Sit down for those of you that can't handle the truth.

[K e r b e r o s]

I' m ... black! Er, I'm back!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

First, Stern, lets get this out of the way -- Fake.

Fun, I'll admit. But also, fake.

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian

This article was made before the elections. It was made within the same year. It was made within the proximity of 2 months until. It was made as a threat to scare republicans away from voting in either polls or the later electoral/country-wide election.

It comes as no suprise when the author, politically motivated and unchallenging in his behavior, desides to lay down a network of political spin into the context of "marked years". So, I rest my case.

The context of the initial message is'int even official, nor would it have statements from historians, or military historians coming off of Universities. Although, the brief cite might look like a charge against my own -- but then again, its just the names of the people who wrote it and nothing more.

For those of you afraid to read Sterns charge, [because you assumed it was fake] you'd do only best to reinforce your beliefs by checking the other articles on the left side panel, half-way through or nearly below the arguement.

In this section
Abu Ghraib abuse firms are rewarded


They flattened this mountaintop to find coal - and created a wasteland


Focus: How Condoleezza Rice became the most powerful woman in the world


Will Hutton: Expect a new, cannier Bush

Somehow, I dont believe the author and his sources are historical motivated -- ... nor are they credited, nor cited. This charge just fell flat on its face; again, on the first notation they're was no historical references and because of so, motivated itself based upon a political election. DEBUNKED

Wait, not assuming 2005 Iraq will be identical to 1945 Germany is 'distortion of facts'?

If you read past his brasin political hopes, you'd see his initial arguement was "They charged -- and eventually came peace." However, understanding you've caught some flak, acknowledge now I'm just ... recreating it in its most basic form. From what I saw anyway.

smoking crack and then posting on the hl2.net forums is bad, m'kay?

Welcome to the Political Forum -- either contribute, or just watch.

Second, bite me. I thought you'd at least have the tact to leave that annoying act in the other thread.

I'd like to add that I will bite you. Instead of calling on his retort to cause him personal shame or guilt, you should've agreed with it ... I mean, THINK about that one!

But lest just imagine that FOX news was then it would have reported that eevrything was positief and there are no resentment against the US, not knowing weather it would turn out good or not. Now wouldn't that be even worse.

Hardly. FOXNews has been singing to a completely different tune.

As for, "the trickery" Foxnews might've been capable of back in the 1940's, I disagree with you. The mothers and fathers of soldiers who went off to war, knew far better then to assume that once it was over ... it was over.

With that in mind, the media knew its readers would want full truth on their markets -- and that it would sell. These days, truth and common sense wont sell at all -- thats also due to the media being mostly politically motivated.

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/iraq_seeds.htm

Thats a cool looking site.

Wait, I'm confused. So you're saying leftwing bias is "doomsaying" the situation... Your point is that the situation isn't as bad as the media is making it out to be. But the situation you're comparing it to is Germany....in which you state, in your post that we're still in, after 59 years... Are you saying that it's a good thing that we're still there, and that we shouldn't worry about Iraq because we'll be there for another 6 decades...... and that's a good thing?!

His point in the American after-stay post-World War II, was to help doorblock the Soviets if they launched a campaign against Europe.

The bases that happen to be scattered all over West Germany, were apart of a NATO function. Since NATO has no real purpose just yet, those locations have just served as adjacent and extra airfields.

1) What point are YOU trying to raise here exactly? (Don't mean to sound like a p**ck, I'm honestly not sure) Is it that liberals damage work being done after war? Is it that being pesimistic about war helps no-one? By using the example of Nazis, which nobody can dispute was a evil regime that needed overthrowing, are you trying to make liberals seem 'pro-Nazi' or, to be more precise, just anti US? It's a question, I'm just interested.

I think it was the second one -- being pesimistic about a war helps noone. As for the latter conclusions, I think you'll read more precisely, that such a blatant charge was not made.

2) If we're comparing WW2 with today, why not look at some of the German war crimes trials, in which Nazi leaders describe quite accuratley what is going on now (my I-net explorer is knakred at the mo, so I can't give you a link just now). Basically they talk about blinding their population by making them terrified of a group of people, then just taking total advantage of them.

Your internet(s) explorer is not fooked up. You either dont know what to askJeeves.com or google.com

However, your to address your ending idea, I dont think it really compliments either of the original thread posters thoughts, or your own. It seems to me kind of like a retort ...

But, as with your example, it's not an entirely accurate comparison to make, although we can learn something from both.

Quite so ...

