Attack on Iran - IMMINENT!

Whatever welcome Bush had in New York post-911 he wore out quickly. He expected to return to NY a hero during the 2004 presidential campaign. The RNC selected NY over Florida and Virginia and even scheduled its convention unusually late in August so that the end of it would run right up to the 911 anniversary. They planned to have Bush shuttle between the convention location and the ground zero area for a hero's welcome. Instead, the people in NY turned against him and held a demonstration parade opposite the convention. On the 911 anniversary in 2004, Bush came out on the White House lawn for a minute of silence then went back in with his tail between his legs.

CSPAN had enough guts to show the protest while the other mainstream TV networks ignored it for the most part. Fox ignored all of it and only broke in when the dragon float started on fire in front of McDonald's, which was the only negative incident during the demonstration. 'Look at those horrible demonstrators burning the dragon in front of the beloved McDonald's. How aweful.'

.

 

Every single year since Bush has been in office there has been a protest outside their convention. This one is no different. Yes the message may change - the protest does not.
Was ''New York'' giving Bush a ''bloody nose'' -
I'm not going to get a balanced view of that from you am I ?.
Meh *shrugs shoulders* well i'm sure his presence has never been that popular in New York as a whole - but i'm sure he still has support there.
Were not really talking of his overall support - just a point in time and what actualy occured on that particular day.

Do ''liberal'' bloggers and news organisations highlight when Bush gets a ''warm welcome'' in New York ? I suspect the coverage is as absent as you contend the coverage is of when Bush does on supposed ''conservative'' news outlets.

I attempt to not spend to much time worrying about how others get there info - and what political persuasion a media outlet is.

There always has to be a media figure head that gets derision on all sides of the political debate - last time I checked people could flick the channel - maybe a scarey prospect in the US - but it works well over here.

I can't think of a news organisation in the UK that gets the same amount of abuse.
It is comical to me - thinking a fairly small voice gets such derision.
I have read reports of the RNC convention protests on the Fox news website.
Obviously in the UK it is a little bit more difficult to gauge the coverage on the TV.
I'm sure like most news organisations they picked it up and put it down with same level of interest as the majority of the news outlets.

Good on C-span for coveing the protest - not I imagine its goal but they are the ones who ''show it all'' ''warts and all''.

I guess you may have been part of the ''Fox News shut-upathon''.

 

Happens all the time. But more US citizens have grown balls and decided political correctness doesn't cut it anymore. It's hopeful, but it's hard for the working man to counteract the marketing spin.

 

Maybe Fox didn't cover it because it was such a small gathering, only about half a million people or more. It was also at such an insignificant time, during the RNC national convention.



Another small anti-Bush gathering in Europe.



.

 

Considering Bush's approval rating in the U.S. is now in the upper 20s, people in the rest of the country have finally figured out what NY did in 2004.

That's another reason why Bush's people like to keep him on the military base talk circuit. That's the only place he gets a warm response. I saw one where they even issued little flags to all the troops that were waving them after every single incoherent line he stumbled through. Looked like a cheerleading section at a junior high football game.

They had him trying to answer questions from students at a university early in his term and it was a disaster. That was the one that had the incident about 'tribal sovereignty' where the students were laughing at his response (he didn't know what tribal sovereignty meant). They've kept him away from college students ever since.

.

 

The U.S. mainstream media covers practically nothing about the anti-Bush gatherings overseas. I have to use networks such as EuroNews or the Mideastern TV stations to see video of those.

.

 

Why does EVERY FUCKIN thread have to turn to " i hate bush thread"? we get the picture- you hate bush, try putting it your sig instead of soiling every thread with it.

 

I don't think we all hate GW, we hate the way he's been used and marketed. He's actually a joke, which if Cheney was impeached,we would actually see his presidency in action...but I don't think that will ever be allowed to happen.

 

the romans had idiot emperors why shouldn't the americans

then there the false "triumphs" and wars on the "barbarians"
history repeats itself and the little band of idiots that support the stupidity are always there.

 

What protest about the media ? - I only have seen the ones concerning Fox news - should I protest about the ''marketing spin'' within BBC/ITV/C4/C5.

At the end of the day it is a free market and anybody can switch off.
Yes it drives me mad - it drives me insane infact. The truth is these media organisations are not breaking any laws - when they do they get busted [think about the BBC / Hutton report] plus dozens of times by http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ .
I don't know about the regulation in the US though.

Like I said i'm sure they did - I did read it on their website.
I have no idea how much navel gazing Fox does - neither do I know if Fox covered the protests via video as much/little as any other TV network.
Like I said it is difficult to gauge it from the UK.
Whenever somebody says ''they never covered it'' - 99% of the time that just aint true.
small e.g: http://fox17.trb.com/chi-0409030248sep03,0,3688685.story.
That was from a simple search and not a very in depth one.
Buried under the endless amount of Fox bashing articles - i'm positive there is a vast amout of coverage of protests on Fox.
The end of the day even if there was not - Fox is a commercial network.
Switch OFF Fox- Turn ON C-span.

The BBC maybe the worlds most respected news broadcaster - covered the protests.
Minute by Minute NO - The majority of the time they highlight what the protest is about then move on - especially when it about something like protesting Fox news.

The UK mainstream media covers practically nothing about the anti-Bush gatherings overseas.
Do you not think it is a ratings loser - is it really news anymore ?.
We all know the image and hatred for the man - maybe covering these protests has just got old.
It is not like they cover them up - they just know they are covered in another medium.
Does ITV have full coverage of the houses of parliament and the endless commitee meetings ? - No because they know the BBC does that.

You all seem to want something from a organisation that can cover the news how it likes. You have the opportunity to turn it on or off.
When we live in 1984esque world where you can't turn the boxes in your room off - then I might start to share some of your concerns.

