Iraqi Elections Now History

I guess that puts the BBC and CBS below Fox doesn't it?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Let's assume for a moment that the election proves to have been a smashing success and everything comes up roses from here on out in Iraq. That would seem to endorse the latest in the dynamic line of raisons d'tre for this war: the imposition of freedom on oppressed people.I wonder where this gung ho attitude for freedom was during the Reagan years. Would today's reds have supported a war to remove the Botha government in South Africa? After all, that government was one of the most repressive in history. Much like the Sunnis when the Baathists ran Iraq, the whites in South Africa were a very small minority controlling a majority (and exploiting their natural resources, again as in Iraq) through terrorist tactics. The Reagan administration fought the mere imposition of UN sanctions against South Africa.When democracy finally did come to South Africa (during the Clinton administration, btw), the citizens newly freed from oppression were just as enthusiastic about voting as the Iraqis were Sunday.If neocons are true to their logic, they should go on record as condemning the foreign policy of the Reagan administration.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but... Actually this would not be true. Even if the election had 100% turnout, it does not indicate the actual path being taken will end up helping anyone in the long run, nor that they are more free (other than to elect representatives and express political opinion).Remember they were not free to run candidates, or even know the candidates, as we do in a democracy. Indeed the winners must conform to predetermined and imposed representational models in order to avoid actual democratic activity taking place.I am not trying to be overly pessimistic as to what will happen for the Iraqis. I hope that the new government will increasingly set the stage for more accurate representation, and at the same time I hope that life will improve for the ordinary Iraqi.But that is different than saying we actually brought freedom to these people. Less repression? Hopefully yes. Actual freedom? Some way off. And then there will be the question of if we like what free Iraqis will desire.One day Americans may be pouring oil and gasoline into the gutter and avoiding Iraqi run restaurants to show their disgust over free Iraqis choosing not to support the US in some future fiasco. What's interesting is what the old reds were doing in Afghanistan. They were actually and truly freeing the people. They had improved education and the lot of women in Afghani society. We (and that means Reagan) called it an invasion, when it was simply supporting the puppet democratic government they were running.So Reagan ran the religious extremists against the free people in order to defeat the reds. Decades later we are now fighting the same extremists and for the same reasons and facing our own training. Now we call them and their tactics evil, and our improving education and the lot of women in Afghanistan "good".Those neocons better be blasting Reagan. But don't worry, they won't.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-01-2005 05:25 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Tal, do you get BBC in Iraq? If so, do you honestly believe the coverage of Fox is better than BBC regarding world events?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Yes we get the BBC here. The bottom line for me is I believe whatever news (not political pundits) Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and the BBC put forth as news. If those organizations make gross mistakes they have to correct those mistakes, ie CBS (Memogate) and the BBC story. As far as coverage being "better," they are all in the same ball park IMO. I'll usually have Fox running for an hour, then switch to the BBC or CNN for an hour.But all this talk about Fox having no credibility is silly. If Fox reports a news story and it turns out to be false, they will have to correct the mistake just like anybody else.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I commend you on looking at many different sources of news, however... No, really, it has no credibility.You know the Weekly World News and National Enquirer also have to correct any mistatements they make? Just because they do I assume this does not make them the equivalent of regular newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor?I'm sure you realize that these others are fluff and mainly entertainment, starting with an incredible or emotion laden story to hook readers and then end with the more truthful story to avoid libel. However the latter part is so small it gets overwhelmed by the "fun" facts.Similarly, Fox presents facts in such a skewed manner as to make them unintelligible and often leading to an opposite conclusion one should be coming away with, but puts asses in the seats by being entertaining. Unfortunately those asses usually end up missing the understated facts and remembering the BOLD PRINTED LIES.A great example is the number of Fox news articles you have cited here at EvC.They had titles which seemed to suggest what you said was indicated by evidence, and indeed the first few paragraphs were written as if to seem that the facts justified such a position. Only if you finish reading them they end by saying all that came before was speculative and not useful for drawing the conclusion proposed.Not only did I point this out to you, but you have yet to admit this was the case, which suggests to me that you are sticking with the false front story (the propaganda fearmongering innuendo) instead of the more rational conclusions at the end.This is of course fitting with people that read the Enquirer and WWN who also buy the incredible stories and dismiss the ends of the stories which usually state that it was all theoretical and there facts really don't support the conclusion.That is indeed the recipe for all spin and propaganda when the facts are against you. Mislead and state the nonfacts, or out of context facts, or false conclusions so many times and so emphatically that by the end people are likely to miss the smaller segment devoted to the actual facts and conclusions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I don't know. Not aware of that.

lol, anyone got a link to that article, I'd love to read it.

quote:

---

But all this talk about Fox having no credibility is silly. If Fox reports a news story and it turns out to be false, they will have to correct the mistake just like anybody else.

