'USS Cole a war declaration on region'

reply to post by budski

---

Oh, well yeah I remember that. That was the very beginning, when most were still under the impression the bad intel was good, and we were there to remove WMD's, etc. Since then, the media has turned on Bush big time, and just about every media outlet, besides Fox of course, is very critical of the war and this administration. You have to acknowledge that the Iranian leaders have a much tighter grip on their media, at this point anyway.

reply to post by 27jd

---

At this point yes, perhaps - after all, what do we really know about iran apart from what the press tells us?
At the moment they seem to be as rabidly anti-iran as they were anti iraq, before the war.

I really don't trust the MSM at all.

A couple more quotes from hitler:
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.

You really believe that an Iranian state run source is as credible as US MSM sources? These sources are biased, but they at least have to use corroborated info. I somehow doubt that the Iranian media has journalistic constraints where they follow that standard. For all the bias that exists in the western media, they at least are generally accurate with the raw facts. They may choose what emphasis to put on things, but the viewer if astute can see through that. Arab/mid East media are far from accurate with their raw facts, and have been caught numerous times in bogus stories.

Well, we can communicate with Iranians who are not wrapped up in all the religious BS. Younger Iranians are very sophisticated, and they are fighting against the Mullahs who try and run every aspect of their lives, including the music and culture they enjoy, etc. Iran isn't North Korea, there is no iron wall, it's fairly transparent what goes on there.



Yeah, but the run up to the Iraq war was quick and extremely focused. Their intentions were clear from the start. Not the case with Iran, I honestly see no indication whatsoever we have any intention of attacking them. I see, at the most, continued efforts through the UN and pointless sanctions if anything. Bush has NO momentum to convince us there is any reason to attack Iran. On ATS, the US has been imminently going to attack Iran any day for about 2 years. Every month or so, a new thread would pop up outlining the reasons the US was going to attack any moment, and it ALWAYS just faded away.



It's not that I don't "trust" them, I just loathe them for their continued coverage of stories that have ZERO impact on ANY of our lives, like this prostitute BS. It's making me SICK. I could care less about the governor's personal life, just today there was a front page story about the whore herself, like we REALLY give a crap. Oh well, I don't even take MSM serious enough to bother deciding whether I trust them. They're just rating whores.



The least intelligent are the ONLY ones who buy it on either side anyway, lol.



There are pros and cons to everything my friend, and both sides usually have a valid point in their own way. It just comes down to which side you perosnally feel is the "rightest", lol. But it's important not to shut out all opposing views, in most cases, and be sure to evaluate all new developments in a situation, and not be so entrenched in a position that you HAVE to maintain it regardless. The US has many interests in the region, our societies life blood flows in that region, so it is in our best interest to keep some kind of grip there. I know it's not our land to control, but that hasn't stopped mankind from doing so since the beginning of time. Nice guys finish last. Sad but true.

reply to post by 27jd

---

This is the point I've been making all along - irans point of view is just as valid as anyone else's.

Another point I'd make, is that if the regime was as oppressive as some seem to think, we wouldn't hear anything at all.

In my opinion, a democratic theocracy is a bad idea - in time, things may change, but not anytime soon...

And of course, in your view, the western media never has.

I trust the western media as far as I could throw poland - this doesn't mean that I trust mideast media either, but let's not forget that in general they deal with a less sophisticated/educated audience.

And state run or not, it's still a valid point of view for them.

Sure, but when points of view clash, and diplomacy fails, it's the country with the ability to project it's will that is seen as the bully. If we lose control of most of the oil in the region, we're screwed. Period. Our society is addicted to it, and SO many of our day to day activities and living depend on oil. China and India have recently emerged as competitors for the oil in a big way, so our very ways of life are at stake and even our survival. So, personally, I'm going to side with my own. I'm not willing to trade the moral high ground for my own survival, and that's what it comes down to, until we can sustain ourselves using alternate energy sources. Iran's leaders would love nothing more than to bring our nation to a crashing halt, and they are aware of our need for oil, and they have alot of influence in the region. And remember, your country is much more closely tied to mine than to Iran, OUR ways of life and even our survival, depend on this kind of gunship diplomacy.



They are very oppressive, but not the most oppressive by far, I agree.



Hopefully that change comes from the inside when it does happen.

reply to post by 27jd

---

That's very true, but that doesn't make it right, and that's what some people fail to realise.

I know we don't live in a perfect world, but this is a discussion board where a point of view, whether unrealistic or not, can be expressed with just as much validity as another.

In a purely moral sense, most of what the US and UK does is patently wrong - if I did the same KIND of thing in the street, I would be arrested, but somehow people think that because their nation engages in such behaviour, it's ok.
I disagree...

Well, if our contries didn't engage in such behavior, we would be mowed over and under the thumbs of those that would engage in worse behavior if they were in the position of the only superpower, such as Russia or China. Do you honestly think that if our countries weren't in the picture, that they would behave differently? Well, they probably would, they would not even try to create the illusion that they had good intentions. These wars are being fought for essential resources (at the moment) that are dwindling, and civilizations will clash when resources become scarce. It's a fight for survival, not against religious idiots, but against complete meltdown of our civilization if we don't come up with a viable alternative to oil, in the meantime, we're all scrambling to get as much a we can to sustain us until then. Increased demand, and decreased supply are bad things, and the few who are making all the money off our problems are greedy bastards. Gas prices are ridiculous right now.

reply to post by 27jd

---

Absolutely, all true, unfortunately.

However, that doesn't change the morality of it, or the fact that it's morally wrong, in the same way that many things throughout history have been morally wrong, even reprehensible.

reply to post by budski

---

I can't for the life of me think of any civilization that has behaved even semi-consistently in a morally sound manner throughout the history of our species. Everybody has taken something from somebody weaker at some point. I think it's not just the nature of mankind, but the nature of life on this planet for the most part. Survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, with the occasional good deed and moment of compassion here and there. I think you're holding our countries to a standard higher than possible on this planet.

That said, this incident seems more a message to Hizbullah, to persuade them not to take advantage of the turmoil in Lebanon to attack Israel from there. I think when the US says they want to support the stability of the region, they may actually mean it in this case. We probably don't want the democratic process that's trying to form in Lebanon to be crushed by another Hizbullah vs. Israel exchange there. Seems like a legitimately noble, albeit in our interest, thing to do. Israel tends to be alot more heavy handed than us sometimes....