So, your point is that two new reports concerning completely different things sounded similar. Hooray?
And I really don't think we've seen 'post war in Iraq press' yet, considering that the war isn't over.

Saddams military, officially, is obliterated. However, stock and supply left over from his 1991 program of emplacing Children in for military service to fight off the UN, sits in the hands of terrorists.

As for the war, it is still a war on terror -- so its never going to be quiet over; unless a terrorists declares it is upon his surrender. Or, simply on the fact, they're are no more terrorists to fight.

One person's actions at CBS are hardly evidence of a media-wide bias.

As it would appear, but RatherGate is the only thing we can get you guys to explain was wrong. RatherGate, also just shows how far people are willing to succeed they're points into others.

RatherGate, was just a threat tactic to disway republican voters from attempting themselves to be proud of what they were. In essence, because the Swift Boat veterans scandal associated with the right -- which is almost what made CBS's emotive retort almost founded.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, the articles vaguely criticise a guy on the left.
But he's not very left, so therefore they have a leftist bias.

The media is so leftist that it criticises Stalin.
It's therefore more leftist than Stalin!
You're criticising me, therefore you're more leftist than I am.
And we walk on the sky while dogs fly through the ground.
Because we're living in a crazy world!

And if you can't acknowledge that, obviously your leftist bias and love of rubbing lies all over your misconception face are making you flim-flam your poppycock.

See? I did not make a valid point in that last sentence, even though I said the word 'bias' and various synonyms of the word 'lie' a lot.
Think about that.

MechaG out. This stupid thread is making me sad inside.

 

[burner69]

and as for respect, who cares if joe shit the ragman in some armpit of a hellhole of a country thinks we're shit..... as long as the leader of that hellhole knows that if ya fawk with us we'll end your ass, I'm fine with that.

Iraq will stabilize and flourish.

"Joe shit the ragman" - erm... where exactly did you pick up that phrase and HOW exactly is that NOT a slur. If you called me burner t*at the BSEBoy you'd get a warning I'm sure... how is mr shit any different?

Oh and as mentioned before, these terrorists who are quite happy to blow themselves up - which is kinda certain death - are unlikely to be bothered about you 'ending their ass'. Many of them think it honourable. So the more you screw joe shit around, the more his buddies are going to blow themselves up infront of you, attempt to hijack planes, attempt to plant bombs, blow trains up and all the other evil crap they do.

Afghanistan? Current status - buggered. Areas held by coalition - Kabul. Wow, we're doing great. Unfortunatley those bloody lefty UN guys think its the worst country to live in IN THE WORLD! Dam, I certianley wish they wouldn't print such harmful lies.

As for the war, it is still a war on terror -- so its never going to be quiet over; unless a terrorists declares it is upon his surrender. Or, simply on the fact, they're are no more terrorists to fight.

Ha! You think that every terrorist would just stop if OBL said "Ooo, I surrender." You're not dealing with one group of terrorists here, and every group you are dealing with would NOT surrender - it would go against everything they preach.

No more terrorists left to fight? Is that likely? Ever? Nope.

And while we're having a war on terror what other concepts can we wage war upon... spiders! Yes, let's have a war on spiders, we'll root them out and kill them and soon there'll be none left.
How about we wage a war on wars? We keep fighting soliders with our soliders until there are no soliders left in the whole world.

 

[Pericolos0]

guys just stop discussing, its pointless. He's never gonna admit he's wrong you know.
Some people just cant do that somehow

 

[Scoobnfl]

"Joe shit the ragman" - erm... where exactly did you pick up that phrase and HOW exactly is that NOT a slur.

I already explained that. It's a term that was used in training to describe "the dumbass".

Example: Don't just stand there like Joe shit the ragman.

Quit looking into more than is there. I can see where some might think it is a term that may have potential to be a slur, but not in the way I used it. Being Jewish I have suffered name calling and racial stereotyping all my life, and because of that I do not refer to other people/cultures with slurs.

Also why are ya'll so quick to equate it with muslims? Are they the only people that have a dislike for the USA?

 

[CptStern]

First, Stern, lets get this out of the way -- Fake.

Fun, I'll admit. But also, fake.

what are you? a half-wit?

dont tell me you didnt do your own research?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031017-110534-8149r.htm

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/twea.pdf

https://ssl.capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/userletter/?letter_id=157444276&content_dir=congressorg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#War_seizures_controversy

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00055.htm

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_With_the_Enemy_Act

http://www.rense.com/general42/bshnazi.htm

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2164

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0228,ridgeway,36385,6.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Brown_Brothers_and_Company

http://www.geocities.com/bushfamilynazis/bn2a.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012303A.ma.dead.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/bush-j05.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html



are you willing to take on the US government and challenge their right to seize Prescott bush's banks for doing business with the enemy? There's no discussion here: bush was found guilty. His businesses were seized: Union Banking Corporation seized

 

[SidewinderX]

1) Scoobnfl: Please stop double posting. You can edit posts you made to include new information. If you continue to double post, I will have to warn you for spam, and with your warning level, you'll be banned.

saying Truman was a lefty is Stupid. Apples to oranges buddy. The Democratic party of Roosevelt and Truman were not the democratic party of Kerry and Edwards.

Actually, have you had a high school government class? Roosevelt being elected was the last major "realignment" of the party. The Democrats of Roosevelt are, with small changes, the Democrats today.

Where is the UN on the issue of Sudan? Where is the EU? Where is Canada? I'll tell ya where they are, they're standing in the corner waiting for the USA to act. Just like with the Balkans, where all of the highbrows in Europe and their ability to accomplish so much while sitting around talking about how high their brows are, did nothing.

You sir, are ignorant and apparently refuse to use google to research anything. I googled "UN sudan" and found this as the first link. http://www.unsudanig.org/
The UN website about the programs set up in Sudan. That's where the UN is.

Iraq will stabilize and flourish.

We sure as hell hope. However, saying that it will stabilize and flourish doesn't mean that it's alright to have Americans dying on a daily basis over there, it doesn't mean the administraton has done the right thing.

Wrong. That would have been 45 years we were there to fight/halt/deter the Soviet threat, remember that Germany was reunified in 1990. We have remained for the other part, being

those knuckle heads started 2 world wars inside the last 90 years that resulted in over 100 million dead, so yeah part of the reason we're still there is to make sure that they do not do it again, same with Japan.

Did it occur to you that there is little to no chance that Germany could start another world war? Especialy after WW2? Germany being able to start WW3 was NEVER something we were worried about. Why? Because we kept them fairly weak, and they were surrounded by fairly strong nations, some of whom had nuclear weapons. The main reason that we're still there is so that we have *some* presence in Europe. We like haveing a presence with *some* power in the world. We're quickly loosing that in Europe. We can maintain some of that by keep our "NATO Obligations" there.


In support of the joe....ragman thing.... it IS an old marine corp nickname used to descriped a sloppy marine, one who isn't "squared away." With that said, stop using it, you were warned before about cursing on this forum, if you do it again, you will be banned.

 

[Recoil]

those knuckle heads started 2 world wars inside the last 90 years that resulted in over 100 million dead, so yeah part of the reason we're still there is to make sure that they do not do it again, same with Japan.

Firstly... thanks for the insult :upstare:

Secondly... learn the facts; is it so hard to find out, that we do not have any strong military forces, as Sidewinder said? Especially no nukes or something like that. And... (most importantly) no need for getting anyone six feet under.

 

[Gray Fox]

The US just stayed their top have bases to use if they have a cnoflict, like now in the ME so they don't have to fly all the way over from the US. But I don't think the Government of germany has anything to say about those bases, cause as far as I know that is US soil, the US was givin the right to have permanent bases in europe after WW2.

 

[Recoil]

Yep, it's US American ground, they can do anything there, according to their laws.

 

[KoreBolteR]

All of these were headlines from the NY Times post WWII.

Notice how bleak a picture they were painting then, compared to the same bleak picture they're painting now. It should also be noted we are still in Germany 59 years after the end of WWII.

Leftwing bias then and left wing bias today, the same ole warmed over rehashed lies, misconceptions, dissinformation, missinformation and distortion of facts.

but Germany is doing well these days..

well is thier economy still low?
thats not americans fault of 1945, its shroeders and co's fault

Yep, it's US American ground, they can do anything there, according to their laws.

he obviously means your governments or political groups 60+ years ago, the german people were victims of that political group of wwI and II.

anyway, we all know Germany is cool these days, 1 of my friends from holiday was German , but im wondering, can ALL germans speak english, lol :O ?

 

[Bodacious]

Yep, it's US American ground, they can do anything there, according to their laws.

That isn't true. At least in Japan it isn't. On the bases in Okinawa miltary personnel are subject to Japanese law before they are subject to the UCMJ.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Firstly... thanks for the insult :upstare:

Secondly... learn the facts; is it so hard to find out, that we do not have any strong military forces, as Sidewinder said? Especially no nukes or something like that. And... (most importantly) no need for getting anyone six feet under.

no insult intended. My family ancestory is from Germany so please don't take it to heart. I understand that todays Germany is nothing like the Germany of Hitler.

The fact does remain that Germany started 2 world wars within the last 90 years that killed in excess of 100,000,000 people. We're still there in Gemrany partly because of that reason, like it or not.

 

[Recoil]

he obviously means your governments or political groups 60+ years ago, the german people were victims of that political group of wwI and II.

Hu? I think at least Grey Fox spoke about those US (airforce) bases, that're still here, like in Ramstein.

but im wondering, can ALL germans speak english

Well... most can.. more or less. Everybody has to learn it in school nowadays. Still... most knowledge comes through music, films and of course PC games. That's how I learned the most...

That isn't true. At least in Japan it isn't.

I don't know about Japan, but they do here ...or at least the don't give a f***

no insult intended.

Hmmmm... ok...

 

[KoreBolteR]

Well... most can.. more or less. Everybody has to learn it in school nowadays. Still... most knowledge comes through music, films and of course PC games. That's how I learned the most...

thats cool. dont forget the forums

ive been to germany before , nice place.
berlin especially.

 

[Recoil]

berlin especially.

You liked Berlin? To me it's one of the poorest and dirtiest places of the country...

Well... but let's not hijack this thread anymore

 

[Scoobnfl]

1) Actually, have you had a high school government class? Roosevelt being elected was the last major "realignment" of the party. The Democrats of Roosevelt are, with small changes, the Democrats today..

I stand by my remarks. The men that Roosevelt and Truman were greatly eclipse the pandering imbecillic likes of Kerry and Edwards.

You sir, are ignorant and apparently refuse to use google to research anything. I googled "UN sudan" and found this as the first link. http://www.unsudanig.org/
The UN website about the programs set up in Sudan. That's where the UN is. ..

It was 9/9/04 when Colin Powell made the claim of genocide in Sudan, and nothing has been done. Christians are still being killed by muslim extremist rebles and the UN builds a website to document their doing nothing. Bravo.

We sure as hell hope. However, saying that it will stabilize and flourish doesn't mean that it's alright to have Americans dying on a daily basis over there, it doesn't mean the administraton has done the right thing.

Whatever. In the time that we have been in Iraq, more children have died at the hands of their parents here in the USA than soldiers have been killed in Iraq. The deaths are tragic and the fact that they are occurring does not mean the admin has done the wrong thing.

Did it occur to you that there is little to no chance that Germany could start another world war? .

Funny they said that after WWI too.

In support of the joe....ragman thing.... it IS an old marine corp nickname used to descriped a sloppy marine, one who isn't "squared away." With that said, stop using it, you were warned before about cursing on this forum, if you do it again, you will be banned.

10-4. Why not enact filtering to filter all vulgarity?

 

[KoreBolteR]

You liked Berlin? To me it's one of the poorest and dirtiest places of the country...

Well... but let's not hijack this thread anymore

i liked all the country
are you from "west germany" then?

 

[Recoil]

are you from "west germany" then?

Yup, north-west, just 2h car-ride west from hamburg. Somehow it's really ... uhm... wealthier here I live in the 17th-happiest town from out of 100 or so

 

[KoreBolteR]

Yup, north-west, just 2h car-ride west from hamburg. Somehow it's really ... uhm... wealthier here I live in the 17th-happiest town from out of 100 or so

cool, west kicks east's ASS
ill have to visit there 1 day
ill buy you a beer :cheers: heh

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I stand by my remarks. The men that Roosevelt and Truman were greatly eclipse the pandering imbecillic likes of Kerry and Edwards.

So your lack of evidence of a media bias is backed up by a lack of evidence that Truman is so far to the right that the media of 1945 was more leftist than him? Which is in turn backed up by a lack of evidence that John Kerry is the most leftist man alive?

It really comes across to me as though you're brainwashed or something. John Kerry's just another American Politician, but you're seething and sputtering some intangible evils like he's the antichrist. Without evidence, of course.
What happens if someone more 'leftie' comes along? Do you explode?

Then you start getting angry at the media, calling it basically a huge socialist conspiracy. Saying as many variations of the word 'lie' your thesaurus can handle. Again, without a single scrap of evidence.
What do you call it when they run a pro bush story? A diversion? A clerical error?

Then you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being leftist, calling them stupid, ignorant and what have you. Without any valid point to back yourself up.

Then, even though you hate the 'lefties' in all shapes and form, even lefties that don't actually exist, you support leftist Truman, again without a logical reason presented as to why.

Do you see the trend here? You're swatting against invisible gnomes and stuff, of which there is no proof of their existence, but you're extremely mad at them anyways.

Whatever. In the time that we have been in Iraq, more children have died at the hands of their parents here in the USA than soldiers have been killed in Iraq. The deaths are tragic and the fact that they are occurring does not mean the admin has done the wrong thing.

Of course, america's population is a several times that of Iraq, so comparing flat numbers would skew your results towards your opinion.
"America has 4 billion times the drug-related crimes as Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Therefore America is a terrible place." It's a meaningless statistic.

And that's a kind of a weak defence, TBH.
"Iraq isn't bad because America kills way more children on a regular basis."

Funny they said that after WWI too.

Wait, now you're saying that the articles that you posted as far, far too concerned about a WWI-esque relapse were actually justified, because a WWI-esque relapse was very likely?

Make up your mind!

 

[Gray Fox]

By scoobnfl:

no insult intended. My family ancestory is from Germany so please don't take it to heart. I understand that todays Germany is nothing like the Germany of Hitler.

The fact does remain that Germany started 2 world wars within the last 90 years that killed in excess of 100,000,000 people. We're still there in Gemrany partly because of that reason, like it or not.

Could you explain how you came to 100.000.000 people, as far as knew under 20.000.000 people died as a direct result of WWII, or are you blaming what happend under stalin in the USSR , Vietnam, Rewanda, hell even Irak Iran war on Germany

By scoobnfl:

Funny they said that after WWI too.

So for the last time, do you actually believe the US is there to stop Germany from starting anther WW,what proof do you have that they want to start a new WW, how exactly could they possibly start a new war, show me some links to evidance.

 

[Scoobnfl]

So your lack of evidence of a media bias is backed blah.....blah...... blah.....!

WTF are you talking about? I said that the democratic party of 1945 was different than the democratic party of today. If you can not understand that then there is no point in discussing it with you.

Of course, america's population is a several times that of Iraq, so comparing flat numbers would skew your results towards your opinion.
"America has 4 billion times the drug-related crimes as Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Therefore America is a terrible place." It's a meaningless statistic.

And that's a kind of a weak defence, TBH.
"Iraq isn't bad because America kills way more children on a regular basis.".....!

It's called perspective, ya might want to try and get some.

Sooooo big a deal is made about the loss of life our military has experiened while fighting a war. To put things in perspective in the same amount of time as we have been fighting the war, parents here in the USA have murdered more of their children than have soldiers been killed in the war.

To put it in another form of perspective, more civilians were killed on 9/11 than we have lost military personnel fighting the war.

Wait, now you're saying that the articles that you posted as far, far too concerned about a WWI-esque relapse were actually justified, because a WWI-esque relapse was very likely?

Make up your mind!

No. I'm saying we never left Germany after WWII to make sure that no WW ever broke out there again. That is why we're still there after almost 15 years after the Soviet threat ended.

And the articles never referenced a WWI-esque relapse. They were distorted, shortsighted misrepresentations of how things actually were. That is why they are/were biased.

 

[burner69]

It's called perspective, ya might want to try and get some.

Sooooo big a deal is made about the loss of life our military has experiened while fighting a war. To put things in perspective in the same amount of time as we have been fighting the war, parents here in the USA have murdered more of their children than have soldiers been killed in the war.

To put it in another form of perspective, more civilians were killed on 9/11 than we have lost military personnel fighting the war.

So it's ok that coalition soliders die, because children die in the US? A rather wibbly wobbly persepctive there scoob.

9/11 - didn't I hear that in the first two weeks of Afghanistan bombing more civvies were killed than in 9/11? Something like that. Or can't we compare 9/11 to american hating nations?

NB: Mech, your thing about exploding brought me to tears, nice one :cheers:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

WTF are you talking about? I said that the democratic party of 1945 was different than the democratic party of today. If you can not understand that then there is no point in discussing it with you.

I understand what you said, and I also understand that you have provided absolutely no supporting argument of it, let alone evidence.

Here is your entire argument:

'Scoobnfl': Several news articles from 1945 report soldiers being attacked in post-war germany.
Therefore, "Leftwing bias then and left wing bias today, the same ole warmed over rehashed lies, misconceptions, dissinformation, missinformation and distortion of facts."

Me: How is that proof of a leftist bias?

'Scoobnfl': Because those articles are very similar to the leftist biased media of today!

Me: What proof do you have that the media is leftist today?

'Scoobnfl': ...