I get the picture Shaggie - no need to go overboard.
Have you not realised YOU are being unfair and unbalanced and YOU are spouting propoganda ?.
You moan and groan about the media doing the same thing and you do it yourself - we all do to varying degrees.
We are all hypocrites - again to varying degrees.

 

No overboard here. There are big problems with the news media in the U.S., especially video media. Many have grown tired of the way news is sugar coated and sanitized by the media. People complain about the BBC but they are actually good compared with what's going on in the U.S. EuroNews is one of the better networks I've seen. They simply cover the stories and for the most part without all the tabloid fanfare and bias.

.

 

Anyway, good luck with their plans for Iran. I hope the Iraq debacle stays fresh in the minds of Americans for years to come. In some respects it was good that it became another Vietnam of sorts. The younger generation that didn't experience Vietnam needs a taste of it so that they won't trust their leaders with blind faith.

.

 

I'm sure many people have - I have grown tired of my own news media.
Not because it is ''sugar coated and sanitized'' - that is partially true.
It is not as bad as some of the network news I have seen from the states.
It is because none of it is really that different.
They are all basically saying the same thing over and over again.
The BBC are not that ''good'' anymore.
They are only ''good'' because they have a ''good'' reputation - in comparison to the majority of the news ''out there''.
They have a huge resource [thanks to us mugs] but just are crap nowadays - all they seem to do is read the breaking news on sky news and parrot the newspapers of the day - pretty much ever since they decided to do a hatchet job on the goverment.
Ok that might be a tad extreme but it certainly feel that way sometimes - i know they can do good - they could just do better.
Instead of delievering to the lowest common denominator.
That is not my bias and prejudice talking it is a reality..
Sit through it for a few months and you will find it to be shite.
I only watch a few news related programmes on the BBC anymore - Hard talk - Head to Head and the parliament channel.

In the UK we only have the option of 5 news varients - 3 of them coming from the same source just spun differently.
We don't have [unless you have a satelite or cable] access to the multitude of differing news that is ''out there''.
How many do the ''average jo'' in America have ?.

I'd love to have more access to Fox news - atleast it would not make me fall asleep.
All i'm saying is Fox news is one of many many news organisations - it just gets OTT abuse from liberals - cuz they love complaining.

I said you were going overboard not with your denouncement of the modern mainstream media - ''go for it'' in that department.
You just added a few [3 infact] cheap swipes that got us nowhere imho.

What happened to you Shaggie - I remember you being atleast a little objective now it seems you are ''one of them''.

What I have found is that the liberal and conservative doctrines and ''arguements'' don't really alter. Those apposed to warfare can cut and paste their oppinion on the majority of conflicts - it all seems to be a pretty much ''bog standard'' stuff. The names may change the cliches do not.
That is not to meant to be a insult anybody or me coming up with a huge revelation [it aint] it is just a sad truism imho.
I think the ''younger generation'' need to became original and not fall back into the crap that was said in the 60s.

 

the americans never learnt anything from vietnam

i'm sure you'll find that wouldn't be one year since ww2 they have stayed at home . if america concentrated on manufacturing most of its own goods and utilising its assets, it wouldn't need to go bombing around the globe to secure someone elses.

if america had the electric car do you think they would be in iraq for oil now?? people like al gore probably understand this, by solving the carbon problem you start solving a lot of other problems too.

 

Ofcourse they have - maybe not the American people.

Actual declared war ? lots of years guy - if that is what you mean.

You need to build a bridge and get over this long outdated protectionist idea.
Emerging markets have pushed you guys out of the way.
You are still one of the richest economies in the world and the people the wealthiest on the planet. Yes there are the haves and the have nots - that occured even in the hacienda days you so idealise.
You have progressed passed ''manafacturing'' jobs - those are now for other countries.
Let them move out of poverty into prosperity.

Al Gore -

In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:


(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.

(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.

(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.

(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.

(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.

(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

Al seems to have forgoten a lot of things and likes to rewrite history.
So i'd not trust him to be the best person to understand anything - with out lashings and lashings of ''false impressions'' of his own.

America does have electric cars - oh you mean all of them.
I have little doubt America would still be in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Your particular prejudice seems to be ''war for oil'' others have the rationale as ''revenge''.
Regardless - I think America would still be there imho.
I have the unpopular opinion of neither of the above.

 

maybe you should be in the government i'm sure you could do some massive revision of history, then again you normally do now. you would have a sparkling career in "the ministry of truth".

 

I should ''be goverment'' wow that would be cool.
I'd like to be IN goverment - possibly in child welfare or international development.

Not intentionaly - that is the difference.
Al gore is supposed to know a darn sight more than I do.
You just have to read some of the stuff he said to know he talks out the side of his mouth and is a lying bastard.

You have said ''Even Hitler wanted peace'' how fucking revisionist and counterfactual is THAT.
Negating that you say ''Under his own terms''.
Is that supposed to make it more true/acceptable ?.
Yeah he maybe wanted ''peace'' for the german people - ignoring his wishes to obliterate every other fucker - maybe near the end attempting to salvage some kind of ''fatherland'' yeah great sign of peace that is.
With that kinda logic and prejudice - you could say Bush wants peace ''under his own terms'' ofcourse.

I've been reading 1984 again.
What a pile of shite it is.

 

matthew i just feel sorry for you these days.

take care

 

Why guy ?.

Why not just tell me to ''join up'' it has been a few weeks since you asked me to do that. Forget any meaningful responses anymore.

 

oh i know you won't join up
you prefer spending time here

having lived in the uk i realise how hard for people to understand any other view other than the government's, its only when you have lived outside the box that your eyes are opened. appealing to logic or history won't work.

my advice for you is to travel