---

But they don't, that's just it.Ever heard of F.A.I.R?"Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting"It's a non-partisan media watchdog group. Please note that it is NON-partisan. They go after anybody that distorts or lies in the news media. This includes their heavy bias that they call "fair and balanced" instead of what it is; "Heavy right-wing bias". That is the biggest lie of all.Read these pages:Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIR
Page not found - FAIRHere are some reprorts

So tell me schra, why haven't the other "credible" news organizations called Fox on all of these "false reports?"

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

First, even if Fox reported something false and then came out and apologiezed for it, they would still have credibility.Second, it has no credibility to YOU because they report facts you don't like to hear. There are 2 ways that you can prove Fox has no credibility. 1: Other Main news organizaions can bust them out on one of these stories (see memogate at CBS). 2: Fox comes out and says, "We got his one wrong, sorry about that."

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Let me start by agreeing with the above statement. That is true for any news organization. Just because something is reported inaccurately, does not itself mar the entire news organization. That's funny because you are replying to a post that tells you what I don't like about Fox, why I consider it a less than credible news source, and it wasn't the above.Indeed I see nothing in your reply that actually responds to the points made in my post at all. Maybe its because you don't like the facts you are hearing. Let me try again and see if you are willing to respond to that actual points I am making.Just because a news source includes accurate factual information and in so doing avoids libel, does not make it a good news source. There are ways of pitching information so as to subvert a viewers accurate understanding of the facts and come to an erroneous conclusion.If you watch Fox then you must be aware of this idea, it is the entire premise of the FoxNEWS network in general, and the O'Reilly show in specific, remember? They state that other networks are propagandistic not because they get stories wrong, but that they deliver them with a slanted viewpoint, a liberal viewpoint, and thus distort the news.Now if you understand that concept, which is what FOX is saying, then you should be able to understand what I am saying. I am turning their own argument back on them, saying that it is actually they who are the overt propagandists, delivering the news in such a slanted fashion (a conservative bias) that the news is distorted.Not only that but I mentioned that this case has already been made (proven) by me to YOU. The fact that you refuse to address this issue, will not make it go away.You cited a FoxNEWS article regarding the UN OFP to make a point that there was some scandal which could implicate some nations as having allowed the Iraq war to happen to continue getting their take, and suggests that the UN might be a worthless money-stealing organization in general. That indeed is what the headline looked like as well as the opening jingoistic paragraphs of relative non-information.While the bare facts were presented within the article and by the end the very people making the legal charges against the UN were STATING THE EXACT OPPOSITE POINT THAN THAT OF FOX'S INNUENDO AND YOUR OWN ASSESSMENT, their words and the facts were drowned out by the ton of innuendo added to make the medicine go down for their true believer audience.Now do you understand my point? You can keep saying Fox presents facts and admit when they are wrong. That is also true of other news sources and so beyond the reach of what I am saying. I am talking about how the news is presented... you know, like what Fox says about other channels.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

So tell me schra, why haven't the other "credible" news organizations called Fox on all of these "false reports?"

---

Why on earth would you expect them to?1) US Network news is not about good reporting anymore. It is about entertainment, ratings, advertising revenue, and making profits for the shareholders.In other words, it is just about making money, not journalism.All each of the news outlets is trying to do is get market share, which is why you see many of the other networks trying to imitate Fox News, because Fox news gets a lot of market share.2) There are fewer than a dozen large, multinational companies which control most of the major media in the US. These companies' leadership and their CEO's tend strongly to be politically right-leaning, or at least supportive of politicians who promote an unregulated media industry.3) Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corporation (parent company to Fox News), is very powerful, not in small part because he is so useful to the Republican leadership. He very clearly uses Fox News to further his own political ends. That is why Fox News is an uncritical NeoCon cheerleader, mouthpiece of the NeoCon faction of the Republican party, and denigrator of all things not 100% NeoCon.So, are you going to address any of the facts of the F.A.I.R. reports I linked you to?

Tal, remember that story I told you about my being in a US military hotel in Tokyo several years ago, and when Fox News came on the TV, the tagline was, "Part of the Team".Knowing that this was the tagline, would you or would you not expect Fox News to provide critical analysis of the actions of the administration or of what was going on with the Iraq invasion?Yes or no?

Tal, I know that the UN thread was hijacked with a failed contracycle intervention attempt, but my message to you about the supposed multinational coalition still stands, waiting for your reply.