Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Topic closed

2006-05-02 08:48:44
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6974|California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

And would you have the same problem if most were right leaning, and only 1 or 2 outlets were left leaning?
Yes I would It must be fair and unbiased. that seems to be a Forien concept to a Liberal, why is that?
Who said I was a liberal?  If anything, I'm more of a centrist.  You seem to think because I'm not a right-winger that I must be a liberal?  Why is that conservatives think there is no middle ground?
The same can be said of leftists, anyone who disagrees with them are labelled Neo-con racist hate mongering war lovers who hate brown people affirmative action and civil rights.

+1 for my run-on sentence

Last edited by Erkut.hv (2006-05-02 08:49:00)

2006-05-02 08:58:31
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6975|Salt Lake City

Erkut.hv wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Yes I would It must be fair and unbiased. that seems to be a Forien concept to a Liberal, why is that?
Who said I was a liberal?  If anything, I'm more of a centrist.  You seem to think because I'm not a right-winger that I must be a liberal?  Why is that conservatives think there is no middle ground?
The same can be said of leftists, anyone who disagrees with them are labelled Neo-con racist hate mongering war lovers who hate brown people affirmative action and civil rights.

+1 for my run-on sentence
You're right.  I should have said why do conservatives always have a "Your with us, or against us." mentality.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-05-02 08:58:43)

2006-05-02 09:10:51
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6902|USA
Welcome to 4 years ago. Thats how old the Darfur tragedies are. We decided to go into Iraq when it COULD have mattered in Darfur. One was for humanity, one was for our economy. You weigh the options.
2006-05-02 10:03:35
Superslim
BF2s Frat Brother
+211|6931|Calgary

lowing wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/30/us.sudan.ap/index.html

Boy, I love this!!

All of you tree huggin', dirt worshipers who say we need to bring the troops home and stop meddling in foreign affairs want us to go to Sudan and stop the "attrocities" over there. Woulldn't it be the military who would be the ones sent over to re-establish order in the form of a peace keeping force? Why don't  France or Italy or Spain solve the problems over there? You guys are allot closer to it than we are.

If we went over there and someone got hurt or killed, unorginalnuttah and Marconius would flip a wig and start calling us baby killers and human rights violators and shit. Nope I say you European Union folks need to "handle it" while America sits back and critiques your performance and criticizes you for everything that didn't go the way WE think it should have gone.
What happened to the UN?
2006-05-02 11:29:53
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077
Refrain from Telling me " What I think ".  It just isn't going to work for you.

This is what I said "  It must be fair and unbiased. That seems to be a Forien concept to a Liberal "

Just where did I call You a Liberal ? If the shoe fits however, By all means wear it.

I know what I am.
2006-05-02 11:52:42
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6975|Salt Lake City

Horseman 77 wrote:

Refrain from Telling me " What I think ".  It just isn't going to work for you.

This is what I said "  It must be fair and unbiased. That seems to be a Forien concept to a Liberal "

Just where did I call You a Liberal ? If the shoe fits however, By all means wear it.

I know what I am.
Hmm, well lets take a look at what you said.  You were responding directly to me about a previous post.  You didn't say it seems to be a foreign concept to Liberals, the plural of Liberal, which would have indicated Liberals as an overall group.  By using the singular Liberal in responding directly to me your inference was that I was a liberal.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-05-02 14:31:24)

2006-05-02 15:25:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok I read up, people are dying ( unless I just don't understand the situation correctly)
Simplistic at best. 

lowing wrote:

Now what was in there that was supposed to sway me to think that you and others like you are NOT hypocrites when you say America should mind its own business in world affairs then bitch when we aren't in Darfur saving everyone?
That couldn't be further from what I've said.  When did I say America should mind it's own business?  Never.  I don't even think that.  That's what you think, remember: "The US doesn't need the corrupt UN."  I think it should be a responsible team player on the world stage, and not just play by the UN rules when it suits their interests.  And before you start whining about hypocrisy this applies to my government in the UK too, and as I have said if my government refuses to provide assistance to the UN in the forthcoming peacekeeping operation in Darfur, then I will attend any protests I can.  The UN is there to ensure that people don't go around invading for no good reason, and to react fairly when unjust military action occurs.  Unfortunatly there isn't enough power when it comes to founding members doing such actions as there was too little forsight given to this (at the time) seemingly improbable situation.

