what goal is Bush Iraq War?
 

1. Pass Iraq heavy Weapon away.
2. Energy.
3. Transfer economy reducing to War.
4. Others.

Now I don't know why the war broke out.

This is what we've been debating here for a long time. Bush says that he attacked Iraq because they have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Whether he's telling the truth is anybody's guess.

Some Americans believe that Bush attacked Iraq because he wants their oil. Some believe he attacked Iraq because they helped the terrorists, and some say it is because they had "Weapons of Mass Destruction". In truth, though, only Bush and his administration really know the reasons for what they're doing.

Also, because of the fear of terrorism, Americans who criticize Bush are often accused of being "unpatriotic". Some feel that we should follow him unquestioningly, because he's our leader.

Most people here on The Cellar think this is really stupid, but in America the belief is very widespread.

Juju

I don't know how widespread that idea really is. Most of the flesh and blood people i know hold to their beliefs (on either side) for good reasons. They don't blindly support war because their president said so any more than they are opposed to war because Martin Sheen said so.

I've never heard anyone called "unpatriotic" for disagreeing with Bush. I've never heard anyone say that blind obiescence to the president is one of the obligations of being a good american.

Truth is, the only place I hear these things is from the people claiming that they are being repressed. It seems like a defense against an attack that was never, or very seldom, made.

History will give one answer
 

Now we can not give answer. Maybe the history would give us.

Whatever it was, I hope he will not attacked other country again.

smoothmoniker - tell that to the Dixie Chicks.

There are a large group of peoplr that get their news primarily from FAUX News, MSNBC, and CNN. These people feel that they are very wellinformed and they base their decisions upon the informaiton and the spin presented within those networks. People don't think that they have been propagandized, because the channel that was pushing the propaganda kept caliming to be "fair and balanced". There are also millions of country music listeners, Rush listeners, Dr. Laura listeners, and O'Reailly listeners that hear an endless onslaught of Republican spin - and digest it as relevant news.

This creates the impression that one is well informed while still maintainting the veil of ignorance that allows the administration to mold public opinion.

I find it humorous that you imply O'Reilly is a Republican propagandist when the truth is that he's probably one of the more liberal people on TV these days.

My guess is that you don't like him because he's honest, be it in his attacks on Republicans or Democrats or just some regular idiots. The truth hurts.

Re: what goal is Bush Iraq War?
 

Some folks think its part of a wider geopolitical program to keep China or the EU from challenging America's global dominance by assuring US control over cheap energy.

Whoa, dude! You're starting to sound like Radar.
Do you really feel that the people that don't agree with you, don't because they are uninformed? Ignorant of the truth? Molded by the administration? Do you feel it's impossible for someone to have all the information you do and still be diametrically opposed to your position?
If so, you're in for a rude one.

Guess causes
 

I think it is not a simple problem to analyze. There are many aspects to think about. The US really want to dominate the world, but they need one "cause". Now we are guessing the real causes.

Billy, are you a Chinese government agent trying to influence the USA over the internet?:D
Just joking Billy, but you could. There's a lot to be said for one on one communication. I don't know you. I only know what you've told me about yourself. But, I feel what you say is more important than what the news media tells me that "The Chinese feel" about the current events.
I wonder if you get a different impression of how Americans think, from the Cellar, than you from the media?

The Cellar members are kindful like America
 

In fact I often complain my government in China. I hope the government improve diaphaneity. Don't seal too many realities to the public. We have right to know the truths.

But here I want to told you a real China. It is not so beautiful that every one have a best life and not so poor that every one have a worst life. We have poor and rich people in the same time.

I just want to show my ponts, don't care if you receive my views. You have your views.

From Cellar I feel that not all the USA people hope to have war with other tountry like Bush. You are all kindful to help me. Day by day I can know a real America.

Now I am preparing for the GRE/GMAT/TOEFL tests because I really want go abroad to study in North America. I can find differences from different experiences. I just see China and don't know the real world if I saty in China for one life. The communication make me learn more new knowledge.

i know most people here are smarter than the average bear, but I figured some of us might be able to use this

carry on.