Me: Let's start again. What proof do you have of a leftist bias in these articles in 1945?

'Scoobnfl': A headline like "Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," is biased.

Me: How is that biased? Back then, people actually were afraid that Germany would not become peaceful.

'Scoobnfl': A bias is something that is inaccurate!

Me: What evidence do you have that the concerns portrayed in the articles did not exist?

'Scoobnfl': ...

Me: How can the articles be leftist if the only reason you call them leftist is that they are critical of a leftist president?

'Scoobnfl': Because they are similar to today's leftist media.

Me: What evidence do you have that today's media is leftist?

'Scoobnfl': Lies! Misconception! Disinformation! Bias! Lefties! Distortion! Misinformation!

Me: That's not evidence, those are random words.
That doesn't change the fact that Truman was a democrat.

Scoobnfl: John Kerry is incompetent! Apples and oranges!

Me: John Kerry is incompetent at what? Do you have any evidence of anything?

Scoobnfl: The democratic party is different in the past.

Me: Different enough to no longer be on the left?

'Scoobnfl': ...

etc.

Notice how you have provided no evidence of anything besides the existence of the articles in your first post.

Please humour me. Tell me exactly how this article is biased and what it is biased against:

"Germans Declare Americans Hated," December 3, 1945

An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces in the European Theatre recently.

Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment.

Please be thourogh, as this is your last chance to actually convince me that any of your points have validity before I give up forever.
Just tell us all how this brief article is so terribly biased towards the left.
Because I don't see it.

It's called perspective, ya might want to try and get some.

Here's some perspective. How many WTC attacks worth of civilians have died in the war in Iraq by now. 5? 6? 7?

I know last time I checked, it was at least five times as many.

And the articles never referenced a WWI-esque relapse. They were distorted, shortsighted misrepresentations of how things actually were. That is why they are/were biased.

Hitler's rise to power and WW2 were a direct result of the German people's anger at the winning countries due after WW1.

At the time of those articles, Germans were angry at the winning countries after WW2. it's the same thing all over agian, and people expressed concerns that the germans would stay pissed well into the future.
It was apparently ww1 all over agian, and there wasn't much reason to think otherwise.

They might have been wrong about that, but being wrong isn't a bias.
The only reason they look biased now is because of your perspective. 20/20 hindsight.
They were afraid of something, and later events showed that they were actually safe. And now you're criticising them because they couldn't predict the future as easilly as you can remember the past.

You have no evidence of any distortion, you have no evidence of misrepresentation, and you have no evidence that their predictions were more shortsighted than a norm which you have failed to establish.
Yet you assert that all these things exist, and some of us have to wonder if you're being medicated.

So, this thread is stupid. And it's going to stay stupid until you actually show some evidence of something.
Anything!

 

[Hapless]

I don't necessarily think this is illustrative of a lefty bias, more likely it's illustrative of a need to sell papers. Doom and gloom has a habit of doing that. I do believe that a comparison can be drawn between the doom and gloom surrounding the Iraq war and the apparent pessimism described here. I can also see the point, which I think Scoob is trying to make, that this type of reporting is fuel for the fire of people opposed to the war. I don't know what effect these reports had on the folks back home, but I do know what effects the same type of reports are having now. Then again, I'm viewing this through the prism of my conservative bias. Which I will freely admit. Anyone else?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I gotta agree with you there, Hap.
The fact that these articles are pessimistic isn't at all evidence of a bias.
The war was already over, so all the 'VICTORY!" headlines would be done with.

Was Scoob expecting "Everything In Germany Still Okay" as a story?
After five full pages, the allegations of bias still don't make any sense.

 

[Hapless]

I gotta agree with you there, Hap.
The fact that these articles are pessimistic isn't at all evidence of a bias.
The war was already over, so all the 'VICTORY!" headlines would be done with.

Was Scoob expecting "Everything In Germany Still Okay" as a story?
After five full pages, the allegations of bias still don't make any sense.

Wait....did hell just freeze over? :dozey:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wait....did hell just freeze over? :dozey:

Believe it or not, I'm not just a horrible right-hating hippy.
I'll agree with anything, so long as it makes good, logical sense.
It's just not my fault if the most sensible arguments are generally the lefty ones. :O

I'd agree with Scoobnfl too, if his argument didn't come across as a sub-par conspiracy theory.
At least real conspiracy theories have blurry photographs or stuff like robots and aliens to keep things interesting.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Weee!

Yeah, the articles vaguely criticise a guy on the left.

However, the illusion of a magician is made better when everything is vague, not told. Vague, leaves options and answers; leaves for personal opinions based upon the existing criteria. While some of you might rightfully laugh, I'd have to state that the SBV:FT was much more organized than CBS at their attempts.

Although, that doesn't sway from the point that even a simple and vague accusation can cause a complete falsehood. When CBS brought out their remarks, I remember how harshly you guys were sandbagging the ballsy idea, of CBS making their own retort to the SBV:FT. It was the only thing you had on that front -- and for many other people off of the forums as well.

That kind of blind and blatant public support without the knowledge nor investigation into CBS claims, suites a dual purpose for my points:

The first, being that the media is basing itself on highly controversial and often times misleading information to gain viewers; and the political situation of 2004 was a perfect time to exploit.

The second, being that this media, CBS; also knew how highly motivated its liberal viewers where so when it displayed the content of its charge, they knew it wouldn't take much for a "vague" misrepresentation to be carried like a villagers torch.

Thirdly, something I'd like to add -- vague accusations against, especially for someone whose represented at as a leader of a country, can have overwhelming political effects. These range from forcing the President to either be sanctioned, or his political push to be also weakened -- to scare or push away people from their support "of".

Vague as it might be, but sometimes vague can be very direct when used in a specific plot. To retort. To hide. To mislead.

But he's not very left, so therefore they have a leftist bias.

Who, Dan Rather?

The media is so leftist that it criticises Stalin.

How is this a, "work against" from what I posted?

See? I did not make a valid point in that last sentence, even though I said the word 'bias' and various synonyms of the word 'lie' a lot.

However, wasn't your "joking point" about a leftist bias, and how much more left they were due to who they chose and chose not to charge? Or, were you actually not being serious?

Help me out here!

Ha! You think that every terrorist would just stop if OBL said "Ooo, I surrender." You're not dealing with one group of terrorists here, and every group you are dealing with would NOT surrender - it would go against everything they preach.

Congratulations! But no ... my point was that the only way to stop terrorism, or for terrorism to stop itself; is when or if a 'terrorist' [meaning a general kind of guy] refuses to support terrorism -- they're by, not giving it any number.

And while we're having a war on terror what other concepts can we wage war upon... spiders! Yes, let's have a war on spiders, we'll root them out and kill them and soon there'll be none left.
How about we wage a war on wars? We keep fighting soliders with our soliders until there are no soliders left in the whole world.

Yes, and while were at it ... will have a war against people we don't agree with. Because, everybody can disagree with someone else -- and because everyone feels that their right. Yea, keep with that idea!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

Hmmm ... looks like FoxNews just quoted an article from the Associated Press. You should’ve known, of all people, that FoxNews wouldn’t write that.

are you willing to take on the US government and challenge their right to seize Prescott bush's banks for doing business with the enemy? There's no discussion here: bush was found guilty. His businesses were seized: Union Banking Corporation seized

However, these charges were made popular by the “Bush is Hitler” crowd -- so its hard to view them as capable arguments when they’re riddled with political emotives. Dispensing with the crowd chants, this has been the most information I’ve received on this argument to date.

However, I’d like to ask what programmed you to believe these arguments are substantial enough to handle the “Bush is Hitler” chant; when its only his forefathers that are, charged to being guilty of such crimes. Yet, I’d also like to ask if its indeed past guilt, how is it any of it relates to Bush -- is there something else you’ve found besides him being their offspring or relatence?

Oh, and finally until later -- why wasn’t this information so hot off the press, during the 2000 election?

For something this “important” carrying with it such a belligerent and capable association, you’d have to be really nice to let this guy some slack. What’s more, a lack of notice. Personally, I just believe noone had anything to complain about before 9/11 -- so this was either a dust-filled US report, or just some broiling slander someone was preparing against Bush‘s reputation; venging for what was pushed by the right, against Clinton.

Yep, it's US American ground, they can do anything there, according to their laws.

That isn't true. At least in Japan it isn't. On the bases in Okinawa miltary personnel are subject to Japanese law before they are subject to the UCMJ.

Bingo.

Hitler's rise to power and WW2 were a direct result of the German people's anger at the winning countries due after WW1.

Wrong.

Hitler’s rise to power depended upon a nation-wide political insurgency which gave him a direct connection into the Chancellorship of Germany. [You can thank the intended weakness of its Democratic establishment, due to the French, biting to gain revenge against Germany; only because it set foot upon its “soil”] Germanys Democracy had been left unattended or fine tuned with respect to certain neighbors and their “National choices”. The people in charge of Germanys Democracy simply did not know of how to run it, and efficiently. Moreover, because it could not structure itself off of the failsafe of a good economy, the Democratic Establishment simply just floated until it was drowned out.

Hitler wasn’t the only political insurgent at the time -- or the only political party. The Communists, less specifically, had a huge number and influence over Germanys parliament. In 1923, it became apparent that the Government was in no shape to govern. Smelling blood, people, from all stretches of life seeking change to their demoralized and disfigured country, began to form political parties and running all anticipating they would capture complete power.

Hitler was lucky he got that close -- he wasn’t even the most popular of these parties. It was simply due to his military influences, that proximity towards the Chancellorship that achieved him his eventual power. Noone believed he would sustain himself, or his party in power.

World War II, was not a result of Germany loosing either, but of the bitter affordances caused by the French suppressing supplies or effort to help restructure a post-WWI Germany. At least, that’s what bought most of those into service and belief. Winning, was not the context. It was loosing, then being drowned into economic destabilization by surrounding neighbors.

Not winning at all -- World War II, was also a result of Hitler’s pressuring into conquest -- and despite the emotives as discussed, World War II was afforded by a confidence in warfare strategy.

 

[KoreBolteR]

we all know hitler was a bad egg as soon as "The night of the long knives" occurred.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/night_of_the_long_knives.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnight.htm

:dozey:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Hitler entered politics in the first place because he was fiercely angry at the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was fiercely patriotic, and believed his country as being weakened by communists and jews. He got his support largely from the German people who felt similarilly suppressed and angry at Versailles and their country's weakened state.

The purpose of the Treaty of versailles was to 'supress the restructuring of a post WW1 Germany.' The winning countries basically forced Germany to pay for the war and severely weakened their country, taking land, resources and money. They also imposed strict military restrictions and other things to keep Germany in check.
The entire point was to prevent any attempt at a second 'Schlieffen Plan'.
The main reason Hitler was able to build his Germany back up into a military-economic superpower again was that he openly defied the treaty's limitations. And the general german populace supported him because they held disdain for the treaty as well.

So yes, WW2 and Hitler's rise were a result of Germany's anger at defeat after WW1. And since that was apparently what was happening again 1945, people were very concerned with post-war sentiment, as expressed through these articles.

 

[kirovman]

Hitler entered politics in the first place because he was fiercely angry at the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was fiercely patriotic, and believed his country as being weakened by communists and jews. He got his support largely from the German people who felt similarilly suppressed and angry at Versailles and their country's weakened state.

The purpose of the Treaty of versailles was to 'supress the restructuring of a post WW1 Germany.' The winning countries basically forced Germany to pay for the war and severely weakened their country, taking land, resources and money. They also imposed strict military restrictions and other things to keep Germany in check.
The entire point was to prevent any attempt at a second 'Schlieffen Plan'.
The main reason Hitler was able to build his Germany back up into a military-economic superpower again was that he openly defied the treaty's limitations. And the general german populace supported him because they held disdain for the treaty as well.

So yes, WW2 and Hitler's rise were a result of Germany's anger at defeat after WW1. And since that was apparently what was happening again 1945, people were very concerned with post-war sentiment, as expressed through these articles.

He was fiercely patriotic to Germany...but he was Austrian. He was a mixed up lad, that boy.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Hitler entered politics in the first place because he was fiercely angry at the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was fiercely patriotic, and believed his country as being weakened by communists and jews. He got his support largely from the German people who felt similarilly suppressed and angry at Versailles and their country's weakened state.

The purpose of the Treaty of versailles was to 'supress the restructuring of a post WW1 Germany.' The winning countries basically forced Germany to pay for the war and severely weakened their country, taking land, resources and money. They also imposed strict military restrictions and other things to keep Germany in check.
The entire point was to prevent any attempt at a second 'Schlieffen Plan'.
The main reason Hitler was able to build his Germany back up into a military-economic superpower again was that he openly defied the treaty's limitations. And the general german populace supported him because they held disdain for the treaty as well.

So yes, WW2 and Hitler's rise were a result of Germany's anger at defeat after WW1. And since that was apparently what was happening again 1945, people were very concerned with post-war sentiment, as expressed through these articles.

you fail to take into account the lack of will of the rest of the world to confront germany during the buildup and the failed policy of appeasemnt....... this is what led to WWII...... the treaty of versailles was designed to prevent Germany from rearming and if enforced it would have, but it wasn't and germany rearmed and 57 million people died as a result.

you can't lay the blame of WWII on the treaty of versailles, it just doesn't make any sense.