One of the other sticking points of sending troops for a peacekeeping operation is that by the US definition, anyone the peacekeepers arrest for war crimes should be tried by special tribunals set up by government of the country they belong to... see any reason why people might be reluctant to send troops?  Remember, "a number of Security Council members want war criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court, however the United States refused to support that proposition." 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll still keeping finding new amazing ways to 'forget' or 'misinterpret' what I've said. 

lowing wrote:

I have a problem with the US turning itself over to international courts ( wasn't the ICC put together by the UN?) when the representatives of this court belong to countries that have their own agendas in mind instead of the matter on the table. The US opposed its formation didn't they? Then why should the US recognize this court over its own sovereignty when dealing with US affairs. the same as I oppose the US turning its interests over to the UN. The US doesn't need the corrupt UN.
So are you also against juries made from a selection of citizens?  Essentially since there are multiple judges on each trial the role of the judges should be compared more to the role of a jury and it's absolute lunacy to say that American war crimes trials should only have American judges.  In my mind that's like saying a criminal should be only judged by a jury selected from their closest friends.  If the crimes are serious enought to warrant trial in an international court then the judges should be a selected from nations around the world. 

lowing wrote:

You believe in the corrupt UN and its courts, I believe in the sovereignty of nations.
You believe in the corrupt US and its closed door tribunals, I believe in universal justice.
Why should the US exist or function by the leave of the UN? Why should the US follow UN policy when it might go against the sovereignty of the US? Why are you so willing to turn the power of your country  and mine over to the UN? The members of the UN are interested in only cashing in on world events, they have no interest in human rights or bettering the world of which we all live..
2006-05-02 15:45:56
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6893

lowing wrote:

The members of the UN are interested in only cashing in on world events, they have no interest in human rights or bettering the world of which we all live..
...

...

Well, I suppose at least you've owned up to it

Anyway what value is there in a organisation designed to ensure world war can never happen again, screw it: Get US Out!
2006-05-02 18:38:01
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Refrain from Telling me " What I think ".  It just isn't going to work for you.

This is what I said "  It must be fair and unbiased. That seems to be a Forien concept to a Liberal "

Just where did I call You a Liberal ? If the shoe fits however, By all means wear it.

I know what I am.
Hmm, well lets take a look at what you said.  You were responding directly to me about a previous post.  You didn't say it seems to be a foreign concept to Liberals, the plural of Liberal, which would have indicated Liberals as an overall group.  By using the singular Liberal in responding directly to me your inference was that I was a liberal.
ok, I will buy that

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-02 18:38:46)

2006-05-02 18:55:05
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:


Who said I was a liberal?  If anything, I'm more of a centrist.  You seem to think because I'm not a right-winger that I must be a liberal?  Why is that conservatives think there is no middle ground?
The same can be said of leftists, anyone who disagrees with them are labelled Neo-con racist hate mongering war lovers who hate brown people affirmative action and civil rights.

+1 for my run-on sentence
You're right.  I should have said why do conservatives always have a "Your with us, or against us." mentality.
During a WAR

You are Against us if you are not with us.

Again Why is this lost on L*******S ?
2006-05-02 18:56:09
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

The members of the UN are interested in only cashing in on world events, they have no interest in human rights or bettering the world of which we all live..
...

...

Well, I suppose at least you've owned up to it

Anyway what value is there in a organisation designed to ensure world war can never happen again, screw it: Get US Out!
So lowing is part of the UN and you aren't ?
2006-05-02 19:11:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Horseman 77 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

The members of the UN are interested in only cashing in on world events, they have no interest in human rights or bettering the world of which we all live..
...

...

Well, I suppose at least you've owned up to it

Anyway what value is there in a organisation designed to ensure world war can never happen again, screw it: Get US Out!
So lowing is part of the UN and you aren't ?
I am all for the US abandoning the UN and all for kicking their asses out of New York.
2006-05-02 19:17:13
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

It was in the papers today that Canada is most likely going to send the military down there with or without U.N approval.
What? All 1200 of them?
2006-05-02 19:19:48
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

The members of the UN are interested in only cashing in on world events, they have no interest in human rights or bettering the world of which we all live..
...

...

Well, I suppose at least you've owned up to it

Anyway what value is there in a organisation designed to ensure world war can never happen again, screw it: Get US Out!
Don't look now unorginalnuttah, but we already are fighting  world war 3, and allot of the member countries of the UN are the reason.
2006-05-02 19:22:41
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California
I say that genocide is a crime worth fighting top stop.
Too bad the world will not acknowledge that all this shit ( as most of the shit in the world ) is caused by moronic religous fanatics.
     No religion, Know world peace.
   
     God damn people I think we've got a great new bumper stinker slogan!
2006-05-03 00:17:26
agwood
Member
+18|6879|I Fight for Bush !!

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Canada has a very small, but capable army. Because of its size, it is much easier to manage, and the soldiers are very well trained... we're talking USMC Ranger quality for standard grunts.
OK.. no flame intended... BUT I have to say, YES Canada has a small but capable army. Canadian Army snipers were credited with some awesome super long range kills in Afghanistan something like 2,500 meters. The average Canadian Army foot soldier is I would say probably around the level of the average US Army dedicated infantryman. I have on many occasions worked with the Canadian Army (Air Forces as well), and while they are good at what they do, to put them in the same league as US ARMY RANGERS is a bit of a stretch.
2006-05-03 00:41:59
MooseRyder
Member
+37|6894|Montréal, Canada

lowing wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:


...

...

Well, I suppose at least you've owned up to it

Anyway what value is there in a organisation designed to ensure world war can never happen again, screw it: Get US Out!
So lowing is part of the UN and you aren't ?
I am all for the US abandoning the UN and all for kicking their asses out of New York.
The US CANT kick the UN out of NYC because, the UN building is not in New York, Actually its not even in the USA. The land where the UN building is on is actually not part of the Unites States, its like another country. They cant do nothing about it they have no authority on it.

