I'm tied of being called a conspiracy theorist...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Its really getting old being singled out and called a conspiracy theorist, especially when the truth is right there in front of people's faces. The funny thing is that there are some here, not wanting to mention names (Tranny and Bingo :P ) who take what FoxNews has to say as gospel and call everything else leftist propaganda and will call you down for telling people the gods honest truth, that is NOT being reported for obvious reasons.

Point in case. I firmly believe that the present administration is bent on world domination through a "friendlier" form of facism that they like to call Neo-Conservativism. Of course this is all a conspiracy theory and has no merit or support. I beg to differ. Consider this document:

People's exhibit one

This was released in August 2000 and was formulated and written prior to that. This strategy was based on this document created by Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lweis "Scooter" Libby in 1992.

People's exhibit two

What is very scary is how much of the content from these two documents find their way into this strategy publication.

People's exhibit three

Of course I only notice this because I'm a conspiracy theorist, right? Well, maybe not. It seems that some other sources have noticed the same thing.

People's exhibit four

People's exhibit five

People's exhibit six

People's exhibit seven

People's exhibit eight

People's exhibit nine

People's exhibit ten

Of course when you consider that the neo-cons have published their dogma for all to see, and did so well in advance of getting into office with Bush.

People's defense eleven

What is really unbelievable is the fact that the neo-cons are disappointed by the results in Iraq. They thought the people of Iraq would be spreading rose petals in the streets for American forces and be embracing the US brand of democracy.

People's exhibit twelve

So is this all just a conspiracy, or is there more than just a little merit involved in this "paranoia"? Is there any way that the "FoxNews" set can wish this away or try and blame it on another CBS type scenario? I don't think there is any way that anyone can honestly say that it isn't obvious that the neo-cons had an agenda long before the election and were handed a perfect opportunity to execute their strategy when 9/11 took place.

Now if you're looking for a conspiracy theory, how about the one that has the Bush Administration IGNORING the advance intel on the terrorist attacks so they could exectie their strategy. Now THAT is a conspiracy theory! (BTW... I don't buy that story as I don't believe that even a slimebag like Wolfowitz would have that little moral fabric to consider that).

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 18 2004, 02:44 AM
Its really getting old being singled out and called a conspiracy theorist, especially when the truth is right there in front of people's faces. The funny thing is that there are some here, not wanting to mention names (Tranny and Bingo :P ) who take what FoxNews has to say as gospel and call everything else leftist propaganda and will call you down for telling people the gods honest truth, that is NOT being reported for obvious reasons.

Point in case. I firmly believe that the present administration is bent on world domination through a "friendlier" form of facism that they like to call Neo-Conservativism. Of course this is all a conspiracy theory and has no merit or support. I beg to differ.

Kind of ironic that you would present evidence of a long-term war agenda of policy wonks like PNAC by using the links of other policy institutes, also with specified agenda's.

Truth is there is virtually no public policy that makes its way into legislation in Washington that doesn't have its roots in some policy think tank somewhere.

If the Resurrection comes and serves to jump start Pat Robertson into the Presidency, would we be wondering what he would do or has the religious right already formulated their plans? I daresay you could certainly find an agenda somewhere, neatly packaged in advance.

Similarly, in year 4 of John Kerry's presidency, we'll be able to rely on Ann Coulter to produce the policy wonks and their writings that drove his agenda as well.

That's the thing about policy think-tanks on the left and right or special interest groups . . . . they're everywhere. They fall into and out of favour like the tide, depending on the administration in charge.

An index of economic and public policy institutes in Washington, just as an example of how prolific they are:

http://www.ncat.edu/~simkinss/policyinst.html

Another index:

http://dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science/Politi...icy/Institutes/

More specifically, you can find things like this at the Brookings Institute, "A Master Plan for North Korea."
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb114.htm

Regarding PNAC specificially, if you're conceding that without 9/11 as a catastrophic catalyst, Afghanistan would still be ruled by the Taliban and Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq then I would agree.

The long-time policy wonks of PNAC, doing their work quite openly, would still be chomping at the bit without 9/11.

You've offered conflicting views on this matter in the past. You've claimed in one argument the Bush administration prior to 9/11 was largely disinterested in foreign developments, ignored the danger of terrorism (not deliberately) and, in your own words, "screwed the pooch" in preparing for 9/11.

Now you're coming along and saying this was a Presidency bent on global domination not only from election day onward but well into the years prior. Given that premise, wouldn't this administration have been focused on terrorism as an excuse to blow up countries from day one?

Or did the PNAC agenda move to the forefront after 9/11?

By the way, Bush yesterday on pre-emptive strikes:

"Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision," Mr. Bush said.

"We didn't find the stockpiles we thought would be there," he said, in what has become a tried-and-true crowd pleaser in his standard stump speech. "But Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy, and that is a risk we could not afford to take after Sept. 11, 2001."

The President's pre-emptive doctrine has provoked unease among allies who fear it amounts to a new era of superpower unilateralism, but it remains popular with many Americans. Some analysts believe the President may apply it to other so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, both of which, along with Mr. Hussein's Iraq, were dubbed the axis of evil by Mr. Bush.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

Cowperson

[Gugstanley]

Well calling you a moron that just stirs up trouble can be another angle.
When arguing politics it is very difficult to win. You bring up points to support one side when in reality politics is a lot like accounting. You can make things look whatever way you want.
If you want to send Kerry money then do it. What you might want to do is write his speeches for him. The only way Kerry wins this thing is if he shuts his mouth.
Bush isn't perfect either. Fact I am tired of a fat government that takes a lot of my paycheck.

[FlamesAddiction]

What makes someone a "conspiracy theorist" anyway? GW Bush has a tonne of unproven conspiracey theories about different countries, yet he, and people who follow him are not labeled conspiracy theorists.

Is the only difference that the non-conspiracy theorist has the backing of a powerful politician?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Cow, Bush is not the problem. He's only the front man. The guys that are the problem are the appointed neo-cons. They are the ones driving the administration. And no, I am not saying that the Presidency was all about global domination. I don't think (at least I hope they wouldn't have and then didn't do a thing to stop it) anyone could have predicted 911 and impact that would have on our country. But the event did happen and the hawks within the administration saw it as an opportunity to execute a plan. So yes, from what you asked, 911 did change everything and allowed the neo-cons opportunity to accelerate their plan.

In regards to the past, things do change. Four years ago I did not live in the United States and did not do as much reading or research on the systems with int this country. More information comes available and sheds more light on certain areas that change the view. The actions of the government itself over the last four years change one's views. Or are you saying that you knew, prior to the 2000 election, that Bush was going to appoint the neo-cons and that their bent plan of foerign affairs would have a hope of seeing the light of day? If you're say that Cow, you are in the wrong business.

And what is your point of posting all of the Economic and Public Policy Institutes? You are correct that the majority of them are right wing "think tanks". Would you like me to take a run at those and show you how screwed those "think tanks" are as well? I think you would be surprised to know what the membership or reputation of some these institutes are? The PNAC sits on 2/3 of the bodies on that page. They are breeding grounds for the neo-conservative way and they do their best to recruit and educate potential neo-cons through these bodies using grants from other neo-con foundations through endowments (tax deductable seed money). Its a very scary, yet brilliant, organization the neo-cons are building. The sooner they are derailed the better IMO.

The only reason that Americans are behind the plan is because they have no idea about what is going on in their own country. I had dinner with the President of the University where my wife works and he was pretty proud of his "political savvy". He wanted to talk politics and wouldn't take no for an answer. I told him he didn't want to do that but he insisted. We sparred for a few minutes on minor crap but then he commented on what a wonderful job of developing foreign policy Bush had done after 911. He left himself open and I delivered the knock out punch. The guy, like most Americans, have no idea who the neo-cons are (don't even mention PNAC, you'll get the old deer in the headlights look) or what their agenda is. He sat back and listened to a brief history of the wingnuts. The next day he went and did some research on the group himself, and as of last night, he's seriously reconsidering his vote. He's as scared about these loonie tunes as I am. Now this is a pretty smart and highly educated guy, and he didnt know jack about them. What is the average yokel on the street supposed to know?

BTW... were you trying to debunk the fact that the neo-cons have engineered a foreign policy that is focused on world domination and the conversion of countries, the United States presently sees as enemies, to a democratic way of government, and doing so through military means? Or are you actually in agreement that these guys are doing this and that it is damn scary?

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Lanny, one thing I never try and poke my head into on an Internet forum is politics. You're never going to change everyone's mind. You, Dis, and Cow all have your opinions and are of course fully entitled to them.

Quite frankly, nothing is going to change your respective minds. You've all stated your side well. Why the need to convert others to your way of thinking? Just agree to disagree and call it a draw.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 18 2004, 09:20 AM
What makes someone a "conspiracy theorist" anyway? GW Bush has a tonne of unproven conspiracey theories about different countries, yet he, and people who follow him are not labeled conspiracy theorists.

Is the only difference that the non-conspiracy theorist has the backing of a powerful politician?

Disproving the negative.

Conspiricies are like religion. The believer has faith, and challenges you to prove god does NOT exist.

Thats the beauty of a good conspiricy theory. You cannot disprove them, which to the converted of course only reinforces the conspiricy theory in the first place.

[Cowperson]

Cow, Bush is not the problem. He's only the front man. The guys that are the problem are the appointed neo-cons. They are the ones driving the administration. And no, I am not saying that the Presidency was all about global domination. I don't think (at least I hope they wouldn't have and then didn't do a thing to stop it) anyone could have predicted 911 and impact that would have on our country. But the event did happen and the hawks within the administration saw it as an opportunity to execute a plan. So yes, from what you asked, 911 did change everything and allowed the neo-cons opportunity to accelerate their plan.

And extrapolating from that, in the absence of 9/11 we most likely would have seen very little happen, if anything, in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other pre-emptive strike anywhere else.

Ergo, in the absence of actions, the neo-con agenda and PNAC would be just another interesting sidebar of modest interest among all the other think-tanks trying to influence policy in Washington, whether that be foreign policy, health policy, environmental policy, etc.

And that would be in spite of the appointments of the people you mentioned.

Wouldn't you agree with the above?

I will remind you that on this very forum on the morning of September 11, 2001 you and I agreed that Afghanistan would be the first to go and Iraq would be the second. In all likelihood, at that hour, you and I had both never heard of PNAC yet we both made the same logical deduction of what was going to happen in the ensuing years.

Those were my points.

Do multi-layer conspiracy theories bubble your hormones? Yes they do, Lanny, yes they do.

And what is your point of posting all of the Economic and Public Policy Institutes?

Merely to demonstrate PNAC is entirely common. Without a doubt, a Kerry Presidency would see similar appointments from think tanks favouring his own positions just as the Clinton and Reagan presidencies contained such incidences as well.

They are breeding grounds for the neo-conservative way and they do their best to recruit and educate potential neo-cons through these bodies using grants from other neo-con foundations through endowments (tax deductable seed money). Its a very scary, yet brilliant, organization the neo-cons are building. The sooner they are derailed the better IMO.

You know, there are those out there who would say the same thing about the left. Both sides have their conspiracy theories. This right wing fiend provides a common enough viewpoint:

Just as Horowitz and I did not realize our errors until we had done our damage to America, so too most of this new generation of young radicals will not realize their error until they have done their damage. That fact is at the heart of the recruiting strategy of the left—recruit the young to do the dirty work of dismantling America, then discard them when they get older, and realize that the left is largely a fraud, nothing but a front for socialist and communist ideas.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy50.html

The only reason that Americans are behind the plan is because they have no idea about what is going on in their own country.

Both sides make the same claim of the other. They don't agree, therefore they assume the other side must be stupid or not have all the facts. That's pure Chomsky.

"If they knew everything, they couldn't help but agree with me." You repeat that over and over yet common sense suggests people of different backgrounds and viewpoints receiving the same information will not necessarily intepret it the same way. They disagree. Which is fair.

The only reason that Americans are behind the plan is because they have no idea about what is going on in their own country. I had dinner with the President of the University where my wife works and he was pretty proud of his "political savvy". He wanted to talk politics and wouldn't take no for an answer. I told him he didn't want to do that but he insisted. We sparred for a few minutes on minor crap but then he commented on what a wonderful job of developing foreign policy Bush had done after 911. He left himself open and I delivered the knock out punch. The guy, like most Americans, have no idea who the neo-cons are (don't even mention PNAC, you'll get the old deer in the headlights look) or what their agenda is. He sat back and listened to a brief history of the wingnuts. The next day he went and did some research on the group himself, and as of last night, he's seriously reconsidering his vote. He's as scared about these loonie tunes as I am. Now this is a pretty smart and highly educated guy, and he didnt know jack about them. What is the average yokel on the street supposed to know?

You should start a church. You could make a lot of money. Preach it brother!!

BTW... were you trying to debunk the fact that the neo-cons have engineered a foreign policy that is focused on world domination and the conversion of countries, the United States presently sees as enemies, to a democratic way of government, and doing so through military means?

There's not a lot of difference between that and propping up dictatorships for the same purpose, the Bill Maher Solution. And ALL Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have done that.

Post-communism, the tactic seems to be more along the lines of moving away from supporting dictatorships as proxies and more along the lines of trying to influence behaviour diplomatically, with 9/11 creating a temporary diversion.

What you're really asking isn't whether or not the USA should be muddling in the affairs of other nations - since all Presidents and administrations do that - but rather whether or not being pre-emptive is a better policy than being reactive.

Do you wait for a problem to happen or do you attempt to kill it before it can hurt you?

That is the subtle difference between then and now, between prior administrations and this one.

Or are you actually in agreement that these guys are doing this and that it is damn scary?

I've said repeatedly in this forum that I agree with taking out Afghanistan and Iraq, driving a stake into the hornets nest of the Middle East and stirring things up, while simultaneously predicting Iraq would be the last major land conflict the USA would be involved in for the next 25 years.

I see very little in the way of large scale military action in the future.

From that statement above, I will leave it to you to categorize whether I'm in agreement with PNAC or not.

But I think you're off your rocker if you think the USA is going to invade Iran or North Korea. Or pretty much any one else.

By the way, if the latest New York Times/CBS poll is correct, I believe the interpretation of one of the questions would yield that 60% of Americans agree with pre-emptive action in the world by America. Get busy. You've got a lot of preachin' to do!!

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

[Daradon]

Diving in with a question first off for you Cow, then I'll explain why people think you are a conspiracy theorist Lanny...

First Cow, your statement

I've said repeatedly in this forum that I agree with taking out Afghanistan and Iraq, driving a stake into the hornets nest of the Middle East and stirring things up, while simultaneously predicting Iraq would be the last major land conflict the USA would be involved in for the next 25 years.

I see very little in the way of large scale military action in the future.

This doesn't make sense to me on a few level.

It's been proven (and is continuing to be proven) that Iraq was simply not the threat the U.S. claimed it was. We can decide to believe them or not when they say things to the effect of, 'we PERCEIVED they were a threat'. Regardless, there is more proof that nations like N. Korea are more dangerous to their area, the world, and the U.S. global direction. If this is the case, why would the U.S. attack Iraq and then cease military opperations for a 25 years?

Unless of course attacking Iraq didn't have to do with safety.

If it did have to do with safety, then further incursions into the Middle East would seem like the next logical step. The government is outright fooling itself if it thinks it can change Iraq into a beacon of 'democracy and freedom' that will have a domino effect on the rest of the Middle East. We all know how well Vietnam worked out.

Lanny, I think people call you a conspiracy theorist because of the conclusions you jump to and the fact that you never back down from a argument to take a middle posistion. You are obviously a very intelligent and well read individual but so are a lot of other people on there and the side you present is always just one side of the story. Often the discussions come down to whose sources are you going to believe. If there was overwhelming evidence either way, the U.S. and western world would not be as divdied as it is.

You have great ideas and arguments, but sometimes the conclusions you come to are a little skewed (even for me and I have found myself discussing lots of things with Displaced and Tranny and Cow usually taking the left). But your insistance that your ideas are right and everyone needs to wake up can cause people to look at you like you are someone holding a sign that says 'the world is ending'. If you didn't come into (and start) all discussion guns a blazing the term 'conspiracy theorist' might come up less.

Hey, you asked.

Still, I love to read your guys' threads.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 18 2004, 11:32 PM
First Cow, your statement

I've said repeatedly in this forum that I agree with taking out Afghanistan and Iraq, driving a stake into the hornets nest of the Middle East and stirring things up, while simultaneously predicting Iraq would be the last major land conflict the USA would be involved in for the next 25 years.

I see very little in the way of large scale military action in the future.

This doesn't make sense to me on a few level.

It's been proven (and is continuing to be proven) that Iraq was simply not the threat the U.S. claimed it was.# We can decide to believe them or not when they say things to the effect of, 'we PERCEIVED they were a threat'. Regardless, there is more proof that nations like N. Korea are more dangerous to their area, the world, and the U.S. global direction.#

If this is the case, why would the U.S. attack Iraq and then cease military opperations for a 25 years?

Unless of course attacking Iraq didn't have to do with safety.

If it did have to do with safety, then further incursions into the Middle East would seem like the next logical step.# The government is outright fooling itself if it thinks it can change Iraq into a beacon of 'democracy and freedom' that will have a domino effect on the rest of the Middle East.#
Lanny, I think people call you a conspiracy theorist because of the conclusions you jump to and the fact that you never back down from a argument to take a middle posistion.# You are obviously a very intelligent and well read individual but so are a lot of other people on there and the side you present is always just one side of the story.# Often the discussions come down to whose sources are you going to believe.# If there was overwhelming evidence either way, the U.S. and western world would not be as divdied as it is.

You have great ideas and arguments, but sometimes the conclusions you come to are a little skewed (even for me and I have found myself discussing lots of things with Displaced and Tranny and Cow usually taking the left).# But your insistance that your ideas are right and everyone needs to wake up can cause people to look at you like you are someone holding a sign that says 'the world is ending'.# If you didn't come into (and start) all discussion guns a blazing the term 'conspiracy theorist' might come up less.

Hey, you asked.

Still, I love to read your guys' threads.

My statement of "first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then no more major land wars for the USA for 25 years" was made BEFORE the Iraq conflict by the way, just so we're clear in the context in which it was made.

Nevertheless, I see nothing that would change the observation.

If this is the case, why would the U.S. attack Iraq and then cease military opperations for a 25 years?

Why not?

After Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming friendly governments emerge there, you've got Iran (with even a terror-wary Russia to the north) surrounded and Syria surrounded (Israel on the other side) and American air power presumeably still on the scene at isolated bases as an intimidation tool.

As well, Iran is a far stronger entity in comparison to Iraq or Afghanistan, with a population of 84 million or so and difficult terrain. The thought of invading that country in a land conflict is ridiculous. If Iran becomes responsible for a terrorist nuclear hit on the USA, the most likely solution is to vaporize parts of it rather than march in. Once you're a nuclear power, you're also a nuclear target, the downside. Aside from that, the moderate forces in Iran will likely ultimately emerge in spite of their recent setbacks in the recent electoral process. Given enough time, I like the future of Iran.

The North Korean government will likely ultimately collapse on its own. The South Korean government is strong enough to withstand any aggressive trouble there. However, of all the countries that might be considered enemies of the USA, North Korea is the most likely to be vaporized from top to bottom if it is considered the source of a nuclear hit on the USA. Again, no land conflict.

Aside from those two potential conflicts, what else is left?

I would readily agree the Saudi royal family might not be long for this earth. Heartening for the USA, even if you find the government there reprehensible, is the fact the Saudi royal family appears to finally understand it is in mortal danger and is aggressively hunting the enemy within its midst. They may survive after all, or perhaps in a modified form. This is the only place you might actually point to. In 1991, as Saddam was marching through Kuwait, you saw American forces rapidly deploying to Saudi. But a civil war is a different thing.

If a radical Islamic government were to supplant the present one in Pakistan, India would be vastly alarmed and might do something about it, with the USA in Afghanistan on the opposite border. But there would be absolutely no likelihood of an American land conflict in Pakistan. With a population of 140 million or so, it represents an even more difficult option than Iran.

I don't see the potential for a land conflict with China over Taiwan.

Anything else?

Really, where would we see a MAJOR land conflict involving American forces?

Syria? Sorry, I don't see it. EDIT: An interesting TIME Magazine article on American attempts to cozy up with Syria. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...00.html?cnn=yes

I said all that before the conflict in Iraq on this forum.

We all know how well Vietnam worked out.

Americans were dying at the rate of 30 or 40 a day for years in Vietnam, all within a conscripted army. That's how it added up to about 56,000 or so. As well, the other global superpower at the moment, the Soviet Union, was supplying the other side with limitless material. Iraq is a long way from a Vietnam comparison.

The comparison with Vietnam is best described this way: In Vietnam, the USA tried for years to prop up a friendly government that couldn't command the same morale and belief in mission - the committment to the fight - that the other side could deliver.

In that context, in the end, it has to be about empowering Iraqi's and having them believe and commit to their future as a democracy versus the view of the radicalized other side.

If 24 million Iraqi's don't want Americans there, then Americans can't stay there.

The mission would stand a far better chance of success if it were internationalized, but I would readily agree the same ideology in Washington that cut through the UN crap and got this done is also the same ideology that is resisting internationalization and making a bit of a hash of the post-war situation.

Lots of pitfalls. In the end though, I think its more likely to succeed than fail. But its a five to ten year project just as Afghanistan is a 20 year project.

Lastly, a comment about "stirring the hornets nest" thought. Can any of us have much doubt that without any action in Afghanistan or Iraq that the Middle East 50 years from now would STILL be a seething pit? I don't have much of a problem with attempting to stir up the status quo.

Of late, it's been somewhat refreshing to see a few leading Muslim media and leaders looking introspectively and wondering aloud if its actually Muslim's who need to do some self-examination about their place in the world. At least its the beginning of an internal debate rather than the uniform message of being victims. I doubt that would have been happening without the events of the last few years.

All of the above, of course, is merely an opinion of the future of the world that can be assaulted at will.

EDIT AFTER THE FACT: MSNBC with an analysis of whether or not the USA is likely to engage in further military action in a second Bush term.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6047304/

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

I don't think Lanny is a conspiracy theorist. I think that's just a label and monicker bandied about by those who dismiss any form of media that isn't really controlled by a large corporation.

Keep it up. I haven't been able to wade in to these discussions recently, but I enjoy lurking!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Sep 19 2004, 06:46 AM
I don't think Lanny is a conspiracy theorist. I think that's just a label and monicker bandied about by those who dismiss any form of media that isn't really controlled by a large corporation.

Or used by those who dismiss a media source because it is owned by a large corporation.

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 19 2004, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 19 2004, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Sep 19 2004, 06:46 AM
I don't think Lanny is a conspiracy theorist. I think that's just a label and monicker bandied about by those who dismiss any form of media that isn't really controlled by a large corporation.

Or used by those who dismiss a media source because it is owned by a large corporation.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Touche.

My favourite quote about standard media practice is as follows, from fan favourite Noam Chomsky. Here's the gist of the excerpt:

What is presented to us daily in 5 minute snippets is taken as fact. We know what it is, we know how it got their. Mass media has to present it to us in that way, as they have a business to run.

Now imagine if I came on TV and said to you that the American government was quietly supporting an Indonesian government that has inflicted genocide in East Timor. Would the time allotted in a "full of clout and honesty" news network allow me the time to even establish my point (or the location of East Timor, in that case) before I could provide evidence that this was happening? Highly unlikely, so pundits like this are dismissed.

The whole objective of news networks is to sell enough advertising to sell the news their people want to hear. Same goes for newspapers. The whole basis for that model isn't consistent with fair and balanced reporting, in any medium.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+Sep 20 2004, 03:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro @ Sep 20 2004, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Or used by those who dismiss a media source because it is owned by a large corporation.

Cowperson

Touche.

My favourite quote about standard media practice is as follows, from fan favourite Noam Chomsky. Here's the gist of the excerpt:

What is presented to us daily in 5 minute snippets is taken as fact. We know what it is, we know how it got their. Mass media has to present it to us in that way, as they have a business to run.

Now imagine if I came on TV and said to you that the American government was quietly supporting an Indonesian government that has inflicted genocide in East Timor. Would the time allotted in a "full of clout and honesty" news network allow me the time to even establish my point (or the location of East Timor, in that case) before I could provide evidence that this was happening? Highly unlikely, so pundits like this are dismissed.

The whole objective of news networks is to sell enough advertising to sell the news their people want to hear. Same goes for newspapers. The whole basis for that model isn't consistent with fair and balanced reporting, in any medium. [/b][/quote]
Considering Chomsky is clearly used as a filter of news by his legions of young proteges, his comment is hilarious.

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh attempt to marginalize the mainstream media in the same fashion as Chomsky, even though the parties are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

The left and right sell the same thing. "Believe me. Don't believe them because they're not telling you the real truth. Only I can tell you the real truth."

There are people who are right in the thick of the debate on the off-topic board who believe the mainstream media is a Republican party mouthpiece and there are people in the thick of the debate here who believe the mainstream media is out to get GW Bush in this election campaign.

Which side is right? Probably neither.

The reason the half hour "network news" is diminishing in popularity, if not marginalized, is the success of cable news in providing more in-depth analysis, whether you agree with the points of view expressed or not. That in turn wouldn't be happening if the public weren't interested and, in the words of Chomsky, willing to pay for it. Which they appear to be doing in increasing numbers, defeating Chomsky's argument.

As a sidebar, the Sunday New York Times is available in most news stands across the USA. It weighs about 10 pounds and costs about $5 or so. Lots of depth in that puppy if you have the arms to carry it home!! I guess Chomsky's never picked one up. Its just one example.

I presented this link on where people are getting their campaign information, the changing pattern, in another thread. Here it is again.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=200

And the second link with a commentary:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5520569/

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Cow,

Very good points, some I didn't think of...

'After Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming friendly governments emerge there, you've got Iran (with even a terror-wary Russia to the north) surrounded and Syria surrounded (Israel on the other side) and American air power presumeably still on the scene at isolated bases as an intimidation tool.

As well, Iran is a far stronger entity in comparison to Iraq or Afghanistan, with a population of 84 million or so and difficult terrain. The thought of invading that country in a land conflict is ridiculous. If Iran becomes responsible for a terrorist nuclear hit on the USA, the most likely solution is to vaporize parts of it rather than march in. Once you're a nuclear power, you're also a nuclear target, the downside. Aside from that, the moderate forces in Iran will likely ultimately emerge in spite of their recent setbacks in the recent electoral process. Given enough time, I like the future of Iran.

The North Korean government will likely ultimately collapse on its own. The South Korean government is strong enough to withstand any aggressive trouble there. However, of all the countries that might be considered enemies of the USA, North Korea is the most likely to be vaporized from top to bottom if it is considered the source of a nuclear hit on the USA. Again, no land conflict.

Aside from those two potential conflicts, what else is left?'

However one has to acknowledge that conflict has turned 180 degrees in the last little while. Terrorism has become not only a powerful tool, but THE way to do war. The benefits of a divide and isolate type campaign are not as effective or useful as they have been.

Besides my main arguement was that, going by the U.S. official stance on the war in Iraq, more wars are very possible. They were the ones who coined the term 'axis of evil' and that 'no nation harboring terrorists would be safe'. It was by ther own words we expect more action. The fact that they might not follow this up just goes to show, hmmm, maybe there were other reasons. Stirring up Iraq has just given a haven for terrorists and insurgents. It hasn't made anything safer for anyone.

EDIT: Spelling as usual

[FanningTheFlames]

All conspiracy theories boil down to the discovery (?) that the same war-mongering group that has ruled humankind from time immemorial is still in lording it today. Their intrigues are what lead to most wars and human misery around the world. Also globalisation, restriction of liberties, dehumanisation and a New World Order.

And you know what? They're probably more correct than the version of 'reality' we get from the media!

[transplant99]

that the same war-mongering group that has ruled humankind from time immemorial is still in lording it today. Their intrigues are what lead to most wars and human misery around the world.

I have to ask.

Who might this "war-mongering" group be exactly?

[FanningTheFlames]

The elites! The incredibly powerful throughout history. Only way that differs from a standard history book is that conspiracy theory assumes a secret organisation that binds them in common purpose. Some theories hold more weight (the Neo-cons IMO) than others (the Bohemian Grove). I don't think we'll ever know the answer one way or the other about these things unless there is a completely independent investigation into the question.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by FanningTheFlames@Sep 20 2004, 08:22 AM
The elites! The incredibly powerful throughout history. Only way that differs from a standard history book is that conspiracy theory assumes a secret organisation that binds them in common purpose. Some theories hold more weight (the Neo-cons IMO) than others (the Bohemian Grove). I don't think we'll ever know the answer one way or the other about these things unless there is a completely independent investigation into the question.

Ahhh...the old Illuminati theory. I figured that's what you meant in the first post.

Yup...this is the SINGLE biggest conspiracy theory ever presented to mankind IMO.

I googled for a website....lots of em. This one i remember reading in print sometime back. Fear-mongering taken to another level.

No offense, but I find it highly amusing more than anything.

You've ALL been brainwashed