-sm

Wow. I just assumed that it wasn't a word.

Maybe I am wrong
 

I want to say that the govnernment work in the public supervising. Open to the public.

This is what we do:

Every area chooses representatives for their area. The government officials votes are in public. Their meetings are open to the people - the most important meetings are shown on television. The officials are held responsible for their votes and decisions, at least as long as the people can remember them. Usually they don't remember by election day, but at least the fools are kept out.

These days, many people believe that the political process is corrupted by richer people getting more attention because they give money to the advertising of the candidates they agree with. Without this advertising, it is difficult to get elected to government, because most people will not vote for you because they don't know who you are.

It is difficult, but not impossible, for government officials to receive huge bribes because their personal finances are made public as a part of campaign financing laws.

In the Daili Lama's guide for the new millennium.
"Know the rules thoroughly, so you may break them properly"
Billy, it seems the people of Tibet do not feel they are Chinese and don't want to be part of China. But they're being held captive while there traditional culture and way of life is being destroyed.
I can understand how China would wish to reunite with Taiwan as they were/are Chinese in recent memory.
But Tibet seems to be more of a hostile takeover.
Comment?

Fair and balanced - 'cause we say so. You see, ususally something has to actually be true - in order for it to be true - unless you are on FAUX News. You say: "Bill is one of the more liberal people on TV". I say: What are you watching?! "The 700 Club"? I have listened to that guy misquote statistics, mischaracterize people, skew the arguments to the right, and generally spin to a sickening degree - all over the "No Spin Zone".

Let's pick out some bit of O'Reilly's liberal spin:

September 17, 2001 10:45 p.m. -- Bill O'Reilly, Fox News talk show star, called tonight for mass terrorism against the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

O'Reilly advocated completely destroying the civilian infrastructure of those countries, as well as mining the harbors of Tripoli, Libya.

Then, O'Reilly said, those populations will have two choices: starve, or overthrow their governments.

"Knock their food supply out and their water supply out and those people will have to overthrow the Taliban. It's either that or they die."

"The population must be made to endure another round of intense pain" O'Reilly said of Iraqi civilians.

Regarding Libya, O'Reilly says, "Let them eat sand."

Even a military counter-terrorism expert on the show, retired Major General Paul Vallely, when asked his opinion of O'Reilly's plan, balked. Vallely warned O'Reilly that such a course of action would hurt "all the other people that are not part of that regime."

O'Reilly said he didn't care: if people were going to go down, better the civilians than U.S. troops.

Then there is this Personal Stories interview with Jeremy Glick - son of man killed in the WTC:

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism.

The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam."

With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible."

I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK, FATHER DIED IN WORLD TRADE CENTER: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.



Yeah - he really is a pinko commie bastard.

Scott, such a long quote could easily have been reduced to two simple links. Like this:

http://www.therationalradical.com/di...b.htm#sept1701
http://www.nosheetsleft.com/misc/transcript.html

This little text box is for entering your <i>own words</i>. Quoting sources is fine, but we read your messages so we can get to know you personally. I mean, if a quote is only two or three sentences, then it's fine to just copy and paste it. But if it's longer than the words you typed up yourself, then you should just link to it.

Please consider my advice. :)

If O'reilly wasn't such a liberal he would have popped Glick right between the eyes.

http://www.therationalradical.com/d...1b.htm#sept1701 - "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out".

Yeah, that was rolling through my brain for about two days, but I realized I'd better think about it a while longer before I might firmly place both feet in my mouth. Sounds like O'Reilly had himself a wingtip sammich.

Ury and Juju, that Rational Radical link is not working. The site is interesting though.

One segment, or even one show, does not prove or disprove anything about O'Reilly (whom I happen to like because he is a cantankerous bastid) or his position on the liberal-conservative continuum.

