- Videos
- Pictures
- Games
- Flash
- Mature 18+
- Free Porn
- MuchoWear
-
subscribe to mucho |
Got MySpace? Add us! |
Submit Content
Hi AmericaIf this shit was happening in most countries, they would revolt. |
subscribe to mucho |
Got MySpace? Add us! |
Submit Content
Hi AmericaIf this shit was happening in most countries, they would revolt. |
Comments to Hi America
I hate first n00bs
then why comment first fag
Somebody has to be first. I'm just waiting for my moment of glory.
This is some of the bet made leftist propaganda I've seen in a while. Sean Penn screwed it up however - damn, is that man stupid...
sean penn is nowhere near stupid...you are
lol i love how our govt lies to us and republicans who still support bush call anything that has back to back proof that they lied to us "propaganda".. id be laughing if i wasnt thinking how sad it all was.
I’m defiantly no Bush supporter but care to explain THIS???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws&NR
Every time you hear the words "Bush" or "Cheney" referred to in a negative light, substitute the phrase "Your entire governmental system as it exists today, all parties included."
Lets the air right out of the left/right argument.
And it's also true.
damn, i should have used that one as my counterpoint instead of all those quotes i posted. Oh well...
Take solace in the fact that a hundred illiterate fourteen year olds will stumble through that lengthly diatribe below trying to think of something witty to say.
This kid Roland here has only been around a few days yet I still prefer reading what he says over the 80% of our illustrious members who type nothing but toss!
"toss"
You fuckers need to be more English! ...always stumbling over my words!
oh i get it...ha
Boom, I never stumble on your rhetoric.
yea there are fucks out there, im glad our politicains are out there everyday for us (borat pause.........................................................................) NOT
nicely put!
God damn the MS server is slow!!!
So are you. Hurry up and get me another beer.
Dick Cheney looks like the Penguin from Batman.
I was thinking the same thing!
Pretty well done! Although it's too bad the guy left a few people out. Here's a few more names he should add if he feels like this is such an important illustration. I dont want all those Republican names to get lonely. ; )
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
If Bush and possy lied about WMD's, what about these people? Hmm..
It has been pretty well established that many Democrats are total hypocrites regarding the war in Iraq. Many of them voted for the war resolution, and repeatedly voted to continue funding it.
But this is beside the point.
The point isn't who put forth the bullshit. The point is that the whole thing was an institutionalized lie.
The bullshit needs to stop, and anyone who promoted it knowingly should be removed from office and imprisoned--Republican, Democrat, or independent.
sorry billy that was too long and my attention span only lasts 10 seconds......so I didn't read it
Where did you copy and paste that from, damn.
Well TG, guess we're gonna have to replace the entire Government then.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz....
oh? You done yet?...
Fuck me K-Billy i'm not reading all that shit....
hey K, billy
tell me what you think about this:
NEUWIRTH
Guest
Pass
Don't Be So Sure There Were No WMD in Iraq
by Rachel Neuwirth 7/11/07
Introduction
The references cited in this article strongly suggest that:
1. WMD did indeed exist inside Iraq before the war.
2. The weapons inspectors were both fooled and bribed to ignore evidence.
3. Massive amounts of WMD were removed to known locations in Syria just prior to the war.
4. Massive numbers of Saddam's audio tapes and paper documents were collected and most remain unavailable and presumably un-translated.
5. U.S. officials refused to investigate a number of likely WMD sites.
6. The U.S. intelligence community, and other branches of this government, are stonewalling the issue.
Readers are urged to review the references and decide for themselves.
Before America went to war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime it was widely believed that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. Today it is widely believed that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war. People of both political parties, the major media, and the intellectual community all appear in strong agreement on that point. Some even charge that the Bush Administration deliberately, and knowingly, misled the nation with false information as a pretext to justify going to war.
Guest
Rachel Neuwirth
Rachel Neuwirth is President of Middle East Solutions
The Bush Administration is quietly acknowledging that they made a mistake, albeit not intentional. That admission seems to be the final confirmation that there were no WMD in Iraq. In police work when the accused confesses to making a mistake, it is then assumed that the accusation is true and people consider it to be ‘case closed'.
This widespread belief of no WMD in Iraq is seriously damaging our ability to deal with a growing nuclear threat from Iran. There are those who opposed our toppling mass murderer Saddam Hussein both in 1991 and again in 2003, even after he defied multiple U.N. resolutions and was generally believed to have WMD. Now the ‘peace at any price' crowd is exploiting the widespread belief of ‘no WMD' to undermine our war in Iraq. If we fail in Iraq it greatly weakens our ability to deal with Iran, which will become greatly emboldened and infinitely more dangerous as it eventually goes nuclear.
Opponents of military action to stop Iran claim that the mistake over Iraq means that we cannot trust any claim by the Bush Administration regarding Iran's growing nuclear threat. That logic may be faulty but it will further turn opinion against dealing with Iran, especially with those who are now sour on our war in Iraq - and that is currently a majority of Americans. The opponents of military action persistently argue for more ‘negotiations' as the only way to avoid a nuclear Iran even while Iran is clearly stalling for sufficient time to acquire the bomb.
It is therefore essential that the widespread belief of ‘no WMD in Iraq' be double-checked for accuracy. But how can average citizens, and other non-experts, really know the truth? Unfortunately, too many people refuse to reconsider an issue once their minds are made up. Reconsideration is essential and there is a way to deal with this question, at least indirectly. That way is to list critical unanswered questions and then demand that the proponents of ‘no WMD in Iraq' come up with credible answers. Those who adamantly insist that there were no WMD have a duty to answer the following questions or else admit their assertions remain unproven and conceivably wrong.
Obvious Question
Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and other Democrats, all saw the same intelligence back when Clinton was President and George Tenet headed the CIA. They all claimed Iraq had WMD which threatened America. If there really were no WMD, why are they not held equally accountable for misleading the American people? Shouldn't they be required to reveal the basis for their assertions? George Bush retained Clinton's CIA chief who reportedly assured Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Other intelligence services including those of NATO and Israel also believed there were WMD. Why don't the critics attempt to discover the evidence for those conclusions?
What was Saddam Hussein hiding with his elaborate schemes to frustrate the U.N. arms inspectors? Why would Saddam needlessly provoke the U.N. and the U.S. into going to war against him if he had nothing to hide? Why haven't the critics answered this question?
Shortly before the war, it was reported that U.S. satellites spotted truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria at night. One possible explanation is that Saddam had WMD and removed them before the war. Various reports claim that the Russians helped move convoys and planeloads of materials from Iraq into Syria to at least three heavily guarded locations, identified, at least two years ago, by Debka.com and other news sources.
Inexplicably, there has been no effort to discover what was moved. If WMD were indeed removed in this manner, shouldn't we know it? If it turns out that WMD were removed then the war in Iraq becomes justified and the focus should then shift to Syria. If Saddam Hussein was not allowed to have WMD, why then is Syria, Iran's new ally, allowed to have possible WMD with no inspection? Is there unfinished business relative to Saddam's WMD? Is Syria now able to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the region with chemical and biological weapons?
Where is Saddam's bio weapons expert known as Doctor Germ? What was her work? Saddam's chemical weapons expert known as "Chemical Ali" was recently sentenced to death. What was he doing prior to the war in 2003? Two of Saddam's sons-in law defected and testified about Saddam's WMD. They were spirited back by Saddam and then promptly killed. What did they reveal to U.S. authorities?
Libya's Colonel Khaddaffi gave up his WMD to the U.S. What weapons did the U.S. recover and ship back to America and who was working on these programs? Did Saddam Hussein sponsor the Libyan WMD program?
Early Reports
Seven months after the war began, an extensive report was published presenting a wealth of information on Iraqi WMD and containing 76 open source citations. It described how and what was hidden and how much of it was moved to Syria and Lebanon. It is ‘a must read'. The following paragraph is excerpted from that report.
"Now, it would be common to ask for the reason the Bush Administration has not revealed that WMDs are in Syria and/or Lebanon. According to Israeli intelligence sources, it is likely because exposure of that would lead to a domino effect where evidence would leak out that Iraq's programs had roles played by Egypt, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. [plus the French, Germans and Russians] Such leaks will enflame the region and especially Iraq, and make things much harder, resulting in a more bloody and costly war and diminishing likelihood that other countries would send forces in.[71] Additionally, people would be skeptic, saying it was a lie so that the war-mongering neo-cons were trying to justify a new conquest. The other side would put enormous pressure to bring the war to Syria-a war we are not yet ready to fight."
Iraqi General Georges Sada
In another intelligence revelation, ex Iraqi General Georges Sada recently published his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein. In it he explains how, just prior to the war, Saddam moved his WMD to Syria, with Russian help. Go to www.amazon.com and search for author Georges Sada. Click on picture of book, "Saddam's Secrets". Scroll down to read reviews.
Reviews from Publishers Weekly:
Reviewer 1: In General Sada's unique position, he was able to observe some of the worst of Saddam's behavior and trickery and confirms in this book not only the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the extraordinary lengths that Saddam went to hide these weapons....
Reviewer 2: The author tells how Saddam managed to trick the world into believing he did not have weapons of mass destruction. He goes into detail how Saddam managed to hide all evidence of WMD's and how he managed to move all of them out of Iraq under the noses of the United Nations weapons inspectors. ....
Reviewer 3: Of particular note are tapes of more than 3,000 hours of Saddam Hussein meeting with his war cabinet and millions of pages of documents that contain vital information about Saddam's WMD program and plans for transporting the WMDs out of the country in order to dupe the weapons inspectors.... American and world citizens must demand that these tapes and documents be immediately released, translated, and analyzed in their entirety.
Intelligence Summit Meeting
Hundreds of security experts of diverse backgrounds convened on February 17, 2006 to evaluate Iraqi WMD. The organizers announced that translations of 12 hours of tapes of Saddam Hussein's cabinet meetings would be revealed at the meeting. In it Saddam would be heard talking about Iraq's WMD, its nuclear programs and how he fooled UN inspectors. Ten days before the meeting attendees received messages from inside the administration pressuring them not to attend. "However, these new tapes would have forced the intelligence community to admit that they misled President George W. Bush to state that Iraq had no WMD. Such admission, apparently, was something the intelligence community wanted to avoid by attempting to discredit this conference."
Captured Tapes and Documents
"Who'll Let the Docs Out? Bush wants to release the Saddam files but his [national] intelligence chief [John Negroponte] stalls. By Stephen F. Hayes" 03/20/2006, Volume 011, Issue 25 of the WeeklyStandard.com
Excerpts:
"On February 16, President George W. Bush assembled a small group of congressional Republicans for a briefing on Iraq." Representative Mike Pence said to President Bush, "There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"
"Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to [National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.
.......
"Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. .....
......
"Negroponte never got the message. Or he is choosing to ignore it. He has done nothing to expedite the exploitation of the documents. And he continues to block the growing congressional effort, led by [Rep. Pete] Hoekstra, [the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee] to have the documents released.
‘I found Saddam's WMD bunkers'
Posted By Melanie Phillips On April 19, 2007 @ 9:26 am In Daily Mail |
A devastating expose of criminal incompetence and cover-up by the U.S. government. The first two paragraphs follow.
"It's a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It's also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmers in Saddam's Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam's use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons."
"Dave Gaubatz, however, says you could not be more wrong. Saddam's WMD did exist. He should know because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don't know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost' his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam's WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war."
Media Spin
Another problem with objectively appraising the danger of WMD is exemplified in a recent article that originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The headline reads: "Scientist profits on fears of WMD. - Germ-weapons expert wins grants, federal contracts through his warnings of mass-casualty biological attack." Notice how the reader is immediately primed to be suspicious by the use of emotionally charged words such as "...profits on fears..."
The first paragraph reads,
"After helping to lead the Soviet Union's germ-weapons program, Ken Alibek defected to the United States and began warning about the threat of a mass-casualty biological attack. Alibek also has sought to profit from the fear of such weapons of mass destruction, landing federal contracts or grants totaling about $28 million."
The first sentence above acknowledges that Ken Alibeck had good reason to know about the Soviet Union's germ-weapons program and hence he has credibility. But then, as if to immediately undermine his credibility, there follows the insinuation that, ..." Alibek also has sought to profit from the fear ..." This implies a selfish, if not a sinister, motivation. And in support of this insinuation we are told that his company received government contracts or grants, as if that alone was evidence of wrongdoing.
If the LA Times has any proof of wrongdoing by Alibeck let them produce the evidence. Instead, this news implies an accusation without actually making a charge that could expose them to be prosecuted for libel. Honest reporting would require a clear separation between presenting hard facts and offering editorial opinion. Their blatant failure to observe journalistic ethics raises the question of an agenda on the part of the LA Times.
Too many people are imposing their biases and opinions on the WMD issue which makes it much harder to get the full truth and to defend against a future attack.
Bertram Cohen contributed to this article.
First appeared at American Thinker
copyright 2007 Rachel Neuwirth
§
only an asshole would post anything that long and expect anyone except hank to read it...hank let me know if either of these two longwinded mofos said anything reasonable...nitwits!!!!!
Agreed @ dik
Fuck you Billy and Iranian!