Its like you cant kick out USA embassies from any countries because the land where these embassies are owned by the United states so the country "around" the embassies have no authorities on it. For UN building its the same thing.
2006-05-03 02:00:38
KRU-FEOS
Member
+6|6812

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:


I want to say it was an article on the CNN web site.  The article was about a firm that did the study.  They were not paid by any media outlets to perform the study, it was simply to see where the major media outlets stood.

While I'm not disputing that most media outlets are centrist to left leaning, my point was simply that the major media outlets are not as far left leaning as you make them out to be.
That is your opinion. If Fox is one Network and the other 99 are left most americans will get the impression that Left is Center, you get me I am sure.
And would you have the same problem if most were right leaning, and only 1 or 2 outlets were left leaning?
I personally would have a problem with either scenario. News outlets are supposed to report the news...period. However, they ALL put their own slant to it. Some may only be slightly right or left of center. However, the MAJOR news outlets (CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, etc...except for FNC) are all VERY left of center. If you average all of them out with the smaller outlets, then maybe the numbers come up as most only "slightly left of center."

Would be interesting to see their population data/statistical sample. Most people who are fans of the left-leaning news outlets don't think they're left-leaning, because they say what they want to hear. Personally, I watch/read multiple news sources and develop my own thoughts, realizing that each outlet has it's own left/right spin on things.

The main problem I have with news is not so much what they DO report...it's what they DON'T report. It's too easy to report only negative stories...or only the negative side of a story. There's lots of positive stuff going on in the world...but that's just not compatible with copy sales.

A good example of something that didn't get reported: The former Iraqi AF deputy commander (under Saddam) was on the Jon Stewart show (I know...hard hitting journalism there). He said, to paraphrase: Yes, Iraq had WMD--I saw them with my own eyes. I was the deputy commander of the AF for crying out loud! Of course I knew about them. Every time a WMD was moved, my people moved them. And we moved them all to Syria before the war started.

Could he be full of it? Sure, lots of opportunity for alterior motive there. BUT THE PRESS DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE/CORROBORATE HIS STORY! Why? Because if he's not lying, it doesn't match their agenda of "Bush lied and people died."

Bush didn't lie. He made a decision based on the best intel available from US and other countries' intelligence services. Turns out the intel was wrong (maybe). That happens. What's important now is not why the US (and others) went into Iraq--but how it's being handled now that they are there.

As for Darfur...let the Euros handle it. They want to try out their new EU reaction force. Go for it. Maybe they'll get it right and everyone can learn from it.

Or not.
2006-05-03 16:36:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

MooseRyder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:


So lowing is part of the UN and you aren't ?
I am all for the US abandoning the UN and all for kicking their asses out of New York.
The US CANT kick the UN out of NYC because, the UN building is not in New York, Actually its not even in the USA. The land where the UN building is on is actually not part of the Unites States, its like another country. They cant do nothing about it they have no authority on it.

Its like you cant kick out USA embassies from any countries because the land where these embassies are owned by the United states so the country "around" the embassies have no authorities on it. For UN building its the same thing.
Half of the UN nations are hostile toward the US, I bet if full scale war breaks out, the US will not allow the hostile govts. to stay on American soil with "diplomatic immunity" giving them free riegn in America. I am only guessing of course.
2006-05-03 16:50:45
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6883
any nations special forces is going to automatically be above par compared to the rest of their armed forces
2006-05-03 17:01:58
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6893

lowing wrote:

Half of the UN nations are hostile toward the US, I bet if full scale war breaks out, the US will not allow the hostile govts. to stay on American soil with "diplomatic immunity" giving them free riegn in America. I am only guessing of course.
In my opinion, that comment just goes to show how quickly the lessons of the last world war have been forgotten (or never learned) by some people in America.
2006-05-03 17:09:08
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6883
the world has never been and will never be united.  you think we have been getting it all fucked up these thouasands of years of civilization and within the last 50 years were gonna get it right all of a sudden.
2006-05-03 17:30:23
IronFerret
Member
+48|6896|Mexico City.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the world has never been and will never be united.  you think we have been getting it all fucked up these thouasands of years of civilization and within the last 50 years were gonna get it right all of a sudden.
Yo.. no disrespect.. but we all now your a soldier.. so soldiers are intend to figth.. are trained to do so.. not trained to do politics and diplomacy (its actually against the law in many nations).. sometimes i got the image of a UN diplomat using an AK47 as same as you doing such coments. i dont think we can have a clear image of whats going on in the world with CNN and FOX news.. non US people can tell (cos theres national media). America has its own disney sun glasses to see the world. 

what i trying to say is.. let diplomacy, experts and politicians do its job. war season got to finish or this word will go to hell.  send a peacekeep force and let diplomacy roll.  so now diplomacy and politics its for pussies.. ok.. what would hapend if US and Commies start a nuclear war 20 years ago?..

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard