Which is not what the other television media outlets do at all. If you watch CNN, MSNBC, or any other news channel, that is enough to know what is going on in the world and to form a well-educated, and often correct, opinion of pretty much any news story you see.

Fox has led the charge and is much worse than any of its competitors, but you're right. Domestic 24-hour news channels are completely worthless.

*turns off the sarcasm* Glad you're seeing my point. Singling Fox News out as the channel that disseminates bad information is kind of redundant when you figure out it's part of the televised, sensationalist, tragedy-addicted media that values ratings over accurate information.

that dudes website has my IP blocked.

Just to present my point of view and help people understand a little more.

I raised my hand and swore an oath to follow orders. I signed on the dotted line and gave away 4 years of my life to the government.
I might not have been over there fighting for your freedoms, but I did what I said I would.

I made friends. I went to war with them.
We were all stuck in a f***** up situation.
We had people trying to kill us every day and some of us didn't make it back. I don't care what reason we were over there.
All that mattered was that we were.

Maybe you don't think we did anything heroic or noble but, we kept eachother alive untill we could leave.
I know I'm thankfull for the things they did for me.
I have no problems killing somone that is trying to kill me and my friends.

I fought for my friends and if the time ever does come when our freedom is threatened, however you would define that situation. I will fight just as hard.

This guy was a freaking idiot and I was glad to see him verbaly reemed. He has no idea what he's talking about.

Except the insurgents are thinking the exact same thing, and probably posting it on an internet forum as we speak.

And they have slightly more justification, in that they never tried to kill you until you invaded and started killing them.

Yeah, as sad as it sounds, the Terrorists DO have more justification than the USA does for this war. What they're doing is wrong, but that doesnt make what the USA is doing right. Pretty much, what Mort just said.

All in all...

It's a screwed up situation, and it's all out of our hands.



I support servicemen, just not the ones that whine excessively.

I mean, I know.. it sucks and all, but you.. buttered your bread guy, now eat it.

I dunno.. thats a whole different ball of wax.

Since we're not allowed to shoot unless they shoot first I don't see how they are defending their lives.
And I never said I agreed with why we were over there.
That's just where I wound up.

Possibly because of the 25 000 Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion.

They seemed to be doing quite well where I was. Exept for the guy the insurgents killed because he told us where a IED was.

I don't think so. People understand events as narratives. If they're given the raw material (information free of explanation or interpretation), they will, with a little effort, assemble a cohesive mental story. It is this narrative that they will refer to when remembering the event, not the raw material. And, like eyewitnesses to a crime, they'll run over their recollection until the rough places are worn smooth and they can present a compelling account to themselves and others.

Then when they talk politics with coworkers around the watercooler, some mouthbreather who watches Fox will be able to reword a narrative much more cogent and insightful than their own, because the person he got it from has a full time job shaping narratives to be as smooth as a greased eel sliding down the throat of a quadriplegic.

24 hour news shows, having way too much time on their hands, go beyond reporting to providing easy-to-swallow narratives, meaning that the viewer at home doesn't have to struggle with interpretation or critical thinking or whatever. They're opinion makers. The opinion you come away with is the opinion you've been fed.

WTF?! Why must you [people] turn every thread you post in into a debate?

If you want a debate start it in your own thread. You people really make this place suck sometimes.

[I don't particularly enjoy being called a *****. I don't think the rest of us do -JG]

It's the Massassi way.

I'm actually proud of these folks today, there has been very little flaming going on.

Except that terrorism against the U.S., and the West in general, has been going on long before the invasion of Iraq. Most of the insurgents in Iraq now aren't even Iraqis...they're foreign-born terrorists who want to kill us, even though we in no way are really affecting their lives. Their only motivation to kill us is because they disagree with our lifestyle, culture, religion, etc.

Guys, I don't want to turn this into a full fledged debate as I too waver in whether or not the war was justified but most of the civilian deaths are due to the insurgants themselves. This info along with the fact that many if not most of the "insurgents" are outsiders gives little credence to the fact that they're defending their people and focused more on their political power.

I don't watch Fox, ever.

boba, tinny: You've both said that a significant number of the Iraqi insurgents are outsiders. What's your source?

IRG: Wait. This is the discussion forum, right?

Whining about it makes it all better.

R U BEING SARCASTIC

Nosah!

<3 Sean Hannity.

That guy deserved every verbal lashing he got and he needs more.

HMMMMM

... dot dot dot. I can think of a helluva lot of nations that don't have a military (or much of one) that don't get attacked.

Then what was the point of this thread? Do you just want everyone to go "ok i watch it"? because that is a waste of a thread. If you don't want people debating it, then don't post it. You're allowed to keep your ideas to yourself, you know, you don't have to post anything and everything on the forums.

If you just wanted to post an URL, then post it on a blog or something. This is a discussion forum. For discussion.

God he looks like an idiot. Now lets see how he acts.

Jesus it's like that guy is slapping his son around or something.

They don't get attacked because they have nothing worth being attacked for. Hence: no military.

It has more to do with not being an *** to the world.

He never gets any from girls either. I would have laughed if he had said "Have you ever been with a woman?"

Reminds me of that fake interview in the middle of Starship Troopers, "BUGS THAT THINK?".

Both people on both sides being utterly unprofessional.

It's pretty obvious that they lied to the guy just to get him to come on the show.

I give the interviewee credit for at least sticking to his point and his opinion, instead of lashing out making personal, childish insults toward his opponent like the interviewer did. They're both idiots.

The majority of the public would have wanted to see personal, childish insults.

And boy did they get it.

I don't watch TV, ever.

HAH.

You watched the super mario movie 2 nights ago and explained it. Ha!

It'd be more ironic if they put him on Jenny Jones... Then they could send him to boot camp. :em321:

WAAH WAAAH AMERICA SUCKS WAAAH.

Shove it Free. There ARE a lot of nations in the world that don't get attacked and have no military. They also aren't nearly as big as us, don't have the natural resources, don't have our history, don't have our ideals, and are generally non-hostile. We, however, if needbe, are hostile to any one or country at any time. And 'if needbe' is the phrase that's gonna get debated--don't start on that with me. If you don't agree with America, that's fine, you don't have to, that's why you can come and go as you please. I hope that you aren't so petty though, or you would prove yourself to be a whole lot less intelligent than you already are not that there's much further into the negatives you could go

Did you guys try to post any comments under anything the crook wrote? They're screened, so the ******* just posts the ones he can easily rip apart, in addition to those that are overly-sympathetic to whoever he's bashing. Talk about cowardice!

Mort-Hog: How many of those civilian deaths, do you think, were intentionally caused by the U.S. military? Hmm? Do you honestly think that U.S. soldiers are just shamelessly slaughtering Iraqis day in and day out? No amount of technology can eliminate collateral damage entirely from a war.

I know, it has nothing to do with supporting your point, but you fail to mention the fact that more Iraqi civilians are killed daily by insurgents (INTENTIONALLY) than by American soldiers.

You say that it is up to the soldier whether to pull the trigger or not, and that they cannot just excuse their actions by saying 'just following orders'. U.S. soldiers are not systematically slaughtering innocents! They are fighting for their own lives.

Anyways, the number of civilian deaths in WWII vastly outnumbers the amount of civilians killed in Iraq so far. Surely, many U.S. soldiers then would have known that often civilians die. But by what you're saying, American soldiers in WWII should also not receive any sympathy, because they too are just butchers of innocents. They were not protecting our freedoms by killing Germans and Italians. They were just merely killing Germans and Italians. Only Japan directly attacked us. The same goes for the first Persian Gulf War.

I partially agree with you though, every single cause Bush had to go to war turned out to be bogus, and the war was wrong and foolish, but I'm sure many of these soldiers genuinely believe in what they're doing, and actually desire to help out Iraqis in any way that they can, and are actively doing that, as opposed to being hard-core war junkies who just want to kill people with fancy weapons for a morally corrupt, ruthless government.

None of them would be dead if the US hadn't invaded in the first place, and because the invasion has no justification, neither do those deaths. They died for no reason, and that is bad enough.

The difference with WW2 is that it was a necessary war, and the civilian deaths although tragic, were necessary. The Iraq invasion was unnecessary, and the Iraqi deaths are unnecessary.

The second bit I think is little more than lies.
Neither Saddam Hussein or the insurgents would be capable of killing as many Iraqis as the US have done, and certainly not over as short a time. And anyway, the insurgents are there because of the invasion. If the US had not invaded, they wouldn't be there, they wouldn't be fighting and killing civilians.
No-one was blowing themselves up when Saddam was in power. Not that they didn't want to, Saddam had almost as many enemies in the Middle East as America does, but Saddam ran a tight ship and they would never have been able to. Sure, not the most preferable of setups, but it worked and Iraq was stable.

*points gun in thread's face*


*pulls trigger*

For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you sure have an affinity for putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Being an *** to the world clearly implies that I don't like America's foreign policy. That is absolutely correct. I think it stinks. I never said America sucks.



I'm not sure where this hostility comes from. My gut feeling is that you won't be so hostile once you read my clarification above.



Psst, being large both physically and demographically are usually deterrents to attacks and invasion. A larger population means that a larger fighting force can be presented. A large physical area is hard to invade due to logistics. It's the same reason invading China is such a scary prospect, even for the U.S.



While I must concede the United States does have a lot of natural resources, when's the last time someone went to war over coal, timber, or aluminum? Are you claiming that the United States gets attacked for its resources?



Now you've really lost me. The United States gets attacked because of its history? Why wouldn't any other country get attacked for its history? After all, most countries are far older than the United States and have a much more gruesome history.



Now you're getting warmer. However, you're not quite there. Try "they're getting the United States' ideals forced on them or countries like them."



Uh, yeah. You know, the defender usually has the high moral ground in a conflict. What reason do I have to attack Switzerland if Switzerland doesn't attack me first? None.



Need be is the phrase that should be debated -- as Mort pointed out, proper justification for war is prett damn important. To ignore it or look the other way results in innocent life being terminated unnecessarily.



Again, you misunderstand. I don't disagree with "America". (Whatever that means.. what, is America a dictatorship now? Everyone agrees?) I disagree with its current foreign policy, and I believe America's foreign policy to be the primary reason for recent attacks against America.



O.. kay.. Nice touch with the insult though.. it really helps your argument.