I won`t read all that copied and pasted crap too...
The first one is just a bunch of quotes or democrats saying that Iraq had WMD before the start of the war.
The second one basically say that Iraq shipped all it's WMDs to Syria (with Russian help) before the start of the war and the U.S. intelligence community is covering it up.
thanks ,that was hanktastic!!!!!!
Look. My point in posting all that shit is to say that both parties hands are dirty. And even then I have my reservations. They did find evidence of WMD's from Saddam. It was no smoking gun, but shit was still found. But you know what? I dont even care. Saddam was on Americas shit list after the first Gulf War. He should not have fucked around with us by ignoring all those resolutions and kicking inspectors out. Now we are there. And if it truly is a war for oil I would really like to know when we are going to be benefiting from that war. Cause gas is getting expensive.
i scanned over what iranian said and he admmitted that his mother was a goat and he apologised to me for being such an insignificant little fuck
Hello? They're politicians. Of course their hands are dirty and of course they're lying.
Well, politicians need to be opportunists and tell the people what they want to hear. (And by the way at least in German politics there seem to be a couple of decent people involved). But the real problem was that the media didn`t do their job to question the governments policies and the public (!) didn`t too. That the justification for the war (alQuaida, WMDs,...) was quite odd was known before the war started. And what would follow to an invasion was also pretty clear. There were compelling reasons out of history why the "democratizing" project was doomed to fail. It was always well known that Iraq would come apart without Saddam and the whole region would be destabilized. But the point is that you should be able to form your own opinion independent from what politicians say or not. And if the American media don`t provide the full information just read European newspapers...
Halliburton KB....start there....
oh & JimPanse "European newspapers" care to be a little less vague?
Yes, "European newspapers" said all the things now a lot of people say nobody could have predicted. At least in Germany the discussion was much broader. I didn`t read the British papers so right I can`t speak for the British...
"But the point is that you should be able to form your own opinion..."
And now the American public tends to blame the politicians for everything as if they wouldn`t have brains themselves...
Oh you meant German newspapers...there I was thinking you were talkin about the papers in Malta.
The if she bleeds she's ready to breed topic is a lot more exciting.
Oranjeboom, I just assumed you were British...
I am, im English.
So what was you point?
*your
*your
sorry for the double post :(
sorry for the double post :(
grrrrrrrrrr damn fucking MS commenting service!!!
People dont use the term 'European' on the correct way. Far too often people will say 'european' when they are actually talking about a specific part of europe. When talking about politics, beliefs, education, attidute, producs, services or whatever 'european' is VERY fuckin vague.
...for example England has very little in common with Latvia...
Ok, you are right. At least Britain is often a European outlier. Or should I say an outlier of Europe? Or of the EU?
But apart from that I though you disagreed on what I said in general. And well, from now an I`ll use the term European much more carefully... ;-}
I dated a European chick once, she was from... uhhhh.. can't remember. It was definitely in Europe though...
Or maybe it was Central America?
European newspapers in general being more probing is complete rubbish. Every country there is full of either tabloid or politically inclined periodicals. Business newspapers are far more reliable (note not completely reliable) and more accessible than wading through academic journals. Why? Because their readers pay money for accurate information because it's to help them make money.
Most people will see nothing wrong with what you just said...that is what annoys me!
At this point "the truth" is unattainable unless you were there.
OR MAYBE it's always been that way?
"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper." bet youll NEVER guess who said that chairman...
All I can guess is that it's going to make me look stupid for not knowing. Something right under my nose right?
Dear Chairman, I didn`t say anything about "European newspapers in general". I even excluded the British papers. Maybe you in Australia have only "either tabloid or politically inclined periodicals". But that is`t the case for France, Italy, Germany,... for sure!
Oh so you were talking about all European newspapers being more probing in their discussion? I said in general i.e. the overwhelming majority of European newspapers which coincidentally are typically the highest selling in their respective countries. And it is very much the case for France, Italy and Germany from personal experience for sure!
And just for the record, the highest selling Australian papers in each state to varying degrees are populist and by default supporters of conservative government unless Murdoch changes his mind.
Well, again. I "didn`t" (!) say anything about newspapers in general. And I`m not talking about tabloids. But that the German and French media (ok the Italian situation is more complicated) was much "more probing in their discussion" (in the time before the Iraq war for sure) is quite a fact. Probably it`s because the leading TV networks are public broadcaster and in the leading opinion (forming) newspapers here we have no monopolies because of ownership (maybe contrary to the press in the Anglo-Saxon world)
You said "European newspapers." Either that means all of them or it means most of them. Now we suddenly jump to your use of the word "media." This is hardly consistent or easy to follow is it?
There is no monopoly in the press here, it is a large oligopoly just like there is one in Europe. Most media in Western Europe is in the hands of a few companies.
The coverage in Europe in the lead up to the Iraq war was no more special than from pretty much any developed country. In fact I'd go as far to say that they simply covered the same controversies again and again, making old news into new news because it was suddenly relevant all of a sudden. Those whose hands were on the controls of public broadcasters coincidentally found it a great time to help out their friends in politics.
You can try and fob me off again by claiming I know little about what happens in Europe and that I must be simply applying what happens here. But unfortunately for you I know enough first-hand to show that shit stinks the same in Europe as it does in the US and any other country you care to mention.
Orwell ofcourse, that man knew the score.
That you say that "most media [is]in the hands of a few companies" is at least relating to Germany simply false. As I said (in Germany) the relevant TV is public broadcasting and the (serious) newspapers are not owned by any big company. But right. I shouldn`t have differentiated more precisely between "media" and "European newspapers" and so on. The point is why did especially the most Americans agree to a war that was clearly not to win because of lies that where even before the war highly dubious. Are they just so much dumber or did`t they have the proper information or both?
You do have a point, America has the greater extremes of media bias (eg, Fox News). Just check out Rupert Murdoch, hell support whoever/whatever is in his long term interest.
Thats basic, if chairman comes back im sure hell go into alot more detail.
Hang on. A German is questioning the intelligence of another population for their blind willingness to enter a war? I'm not sure you're the right sort of person to ask a question like that. You might resent a comment like that but when you single out a population then it can work two ways.
So you're saying Axel Springer and Bertelsmann aren't a large concentration of media? You're telling me that the "serious" newspapers which only sell <maybe> a couple hundred thousand a day in a country of over 80 million genuinely make a better informed population?
Well now suddenly we're only talking about Germany. Retreating back across the Rhine are we?
What serious (!) newspaper does Axel Springer own. "Die Welt"? Are you kidding? All the serious newspapers like sz, faz, fr, taz, spiegel, zeit, stern,... are not owned by big business. What does Bertelmann publish except TV magazines or periodical for housewives? If you saw any programme (like RTL) in German private TV you would notice that they don`t have any political ambition. There are only two really small private news broadcast station and they have rather little audience. The reason why I "retreat[ed] back across the Rhine" is that I live there and so I know the situation best. And finally I didn`t "questioning the intelligence of another population for their blind willingness to enter a war". So there is no need for your nationalist cant. I just asked a rhetorical question and that you didn`t get it is quite sad...
...and the large population is "better informed" because (again) we have a public broadcasting system that does quite a good job...
No, I simply went and gave you your intended answer to your own rhetorical question and assumed you could see how funny it was that the very answer is also found a few times in the history of Germany and a number of other countries. That you don't understand or are embarrassed that I spelt out what you meant in plain English is quite sad.
And taking the high road in so far bringing country into question is void as soon as you start claiming a population is ignorant (which you very well did to preempt your denials).
And again you mix two issues up.
You say there is no media concentration in Germany, I say look at Axel Springer and Bertelsmann.
You say they own no serious newspaper, what I actually said was that I find it hard to believe is that a handful "serious" newspapers which only sell 100k-200k each per day is some kind of massive influence on a population of over 80 million.
Public broadcasting has such a large audience in Germany is because a lot of it is divided up regionally. Plus I don't know how you can claim German public broadcasting is of the highest quality when it is partially funded through advertising.
Well, rhetorical questions are actually about that no answer is expected or "intended". And if the "very answer is also found a few times in the history of Germany", what epoch of German history America is in right now? (You made that equation, not I!) And I don`t think I`m "taking the high road" considering the Americans in general being a little less interested in the rest of the world than other nations. But of cause that`s only a myth...
...I think you don`t know a lot about German public broadcasting. There is one channel (ZDF) that is centralist and there is the ARD which is a co-production of the regional public broadcasters. They have the most viewers and are both politically/financially independent! The regional programs altogether come only at the 3rd position. And there is a very strict law that regulates the advertising in it. Only (!) sport programs or soap operas are allowed to be "partially funded through advertising". I don`t say that the quality papers are read by a broad public of 80 million. But they induce independent discussions that are than reported on in the public broadcasting. So I am not "mix[ing] two issues up". And that is the point. The masses get informed about what is going on...
whether or not dems voted for the war it was constructed to look like the right thing to do even though the people behind it knew it wasnt, and i dont think that any logical american can say that the war was a good idea and that we're making any kind of positive difference in iraq. I think that the president and his cabinet should be impeached and convicted but the way American Government works, it would never get that far. If only the democrats weren't such pussies this year, then we would see some major change in '08
You make me want to vomit.
The were evedently pussied back in the 90s as well, watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws&NR
But blame Bush because it's the trendy thing to do.
He didn't get away with it. He was forced to resign.
i'm a proud white red blooded american and i'm embarrassed and ashamed of the shit our government has been doing.Even with its faults,the usa is still the best and i wouldn't want to live anywhere else
amen my fellow american...even with all this bullshit we are still the best. i love you shawn
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND YOU TOO BROCCOLI!
i suspect you are making this statement, and you have never been outside of the us in your life
america smells like canada
america is canada's bitch ...even iran is jealous
American ignorance, its so easy to spot....especially if youre flying a hi-jacked airliner!
lmao@america being canadas bitch.Canada is nothing more tham americas retarded brother in law.Get all those french fags out and maby the world will take you guys seriously
Take note - the more north you go the more liberal and tolerant the population gets. It is due to winter. Northerners have to plan ahead for the winter, getting twice as much done in the summer to store up and prepare. This has been going on for thousands of years. Also, people must huddle together indoors to keep from freezing to death. If I was living a couple hundred years ago in a 1 room structure with 30 people to avoid freezing to death and one of those people in the structure went crazy then they'd be kicked out and freeze to death. Over many many years this has created a sort of natural selection in which the hot-headed, intollerant folks were breed out.
This can be applied to why whites are more successful than blacks - forced to plan ahead, forced to get along with others, etc.
This can also be applied to the states right now - hot-headed, intollerant dickheads in the south and more tollerant, understanding folks in the north. So, Canada is pretty fucking north! Gay marriage - I couldn't give a fuck. More guns than the US per capita and 10 times less gun violence - sounds good. Fuck - Canada had the second biggest navy in the world at the end of WW2 and they let it go because you can't spend that much on military and keep your free health care, good education and shit.
America is going down a shitty path right now - I hope they build a nice size fence on the border to keep those nasty Canadians out before the roits start and the military cracks down on US citizens.
^^^ That was one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Congratulations!
You're a tool if you single out Bush. Care to explain THIS???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws&NR
K-Nelly is from super tolerant Texas, so don't fuck with him.
"k-nelly?" Shit, i picked a lame name if this is the best crap people can come up with.
You know, I could rip apart ThereisnoGod's argument pretty easily, but I don't think he'd understand what I was saying.
The upcoming Election is gonna be a Doozy. It's pretty damn open.
I'm not buying the revolt thing. There is much worse shit going on in third world countries and no one does anything. Look at Nigeria, they have so much money in oil, yet the people are poor as hell and the government is corruprt as hell. Lots of Miltary take overs, but no people lead revolts.
Well, most of the military take-overs are done by charismatic leaders. The only problem is that the charismatic leaders of the revolts don't actually give a shit about anyone except themselves and the friends/family/tribe. So everyone else is fucked until the next one comes along.
Who here actually READ K-Billy's entry/journey of his life? I'm unemployed because I'm lazy peoples!!!
And since when did intelligent conversation happen on muchosucko? I gave up on them a long time ago and I'm not gonna start now!
lots of intelligent things are said here asshole...but as for those 2 super long comments...cocaine is a helluva drug
It's actually a bunch of quotes, Pwnographer. You can pick and choose all you like, but at least read one or two.
lol.. i am happy about this.. no.. its not the bullshitery of the fuckers in office.. i already knew about this, and how evil they truly are... but what makes me happy is the song in the background. i fucking love that song, and their entire first cd... the second cd sucked... but even brendon agrees so i am not stupid....
Do us Europeans a favor and keep your president in your own country. We always have to spend a ton of money just so monkey boy doesn't get raped over here by angry people. I wonder what that must do to a person, getting boo-ed all the way from your car to the embassy and every other place you go.... . Well i guess you heve to have a heart in the first place..
Fuck Europe. They can't even call the new Bruce Willis movie "live free of die hard" over there, with all the fucking pussified commie cunts.
They can't call it "live free or die hard" either.
Europe has been and always will be suckling on the great big DD tits of the USA. Now go to your room.