Looking for Unbiased War News? 426
AlexisKai asks: "With the forecast for tomorrow being sunny with a 90% chance of airstrikes, the US government will be clamping down on unpatriotic stories and the rest will be self-censored by the major media anyway. Where are Slashdot readers planning to look for reliable, disinterested reports as events in Iraq unfold?"
Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google (Score:2, Interesting)
How does Google decide what stories are published on the Google News homepage?
The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web. This is very much in the tradition of Google's web search, which relies heavily on the collective judgment of web publishers to determine which sites offer the most valuable and relevant informat
GO KGO! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GO KGO! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GO KGO! (Score:3, Funny)
Ignorance is knowledge.
War is Peace [nonymous.org]. (...actual screenshot of google news, on Feb 26th 2003...)
Re:GO KGO! (Score:2, Funny)
Oh yeah, that's not unbiased at all
Re:GO KGO! (Score:2)
Oh yeah, that wasn't sarcasm at all.
Please replace faulty hardware. (Score:2, Funny)
Your sarcasm detector seems to be malfunctioning. Please return the unit to it's place of purchase and return it for a new one (if the current detector is still under warrenty) or (if it is no longer under warrenty) feel free to disassemble the detector yourself and look for any obvious problems.
Units over the age of 50 tend to suffer problems with their input devices. This does not necessarily indicate a problem with the sarcasm detector itself.
Also, certain units seem have problems with the
Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)
ER, again, Unbiased , you said ?
I'm afraid you'll have to talk another language than english if you want to have Real Unbiased (tm) news.
Now, everybody, including me, has its own agenda, so you'd better be your 0wn Google news, and sample differents opinions to try and have a kind of "better picture". But that's true even outside war time, hmmm ?
Now look at the discussion, t
Re:Google (Score:3, Informative)
3 of the 10 daily English language newspapers with the largest circulation are in India (The Times Of India [timesofindia.com] is the most circulated English language newspaper _worldwide_, and oh about 10% of India's population understand it reasonably well. They're not particularly pro-war.
And there's good ol' Canada up to the north. I hear that they have a lot of English speakers.
And there's also South Africa, the Phillipines, Pakistan, Ireland, and New Zealand if you want other countries with sizable Englis
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple things...
I agree that the "news" many major Arab dailies dish out are appalling from the standpoint of verifying background facts, sifting through stories for ones to print and to ignore, and weighting editorial opinion.
But, those defects happening there do not by any means imply that U.S. news sources have necessarily reached the pinnacle of journalistic standards for factual, unbiased and independent reporting.
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran [irna.com]
India [hinduonnet.com]
Switzerland [swissinfo.org]
Russia [themoscowtimes.com]
Saudi Arabia [arabnews.com]
Re:Google (Score:4, Funny)
"Swiss remain neutral - The Swiss president, Pascal Couchepin, has condemned the United..."
The Swiss find it newsworthy to report that they're neutral!?!?!
Re:Google (Score:2)
Hmmm...
The Best you'll find (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Best you'll find (Score:5, Insightful)
'Reliable, disinterested reports'... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:'Reliable, disinterested reports'... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best you can ask for is a reasonably eclectic set of news sources, from which you can, hopefully, synthesize a picture with a reasonably low signal-to-noise ratio. -- rather like the work they do with long baseline radio telescope arrays.
(One thing I like about news sources like the "Marxist Workers Journal" is that it's pretty easy to see where their bias lies. Newspapers like The National Post, on the other hand, tend to have reporters and editors who are reasonably good at hiding their bias. This requires a bit more effort on the part of the sceptical reader).
They are desinterested. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They are desinterested. (Score:3, Informative)
I think two things are worth noting. The BBC aren't afraid to note that a column of American troops are in fast retreat (wording unheard by my ears on American broadcasts by any network, yet apparently the first column heading into Basra met with stiff enough resistance a retreat was ordered until air support could arrive).
Al
Re:'Reliable, disinterested reports'... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't follow, unless you misread "disinterested" as "uninterested".
"Disinterested" simply means that they don't have an interest or agenda themselves, that they have nothing to gain. It's not that they're bored, but rather impartial.
Mind you, since the UK is an interested party in the war, I'm not sure that the BBC is neccesarily the best way to go. I've been looking at the CBC page [www.cbc.ca] as well -- Canada is of course a US ally, but they're not happy with this whole thing and they don't mind saying so.
