It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mwm1331
"A CEO of a large corporation does nothing but golf, do photo ops and give speeches"
Quongo that is possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Its shows a lack of understanding of business that is staggering in its scope, and mindblowing in its depth.
but the fact is the president of the United States has a LOT more on his plate than the P.M. of australia.
The fact is any time you have that large a group of diverse people who are ALL looking to make a name for themselves by exposing a secret, secrets will be exposed.
the president does have to be involved in world affairs at that caiber. the U.S. is the largest economy in the world, commits more troops worldwide to peacekeeping missions than any other country, and gives more friegn aid than any other country.
Originally posted by electric squid carpet
The fact is any time you have that large a group of diverse people who are ALL looking to make a name for themselves by exposing a secret, secrets will be exposed.
indeed, and people will be confused and mislead in the resulting white noise and discrediting techniques. It started to happen here in Australia for the first time. It all seems really childish but regardless of that, the public eats it up without taking time to sit down and make sense of it all, i guess it all comes down to following your heart and what you feel is right.
I seriously think the world would be a much better place without the media, but then again everyone would be in the dark.
While I agree that media moguls like rupert murdock and ted turner do have an interest in portraying stories in a certain light to advance thier own agenda I don't honestly believe they have much success in actually doing so.
But I fail to see how my personal beliefs and upbringing has anything to do with the media. If you can't make a coherant point, or make use of logical reasoning then I would request that you stay off my thread as there is a minimum intelligence requirement. If however you can use logic and reason as the tools they are then by all means prove it.
The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys.
Hundreds of new newspapers have been formed since the takeover most of which have been dedicated to bad mouthing America, but how many of these people would have been willing to do the same under the old regime?
But there is more opportunity in raq today than at any time in the last 25 years and growing all the time
As a direct result of the U.S. liberation Iraq will be a FAR less fertile ground for terrorist recruters in the future.
People say that the U.S. wants to make Iraq an American colony and yet we have turned over legal authority to the Iraqui interim government a full 2 days early.
Originally posted by Jakomo
mwm:
But I fail to see how my personal beliefs and upbringing has anything to do with the media. If you can't make a coherant point, or make use of logical reasoning then I would request that you stay off my thread as there is a minimum intelligence requirement. If however you can use logic and reason as the tools they are then by all means prove it.
First off, questioning my logic or stating there's some kind of "minimum intelligence requirement" is not a particularly good way to prove your point.
Secondly, your "beliefs" about your country happen to coincide pretty closely with the CNN/FOX party line.
from your original post on this thread:
The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys.
Actually, Iraqis ARE being seized in the middle of the night by Marines on "raids", and, um, wasn't there a huge torture scandal in Iraq in the past few weeks? I know it's not covered that much on all the major US networks (or if it is it's a 90 second story followed by the latest breaking news in the Laci Peterson case).
Yeah, but not for Iraqis. Unemployment is still rampant and US corporations are getting the bulk of the reconstruction deals.
Hundreds of new newspapers have been formed since the takeover most of which have been dedicated to bad mouthing America, but how many of these people would have been willing to do the same under the old regime?
Papers that are anti-American have been forcibly closed by the Coalition. Not much freedom of the press, sorry, it's been on the BBC, CBC, and AP and Reuters newswires.
One Iraqui newspaper has been shut down for 60 dys. The paper is Al Hawza whch is published by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The same man whose militia killed numerous civilians as well as soldiers in Najaf. The same man who is still a prime suspect in the murder of a fellow shiite cleric. A man who has more than once called for american blood and whos paper has consitantly distorted facts in order to recruit new members for an extremist organisation known as the �Medhi� Gross misrepresentation of the facts in order to incite violence is not allowed by any country in the world. However outside of this one incident I have seen no evidence presented that it is happening n an ongoing and or sytemic basis. Your use of the plural form of paper seems to be unwaranted. One event does not comprise a trend while the fact remains that many many new newspapers have been founded since the regime change.
But there is more opportunity in raq today than at any time in the last 25 years and growing all the time
As a direct result of the U.S. liberation Iraq will be a FAR less fertile ground for terrorist recruters in the future.
People say that the U.S. wants to make Iraq an American colony and yet we have turned over legal authority to the Iraqui interim government a full 2 days early.
The makeup of the government was chosen to insure that a diverse array of Iraqui viepoints was addressed in the transition. Agian this is only the secnd stage in the proceess, your criticism at this point, on the lack of elected government is premature.
These questions are addressed in the international media, but very rarely in the US mainstream media.
If you believe only what you see on CNN and FOX, you may believe that the Invasion of Iraq was necessary and has been a success and the handover is real.
All are lies.quote]
I believe I have already addresed that point.
In summation you have consitantly projected isolated situation and unique circumstances onto the whole. While in some situations that is a valid method for determining reality, without the abillity to show multiple examples it also easily distorts perception of reality.
[edit on 30-6-2004 by mwm1331]
"What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law,"
To say that Iraquis are being seized in the middle of the night is a statement which is accurate due to its broad generality. I could say just as accuratly that the french government is seizing frenchmen in the middle of the night. The importantce here is not in generalities but in the specifics of the situation
. But to say that the injustices comitted at abu ghraib by 6 disturbed and criminal individuals is in any way of the same order of magitude in repugnance as the events which took place at the same location under the former regimes direction does, I feel show a lack of both perspective and understanding.
Your assumption that I recieve my news from the "US networks" is also incorrect. I currently work in europe and have traveled to Berlin, Amsterdam, Budapest, London and Prague in the last month alone.
In addition the terroist attacks mandated that the coalition focus thier resources on rebuilding the countries various security aparatus literlly from the top down as anyone who had been in power previously was by definition unsuitable for the job.
American corporations getting the bulk of the reconstructon contracts because so few of the iraquis have the financial, techncal or logistical ability to do so.
You are predisposed to believe that America is on the side of the devils while I am predisposed to beleve tht my nation, people, and government are on the side of the angels. While I agree that mistakes have been made you have yet to show evidence of either malice.
In summation you have consitantly projected isolated situation and unique circumstances onto the whole. While in some situations that is a valid method for determining reality, without the abillity to show multiple examples it also easily distorts perception of reality.
Originally posted by Jakomo
mwm1331:
To say that Iraquis are being seized in the middle of the night is a statement which is accurate due to its broad generality. I could say just as accuratly that the french government is seizing frenchmen in the middle of the night. The importantce here is not in generalities but in the specifics of the situation
Okay let me make it clearer. You said, The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys..
Well the FACT is they ARE being seized in the middle of the night. You didn't say "certain" ones, YOU made the generality, and it turns out to be a FALSE generality. Not only do they still have to fear nighttime raids but torture as well.
My response- You seem to be unable to make a distiction between legal arrest of suspected criminals (which is what the U.S. does) and the immoral arrest of those whos only crime is a dissenting opinion. Again this shows a lack of understanding. It would seem that your prejudices have made you unable to comprehend the truth.
. But to say that the injustices comitted at abu ghraib by 6 disturbed and criminal individuals is in any way of the same order of magitude in repugnance as the events which took place at the same location under the former regimes direction does, I feel show a lack of both perspective and understanding.
To believe that only 6 people were involved in the torture scandal ESPECIALLY after all the recently de-classified memos shows to me that YOU have the lack of perspective and understanding.
And comparing the USA's conduct to Saddam is not exactly the greatest comparison you can make. Why don't yopu just say, "Okay so we tortured and killed a few prisoners but we didn't gas them like Hitler".
Comparing the US' conduct to a dictatorial regime is not a fair comparison.
Your assumption that I recieve my news from the "US networks" is also incorrect. I currently work in europe and have traveled to Berlin, Amsterdam, Budapest, London and Prague in the last month alone.
