darn liberal media. Always trying to discredit "straight shooters" like George W. Bush and Tom Delay.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']That darn liberal media. Always trying to discredit "straight shooters" like George W. Bush and Tom Delay.[/QUOTE]
Haha. More like damn liberal media (it is somewhat liberal, even you ultra-liberals should admit that), only wanting to report the bad from a situation and never reporting the good. For example, attacks in Iraq are down, but who has time for that? We're more interested in the Jackson trial (shudder) and John Bolton!
Haha. More like damn liberal media (it is somewhat liberal, even you ultra-liberals should admit that), only wanting to report the bad from a situation and never reporting the good. For example, attacks in Iraq are down, but who has time for that? We're more interested in the Jackson trial (shudder) and John Bolton!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Haha. More like damn liberal media (it is somewhat liberal, even you ultra-liberals should admit that), only wanting to report the bad from a situation and never reporting the good. For example, attacks in Iraq are down, but who has time for that? We're more interested in the Jackson trial (shudder) and John Bolton![/QUOTE]
The media isn't liberal. It's afraid of being called liberal. Your example just shows that it is also sensationalist.
BTW they just captured another American serviceman and 12 Iraqi policemen died while trying to defuse a bomb. All the while, more and more reservists are being recalled into a backdoor draft. This is not celebratory news, and I'm glad that the news services are finally treating it as such.
What color is the sky in your candy-coated world where Bush is a hero and the American media is still liberal?
The media isn't liberal. It's afraid of being called liberal. Your example just shows that it is also sensationalist.
BTW they just captured another American serviceman and 12 Iraqi policemen died while trying to defuse a bomb. All the while, more and more reservists are being recalled into a backdoor draft. This is not celebratory news, and I'm glad that the news services are finally treating it as such.
What color is the sky in your candy-coated world where Bush is a hero and the American media is still liberal?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']The media isn't liberal. It's afraid of being called liberal. Your example just shows that it is also sensationalist.
BTW they just captured another American serviceman and 12 Iraqi policemen died while trying to defuse a bomb. All the while, more and more reservists are being recalled into a backdoor draft. This is not celebratory news, and I'm glad that the news services are finally treating it as such.
What color is the sky in your candy-coated world where Bush is a hero and the American media is still liberal?[/QUOTE]
My "candy-coated world," how cute.
1. I never said Bush is a hero. It's unlikely I would say that of any, or at least the vast, vast majority, of Republicans/Democrats.
2. Next time 90% of the media doesn't vote for the Democrat, call me and we'll talk about how they are not liberal. Or do you have some data to back up your claim of them not being "still" liberal? I can point you to studies that show that Kerry got more positive press than Bush, 90% of the media voted Democrat. What do you have to back up your ludicrous claim?
BTW they just captured another American serviceman and 12 Iraqi policemen died while trying to defuse a bomb. All the while, more and more reservists are being recalled into a backdoor draft. This is not celebratory news, and I'm glad that the news services are finally treating it as such.
What color is the sky in your candy-coated world where Bush is a hero and the American media is still liberal?[/QUOTE]
My "candy-coated world," how cute.
1. I never said Bush is a hero. It's unlikely I would say that of any, or at least the vast, vast majority, of Republicans/Democrats.
2. Next time 90% of the media doesn't vote for the Democrat, call me and we'll talk about how they are not liberal. Or do you have some data to back up your claim of them not being "still" liberal? I can point you to studies that show that Kerry got more positive press than Bush, 90% of the media voted Democrat. What do you have to back up your ludicrous claim?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']My "candy-coated world," how cute.
1. I never said Bush is a hero. It's unlikely I would say that of any, or at least the vast, vast majority, of Republicans/Democrats.
2. Next time 90% of the media doesn't vote for the Democrat, call me and we'll talk about how they are not liberal. Or do you have some data to back up your claim of them not being "still" liberal? I can point you to studies that show that Kerry got more positive press than Bush, 90% of the media voted Democrat. What do you have to back up your ludicrous claim?[/QUOTE]
I think the real question is whether the news portrayed, or the way it is portrayed, is liberal, this is where I disagree. We know that more conservative outlets had less informed viewers, but that dealt with issues that benefitted liberals. If you could find a way to find major, general knowledge pro conservative issues and test the knowledge of people watching more liberal programming compared to conservative programming then you'd have a good argument. Though, to date, I haven't seen this done. I wouldn't consider fox conservative if 95% of them were republicans, but the news was presented in a relatively unbiased (obviously being completely unbiased is impossible) or neutral way.
1. I never said Bush is a hero. It's unlikely I would say that of any, or at least the vast, vast majority, of Republicans/Democrats.
2. Next time 90% of the media doesn't vote for the Democrat, call me and we'll talk about how they are not liberal. Or do you have some data to back up your claim of them not being "still" liberal? I can point you to studies that show that Kerry got more positive press than Bush, 90% of the media voted Democrat. What do you have to back up your ludicrous claim?[/QUOTE]
I think the real question is whether the news portrayed, or the way it is portrayed, is liberal, this is where I disagree. We know that more conservative outlets had less informed viewers, but that dealt with issues that benefitted liberals. If you could find a way to find major, general knowledge pro conservative issues and test the knowledge of people watching more liberal programming compared to conservative programming then you'd have a good argument. Though, to date, I haven't seen this done. I wouldn't consider fox conservative if 95% of them were republicans, but the news was presented in a relatively unbiased (obviously being completely unbiased is impossible) or neutral way.
bread's done