From what I've observed of him, he says what he thinks, and doesn't much worry about what labels get hung upon him. (I think the same of Michael Savage, although he does tend to be much more acerbic than Bill.)

It works for me in Mozilla and IE 5.0. Maybe you just suck? :)

In IE 5.0:

http://msdelta.net/~sycamore/cellar/404-1.jpg

In NS 4.7:

http://msdelta.net/~sycamore/cellar/404-2.jpg

That's fine...I didn't like that stupid link anyway!

My apologies. First, you go here:

http://www.therationalradical.com/di...tribe-901b.htm

Then you can go here:

http://www.therationalradical.com/di...b.htm#sept1701

Me and Bill Gates are getting "404".
Sorry, Bill Gates and I are getting "404".

Gotta type faster.
Those links work.

Bill O'Reilly claims to be fair and balanced on a network that claims to be fair and balanced. If you only watch cable news, you might actually think this is true. If you turned to the BBC news or some impartial news sources, you will find that the FAUX/O'Reilly version of fair and balanced is anything but.

Yes he acts like a cantankerous old coot, but this is just an act. As his his background - he claims to be from a working class household when his actual upbringing was rather affluent. He claims to be fair, but if a guest is not cooperating he has no problem yelling at them or simply cuttin their mic. O'Reilly is a litle better than Scarborough, Weiner (Savage), and Rush, but he is no Walter Cronkite.

What is your definition of an impartial news source? A couple of examples would be good, too.

404 Error too many
 

We often see the error.

I would say that an impartial news source would be equally critical of all sides of an issue. It would not use passive voice when reporting unfavorable information about the government's actions. It would not mix argument and news reportage. It would not wrap itself in the flag in order to make it appear more patriotic. It would skeptically and critically analyze what politicians say and do.

BBC is an example - as near to impartial as I can get. If you read anything from the AMerican media, we get a passive voice about our governments fouls, we get the official version of events prefered over actual - on the ground perspectives, we get political claims reported without any sort of fact checking, and you get news from the American media that has been subplanted with a very specific agenda.

To read a little more about the state of the media, go here:

http://www.fair.org/
very fair and honest site that is critical of the mass media, what they report, and what they do not report. This is probably the best jumping off point.

http://www.reuters.com/
Barebones news, but this is about as fair as it gets.

http://www.indymedia.org/
Good site - but I think it swings the pendulum a litle far to the left on a lot of issues. It definitely provides a contrast, though.

http://www.dailyhowler.com
Great site that highlights the corporate media's ceaseless fawning over the right. The site is equally critical of Clinton on issues that he was al fault with, but I am sure a Republican will claim that the guy uses nothing but lies. The site is well researched, and you can go into LexixNexis with questionable claims and they always check out. The guy has a lot of integrity as a media critic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Great site - this is what news should be. Critical about all sides, and it does not go out of it's way to seem more patriotic. You will never see stupid crap like "homicide bombers" in BBC world news. The site may be censored in China. I know that Rupert Murdoch allowed China to censor the BBC World News satellite feed so that mainland Chinese do not have unencumbered access to it.

http://www.projectcensored.org/
Good site to see what you did not see on the corporate media.

http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/
Another good site for independant media analysis.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/
Good site covering stuff no one ever hears about.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Slightly partican site that mocks the corpporate media.


Overall, I think that it is unreasonable to expect one news source to be completely objective. This is why I read multiple news sources and I take the aggregate informaiton from differing perspectives as a whole.

There is always a danger of going to multiple news sources and culling statements that bolster what you've made up your mind to believe.

This is certainly true. Which is why you have to be aware of the contradictions - note them - and understand where they come from. Sometimes the contradictions occur because reporters selectively report information that reenforces their bias. Sometimes media sources are wary of creating stories that are critical of the powers that be. Sometimes meid stories use garbage information and report heresay as news. Sometimes media sources are simply in error or are lying.

I am certainly not credulous. I do not simply accept a story because it reenforces my bias or reject stories that challenge my personal beliefs.