Tuesday, June 01, 2004

You wrote, " I also think the removal of saddam hussein will save more lives than the sum total of all the deaths you lay at the feet of America daily on CL. "

How many times does this fucking have to be said to you? Saddam and the US were partners in war crimes, they were teamed up TOGETHER. The US HELPED Saddam carry out gassings. you can't compare Saddam's crimes agaisnt the US's crimes when the US is so responsible for Saddam's hold on power. The bulk of his crimes were comitted when the US supported him. Who is responsible for putting the Baath party into power in the first place? When the US knew he was a murderous thug in the late 50's the CIA still worked with him! The US put the Baath party into power two times in the 60s.


You wrote, " Spitfire's point is not that the Oil for Food scandal was not reported, it's that it also hasn't been shoved down our throats like the abu ghraib scandal has. "

The oil for food scandal has gotten plenty of media coverage. The problem is you have an increadibly distotorted view of the world. First of all, the media, becasue of its slanted reporting, has allowed people to continue to refer to the abu ghraib events as "hazing". the media (including even Al Franken) were unwilling to make it clear to the public that RAPES occured.

You whole take on things is so off base it is increadible. you can't see that the media has UNDERPLAYED the fact that RAPES took place. and we see the effect, many AMericans can gleefully refer to "hazing" as they remain ignorant about the RAPES.

You wrote, "Its (almost ) industry wide, selective outrage, always based on a preset agenda, ie: the removal of george w bush. Paranoid ? "

more like clueless. The media has played along with Bush so much it is off the wall. the dumb shit has even stated twice that Sadam didn't let the inspectors in so that is why we attacked him. WAS THAT REPORTED IN THE MEDIA?

You wrote, " You may argue that the media is always biased towards bad news, and thats true, but the oil for food thing is at least as big a scandal as abu ghraib, by all accounts ? no ?

Ok, libs, here you go, litmus test:

Google the Oil for Food Scandal, pull up an account of it on line, then read it, and every time you see: U.N or United Nations, insert the word Halliburton (shiver) and tell me that wouldn't be story one, page on, headline , first quarter hour on the hour prime time news story.

You really don't have a grasp on the issues. As I said, the UN food for oil scandal has been reported. What I have been pointing out have been things that have been either severly underreported or not reported at all.

Here is something that blows you whole "UN oil for food scandal didn't get reported tey way it should have" theory out of the water. you like the story becasue you think it is something that makes the UN look bad and the US can sit on the side and say "look how bad the UN is". Here is the kicker: the US was involved. DID THE MEDIA MAKE THAT CLEAR TO YOU?

and to my other point which you ignored until I challenged another post of yours about morality. have you seen the media report AT ALL the fact that the US is violating International Law by changing Iraqi foreign ownership laws? have you seen it reported at all?

the examples you bring up have at least been reported, you claim underreported. The example I gave you ignored and then expalined away with the immoral "a state gotta do what a state gotta do". That example of I am giving you have gone UNREPORTED IN AMERICA.

stop and think for a minute, your viewpoint is so scewed it isn't funny. review the facts I pointed out.

you really don't understand how the media works. I give you dramatic examples as proofs. you try to bullshit your way around with claims that someting didnt' get enough coverage but that is exposed as foolish when you see that the US's role in the scandal is what got underreported.

AS for my other example, one more time, the American media hasn't even reported this to the public:

On May 22 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1483, abolishing sanctions against Iraq and recognising the United States and United Kingdom as the country's occupying powers. The resolution called upon the US-UK authority to "comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079563,00.html

The US and UK have already violated these Conventions.

You wrote, " I'll ask the serious liberals on this board (and by the way, I do not intend "Liberal" as an insult LOL ) Do you or do you not agree, that, lets say, the washington press corp, the ones asking the questions at the news conferences are across the board anti bush ? "

you are out of your mind. they let him get away with things so off the wall it isn't funny. Bush is still nuts and the media has really ignored it. TWO TIMES now Bush insanely insited that Saddam didn't even allow the inspectors in so that is why we attacked him. The media is really hiding crazy stuff from Bush:


No comments: