More brilliance from the Guardian

[Joe]

*barf*

Wank Wank Wank
Wank Wank Wank
Wank Wank Wank

[Perinquus]

These people are simply delusional. The author if this bitter diatribe asserts that:

"Dissident voices do exist. While you will rarely hear them on television... Only those sympathetic to them might seek them out, while others looking to form opinions are unlikely to stumble across them."

Can anyone seriously believe this? Unlikely to stumble across them? I sure don't remember it that way. I remember every time I turned on the radio or television, or every time I logged onto the internet hearing about antiwar activists, including a long list of celebrities, spewing out yet another stream of verbal diarhhea - much of it in the form of hateful personal attacks rather than reasoned criticism (e.g. Ed Harris comment that Bush was trying to act like some tough guy he-man; the Dixie Chicks statement that they were "ashamed" President Bush was from Texas; Jessica Lange saying "I hate Bush. I despise him and his entire administration."; Danny Glover accusing Bush of being a racist; Tim Robbins' pompous, long-winded screed at the National Press Club; Sean Penn's trip to Iraq, etc. etc. ad nauseam.)

Jesus Christ the dissenters were all over the place, and unless you shut yourself in a cave in the mountains there was no fucking getting away from them! And this moron actually has the temerity to say we were "unlikely to stumble across them."?

[RadiO]

A Guardian article that was interesting and nowhere near as biased or unreasonable as I expected. Hmm.

[Joe]

Are you kidding? This article is biased even by the Guardian's usual standards.

[RadiO]

Are you kidding? This article is biased even by the Guardian's usual standards.

I dunno. I just see it as a relatively neutral comment (by the standards of The Guardian, at least) on a media system that appears to be demonstrating self-restraint, on the grounds that the US is at war. There's nothing wrong or unusual with that, because every national press in history has behaved differently in time of crisis or war.
The key difference is that the current war on terror is obviously not going to end, or pass, for years, and apart from Al-Qeada has no clearly defined enemy. I'm not surprised that people are wondering: are there self-imposed restrictions on what the US media will cover and, if so, how long will they last?

[Vympel]

The mainstram media have been fawning, dickless, spineless, ball-less, snivelling, craven servants of power since long before 9/11.

"And in such an environment, domestic political dissent is immoral without a prior statement of national solidarity, a choosing of sides."

The New Republic said this, not the Guardian.

"Mr President, as the nation is at odds over war, how is your faith guiding you?"

Oooh, tough questions from the media ... mamby-pamby fucking ponces ...

You want good news? Check the internet- it's the last vestige. At least there you can *find* opposing viewpoints that aren't shouted down by some moronic talking head like Sean Hannity or O'Reilly.

[Joe]

Someone delete the above post. Accidental.

Actually, I've found that most claims of the American media suppressing "dissent" come from far lefties who can't stand the fact that the media doesn't report their ludicrous opinions as fact. Most antiwar messages marginalize themselves. I mean, the average American isn't interested in hearing the viewpoint of some doped-up college student wearing a shirt that says "CORPORATIONS SUCK" expressed through a Howard Zinn, a Norman Mailer, or a Noam Chomsky. If the antiwar lobby attempted to keep the delivery of its message unoffensive perhaps they would be a little more successful.

I never really understood how the American media "suppressed dissent" during the Iraq War, anyway; anyone who actually watched any of the networks would see that pundits against the war were regularly featured, especially on CNN, where they trotted out retired generals who were openly opposed to the war. Fuck, even Fox featured antiwar personalities on shows like Hannity & Colmes on a regular basis! Not to mention that print was and still is a liberal Empire, and despite the claims of the Guardian shill dissenting viewpoints could easily be found within newspapers.

In a country where people can take shits publically to express disapproval with the President and get national attention, dissent isn't being suppressed.

[Vympel]

Actually, I've found that most claims of the American media suppressing "dissent" come from far lefties who can't stand the fact that the media doesn't report their ludicrous opinions as fact.

I never really understood how the American media "suppressed dissent" during the Iraq War, anyway; anyone

The media did however, parrot the claims of the US administration as fact. That's suppression of dissent right there.

It's done because the government understands how to control the media- if you don't report it the way we want it, you won't get access. Think about it, when during the war did you ever hear "claims by the US government could not be confirmed independently" (you know, that cute caveat they added whenever Iraq said something?)- even when they indeed had no way of confirming it? It's because they wouldn't get access to the vaunted press room once they did that.

[Joe]

That's not so much suppressing dissent as it is poor reporting.

[Perinquus]

The media did however, parrot the claims of the US administration as fact. That's suppression of dissent right there.

You obviously didn't see any of the coverage on ABC.

[Vympel]

If the antiwar lobby attempted to keep the delivery of its message unoffensive perhaps they would be a little more successful.

How can you deliver a message like "I am against the actions of the US government because X" and not have it be offensive to someone? What, should they apologise for their views? I don't see talking heads apologising for theirs.

Fuck, even Fox featured antiwar personalities on shows like Hannity & Colmes on a regular basis!

Where Hannity would shout them down and where Colmes would do his best to try and support, them to no avail (the show was originally called "Hannity and a liberal yet to be determined")

[Perinquus]

How can you deliver a message like "I am against the actions of the US government because X" and not have it be offensive to someone? What, should they apologise for their views? I don't see talking heads apologising for theirs.

I think what he means is that so much of the antiwar criticism was of the "I hate Bush/America is an imperialist nation/it's all about Republicans getting those fat oil contracts" variety, rather than "I am against the war because I think it will, in the long run, harm America's interests," or "We haven't exhausted all the other avenues". To be sure, there was some reasoned opposition to the war, but it often got drowned out by the more strident Bush-hating opponents and their comments.

[Joe]

That's exactly what I meant, Perin.

[Lord Sander]

I think what he means is that so much of the antiwar criticism was of the "I hate Bush/America is an imperialist nation/it's all about Republicans getting those fat oil contracts" variety, rather than "I am against the war because I think it will, in the long run, harm America's interests," or "We haven't exhausted all the other avenues". To be sure, there was some reasoned opposition to the war, but it often got drowned out by the more strident Bush-hating opponents and their comments.

That's because the US media chose to focus on that and not so much on reasoned opposition. When watching both CNN and the BBC during the war, I noticed that while the pros were adequately represented on both networks, the cons were definitely characterized as the unreasonable variety on CNN, but not on the BBC.

[Skelron]

I think what he means is that so much of the antiwar criticism was of the "I hate Bush/America is an imperialist nation/it's all about Republicans getting those fat oil contracts" variety, rather than "I am against the war because I think it will, in the long run, harm America's interests," or "We haven't exhausted all the other avenues". To be sure, there was some reasoned opposition to the war, but it often got drowned out by the more strident Bush-hating opponents and their comments.

That's because the US media chose to focus on that and not so much on reasoned opposition. When watching both CNN and the BBC during the war, I noticed that while the pros were adequately represented on both networks, the cons were definitely characterized as the unreasonable variety on CNN, but not on the BBC.

And that may be the point of the Article. To find Reasoned Anti-War arguements in the American Press was hard, you'd have had to seek it out, what was shown was the stupid ones. Presenting an image that they where all, or a majourity, stupid, that they where Anti-American loonies. What is reported is not as important as how it is reported, and the image presented if one side is given the image of thought out arguments and Moral High Ground, and the other has the image of Anti-American people who would oppose the war no matter what then the Media has not presented the facts. It has distorted them, and the article is correct...

[HemlockGrey]

Anyone see that great SNL skit about the media asking wuss-ass questions?

[Perinquus]

And that may be the point of the Article. To find Reasoned Anti-War arguements in the American Press was hard, you'd have had to seek it out, what was shown was the stupid ones. Presenting an image that they where all, or a majourity, stupid, that they where Anti-American loonies. What is reported is not as important as how it is reported, and the image presented if one side is given the image of thought out arguments and Moral High Ground, and the other has the image of Anti-American people who would oppose the war no matter what then the Media has not presented the facts. It has distorted them, and the article is correct...

The article is not correct. It did not say, "Reasonable dissident voices do exist. While you will rarely hear them on television...", it said "Dissident voices...". The article gives the very definite impression that ANY dissident voices were drowned out by all the jingoistic drum beating, and only those who made a real, determined effort would find such diddenting opinions and that "others looking to form opinions are unlikely to stumble across them." This article tries to mislead people into thinking that virtually anyone (reasonable or otherwise) opposed to the war was like a lone voice in the wilderness, and they were finding it almost impossible to get their message out. Well this was most emphatically not the case. Anti-war commentators were a dime a dozen. Some had reasonable arguments to offer, more didn't, and virtually the whole of Hollywood jumped on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon. "Unlikely to stumble across them" my ass. You couldn't avoid hearing these people if you tried. The article tries to paint a very different picture, but it's like modern art - that may be how the "artist" sees it, but that doesn't mean it looks very much like reality.

[Joe]

You know what kind of antiwar argument I'd be more willing to listen to? Someone who pointed to the idiotic protestors and Hollywood intelligence vacuums, saying "These people are morons. Bush is not a Nazi. Now this is why I do not support this war."

[Darth Wong]

You know what kind of antiwar argument I'd be more willing to listen to? Someone who pointed to the idiotic protestors and Hollywood intelligence vacuums, saying "These people are morons. Bush is not a Nazi. Now this is why I do not support this war."

Do you preface your arguments and statements by flaming extremists on your side and rebuking them, just in case? Why is such a disclaimer necessary in order to take someone seriously?

[Sea Skimmer]

Anyone see that great SNL skit about the media asking wuss-ass questions?

A number of those questions where in fact real from Desert Shield/Storm

[Joe]

You know what kind of antiwar argument I'd be more willing to listen to? Someone who pointed to the idiotic protestors and Hollywood intelligence vacuums, saying "These people are morons. Bush is not a Nazi. Now this is why I do not support this war."

Do you preface your arguments and statements by flaming extremists on your side and rebuking them, just in case? Why is such a disclaimer necessary in order to take someone seriously?

Well, to the average person, the flaming "KILL THEM ALL" extremists are not the face of the pro-war camp; however, the idiotic "Bush is a Nazi!" types certainly seem to dominate the anti-war camp to the average person, primarily because they get the most coverage, screwing over the more reasonable opposition considerably.

And to answer your question, yes, I do attempt to distance myself from some of the hardcore types whenever I discuss the war.

[Hamel]

Well, to the average person, the flaming "KILL THEM ALL" extremists are not the face of the pro-war camp;

Really? That just leaves the radical christians, the liars, and more liars.

however, the idiotic "Bush is a Nazi!" types certainly seem to dominate the anti-war camp to the average person, primarily because they get the most coverage, screwing over the more reasonable opposition considerably.

Like the Nazis, or (more accurately) any other corrupt gov't for that matter, Bush launched an unprovoked attack on a nation and based his excuses for the attack on outright lies.


On a seperate note, I've observed that pro-war rally'ers and people that send pro-war propaganda emails on company time did not receive criticism from people here, the media, or much anywhere else.

[Joe]

Really? That just leaves the radical christians, the liars, and more liars.

So apparently if you disagree with Hamel's viewpoints, obviously you are a liar. There can be only one correct viewpoint and deviation from it is the greatest evil!

Like the Nazis, or (more accurately) any other corrupt gov't for that matter, Bush launched an unprovoked attack on a nation and based his excuses for the attack on outright lies.

It was provoked, 12 years ago. Iraq set itself up for this invasion years in the past, it just took a long time for us to pull the trigger. Bill Clinton, BTW, originally shifted the U.S. policy on Iraq from containment to regime change. Hell, we've been bombing this country for years now, Bush didn't launch a damn thing, he just finished a twelve-year campaign.

On a seperate note, I've observed that pro-war rally'ers and people that send pro-war propaganda emails on company time did not receive criticism from people here, the media, or much anywhere else.

What the fuck is your point? People send lots of shit to each other on company time, why the fuck should I get all riled up about pro-war propaganda?

[Hamel]

So apparently if you disagree with Hamel's viewpoints, obviously you are a liar. There can be only one correct viewpoint and deviation from it is the greatest evil!

What kind of bullshit strawman is this? Vympel covered, in detail, all the lies the US and the pro-war advocates propagated.