So how do you not know about all the news reports on the fact that the torture scandal went far higher up than just 6 single offenders? How do you NOT know that this is far from an isolated incident?
www.taipeitimes.com...
www.disinfopedia.org...
abcnews.go.com...
My response- Yes I was aware of these allegations however at this point that is all they are. Alegtions of guilt are not proof of guilt.You are aware of the difference between one who is charged and one who is convcted are you not? Also thank you as the source documentation you provided has helped to prove my point. While under Saddams regime these types of offenses were ordered by the government under the U.S. coalition the allegations are being investigated by criminal nvestigators with an eye towards prosecution if these charges are born out. And no it is not fair to compare the U.S. to a dictatorial regime which I why I take offense when you do.
In addition the terroist attacks mandated that the coalition focus thier resources on rebuilding the countries various security aparatus literlly from the top down as anyone who had been in power previously was by definition unsuitable for the job.
And yet there is hardly ANY Iraqi National Guard yet, the police are woefully undertrained and the Iraqi Army is laughable. After 2 years of Occupation. And don't give me the "those who were in power previously are unsuitable" because there are former Ba'athists all over the new Iraqi government.
My response- First I think that the iraqui police, army, and national guardsmen who put thier lives on the line for thier country every day would be insulted by those statements. Second while there are some ba'athist in the new government not all members of the party were either high ranking nor criminals In many ways these people may be compared to Max Schmeling who while officially a member of the Nazi party was in no way in line with thier views or responsible for thier crimes.
American corporations getting the bulk of the reconstructon contracts because so few of the iraquis have the financial, techncal or logistical ability to do so.
Who did they rely on for all this help before the USA invaded? Themselves. Given a fair chance, of course they could rebuild, it's naive to think that the USA is better at fixing Iraq than the IRAQI PEOPLE.
My response- Actually prior to this the people relied on the government. The lack of heavy machinery and the lack of funds at the present time however is a major hinderence to construction.
You are predisposed to believe that America is on the side of the devils while I am predisposed to beleve tht my nation, people, and government are on the side of the angels. While I agree that mistakes have been made you have yet to show evidence of either malice.
I am predisposed to look at the situation in a realistic manner. And the evidence is in the news every single day.
My response- And yet you have yet to provde any evidence
The USA is not on the side of the Iraqi people, they are on the side of the US. Thus, they don't even count civilian casualties, and when it comes to the handover, they pull it off as a SURPRISE to the entire country and the world. Hey Muhammed, wake up, we're free as of 15 minutes ago.
As if it's a birthday party that needs to be rescheduled because of rain.
My response- The interim government was reafy early why not handover power early?
In summation you have consitantly projected isolated situation and unique circumstances onto the whole. While in some situations that is a valid method for determining reality, without the abillity to show multiple examples it also easily distorts perception of reality.
Um, I AM the one bringing up valid points, you've shown no multiple examples of any FACTS except your penchant for slapping big words into a sentence.
My response- You have consistantly made unfounded accusation and when challeged have produced no evidence of your claims. I do not need to show proof to refute your claims I need only show your lack of evidentiary support. It is up to you as the accuser to provide evidence which you have so far failed to do. You continously claim a systemic and state sponsored regime of terror exists in Iraq which is supported by the highest levels of U.S. government yet you are unable to provide any proof beyond a few isolated instances and outright exaggeration.
Oh and P.S., If there is a God, he wants to be kept out of this mess and doesn't appreciate people claiming to know His Mind and has NO love for people who say they are exclusively His Chosen.
My response- First you say that he does not appreciate those who claim to know his mind and then you state his opinions? Good job even for you, to contradict yourself not within a paragraph but within a single sentace is truly an achievement.
Originally posted by mwm1331
My response- You have consistantly made unfounded accusation and when challeged have produced no evidence of your claims. I do not need to show proof to refute your claims I need only show your lack of evidentiary support. .
My response- First you say that he does not appreciate those who claim to know his mind and then you state his opinions? Good job even for you, to contradict yourself not within a paragraph but within a single sentace is truly an achievement.