It was provoked, 12 years ago. Iraq set itself up for this invasion years in the past, it just took a long time for us to pull the trigger. Bill Clinton, BTW, originally shifted the U.S. policy on Iraq from containment to regime change. Hell, we've been bombing this country for years now, Bush didn't launch a damn thing, he just finished a twelve-year campaign.

That particular situation ended 12 years ago. You find me a resolution that allowed the US to invade, especially on shoddy and non-existant evidence, then you can talk about finishing anything.

What the fuck is your point? People send lots of shit to each other on company time, why the fuck should I get all riled up about pro-war propaganda?

Most pro-war people here, and even some not-so-pro-war people spent tens of posts mocking the demonstrators for having too much free time on their hands, but didn't offer equal treatment to the pro-war rally'ers. Both groups held up traffic. Both groups had scary extremists.

As for the emails on companty time - if I had been sending emails like that on company time, I would have been let go. If they want to send out lies and propaganda via email, they can do it from home. This applies to the other side as well.

[NapoleonGH]

Durran, i love it how any mention of any view that you happen to disagree with strongly is looked at as stupid, idiotic, or fallicious.

Fact is there are alot of connections to be made between the war and oil


fact is alot of what bush has done in the past few years comes right out of hitler's playbook (regardless of whether or not he will go nearly as far as mr. hitler did, many of view actions are very much in the same vein of reasoning, surpression of civil liberties, surpression of the free flow of ideas(keeping track of what books we read), requiring 1 semetic ethnic group's members to register, using military action to remove attention from economic incompetance, legalized descrimination against citizens (patriot act #2's lovely ability to remove the citizenship of naturalized citizens without trial, holding people suspected of "terrorism" without their writ of habeus corpus being respected), allowing for greater survelance on the population and creating an arm of the executive to manage it (Fatherland security office, with then the increased search warrent, wire tapping, and listening in on privilaged conversations)) There most certainly are many very valid paralells to be drawn between bush and hitler, regardless of the end result.

Fact is bush really is of rather low intelligence, look at his SAT scores for christ's sake, I did better in 7th grade (part of some special program where middle school kids take the SATs), listen to any of his unrehersed comments he sounds like an illeducated and slow backwater man.

Fact is that bush is a fundie as well.

Now all that asside there aer many other reasons stated by almost every dissident against the war, the lack of necessity, the immorality, the illegality (still debated among internationall lawyers mind you, but alot of violations of the UN charter and Geneva happened), the current incapablity of the americans to even manage to plant evidence of chemical weapons let alone find the real deal.

Here is a voice of actual dissent, I do see the other side just fine, a bunch of terrified uncertain and trusting people being told by their government that there is a very bad man somewhere who god forbit might have the same weapons we do and that "the government has evidence, we just wont tell you what it is".

All of the statemetns by the masses of dissenters have quite a bit of merrit, some are taken to the extreme. I dont doubt that oil wasnt the only reason for the war, or even the strongest, but it most certainly was a motivation, and dont give me the "we'll let the iraqis run their oil" thing it was always about cheap oil, not necessarily about owning all the oil. Bush certainly has done nothing on the order of hitler but many of his actions are only quantitatively different and not qualitatively (people really gotta learn to separate hitler from the halocaust in some areas, when people say bush is like hitler they dont mean he will go around committing genocide in the bounds of the US, they mean that he supports many facist and extremist right wing ideals that hitler can be used to symbolize as he took them to the extreme, much the same as anyone who preaches some form of state ownership of some property shouts of marxist and communist can be heard).

Ohh and how the hell does anyone here get off bitching about protesters "holding up traffic" and the like, so this nation has fallen so far as to consider convenience more important that political action and commentary. Regarldess of your position on the issues one MUST support the right and support the demonstraters for making use of their right to assemble and protest against something which they believe to be in opposition to all that they hold true and good. I would fight for the rights of the KKK, the pro war crazy fucks, and any other group to go around and have a protest and i would not complain when they did, i would be happy that people did have the ability to express their ideas, but last time i checked none of the prowar rallies ended with the police beating hundreds with no real justification.