I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Informative)
CBC chose not to "embed" reporters in the warzone and instead decided to focus on other angles. A pretty good choice since what they would be able to report would have been strictly limited by the military and CNN, FOX, NBC, would be reporting the same thing anyway.
My other choices are the BBC and Google News since it surveys US newscasters.
Don't forget CBC Radio. http://www.rcinet.ca/
Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:2)
Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but there's no such thing as 'unbiased' news. Everyone has their slant and their agenda, and no matter how fairly they treat the subject matter bias will always be there. One must read multiple news sources from around the world, ones that don't just copy Reuters, and decide for himself what's going on. Hear all sides of the argument and form a conclusion on what's really going on.
No one's going to spoonfeed this to you - do it yourself.
Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:2)
Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm... The CBC is obviously not unbiased, nothing is, but they aren't particularly biased toward the government. I've always liked how they publish all their journalistic standards, how they pay sources, conflict of interest stuff and that sort of information in an easy to find place: http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/htmen/policies/journal
Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:2)
All of em (Score:5, Insightful)
fooozball (Score:2)
As for news sources... thank God we have the Internet. I'm willing to bet some European or South American news sites ought to have a fairly unbiased coverage.
There is none (Score:5, Insightful)
My advice? Get your news from a variety of different sources, and then check on who THEIR sources are. At least then you'll be somewhat more informed than the average (dumb) Joe who recites facts (or "facts" if we're talking about Fox) without knowing anything about the situation.
Re:There is none (Score:2)
Read all the viewpoints, filter out the hyperbole and crap and whatever's left should be relatively useful.
Try Australia (Score:4, Interesting)
And we are involved in the war.
For a fairly neutral, balanced view, try the Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au].
Re:Try Australia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Try Australia (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Try Australia (Score:2)
Re:Try Australia (Score:2)
Re:Try Australia (Score:2)
Ignore the news (Score:4, Insightful)
The news will not cover the war. You won't learn what it was like for some Iraqi soldier to get carbonized instantly by a gunship (because his country's despot ruler is a punk). Why bother? Read an AP or Reuters report and get on with your life, the one with your $3 latte on the way to work tomorrow morning, because your life ain't the one those Iraqis are living, and it sure as hell isn't anything like what FoxCNNMSNBC is gonna show you.
Re:Ignore the news (Score:2)
Fox news (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Fox news (Score:2)
Hidden elements of the U.S. government sell war. (Score:3, Informative)
For links to stories about how hidden elements of the U.S. government sell everyone else on war, see What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
U.S. government agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI function as a world-wide secret police force. If they make trouble, they get more attention and funding. There is a huge conflict of interest.
Big weapons makers in the U.S. like GE own media companies, so they can make sure that war is seen as necessary and even interesting and fun. For many people in the U.S. war is an adult video game. They don't really think of the pain and suffering the U.S. government has caused. The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries in 35 years and killed more than 3,000,000 people.
U.S. taxpayers pay Israel $900 per year for every man woman and child in Israel. That money must be used to buy weapons from U.S. weapons makers. So much money for war tends to prevent peace.
The U.S. interferes with needed governmental change in Saudia Arabia. I don't think violence is justified. However, Saudi friends have told me that Osama bin Laden's complaints about the U.S. government are justified.
I find it deeply painful to realize that the government of the U.S. is partly corrupt.
Re:PARTLY corrupt? (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. government's foreign policy is in no way dictated or influenced by the opinions or needs of American citizens (or any other world citizen, for that matter) or moral imperatives. U.S. foreign policy decisions are made entirely on the basis of economic interest, Cold War style paranoia, or both.
& a quick look at the financial profiles of Bush & a large number of Congress members makes it fairly obvious that U.S. politics has reached a state where lawmakers and U.S. government leaders don't really even need to be bribed by interest groups, they can bribe themselves. For example, Bush's oil-industry stock is going to skyrocket if the U.S. can take control of the Iraqi oil fields for a multitude of reasons. On the domestic side of things, that same oil-industry stock portfolio also discourages him from enacting good environmental policies such as a push for more fuel-efficient automobiles or programs to encourage the development of the United States's public transportation infrastructure.
2,000,000 people killed in the Vietnam war. (Score:2)
The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,000,000 people in the Vietnam war. The bombing of Cambodia killed a huge number.
I find the arguments credible that the bombing of Cambodia destabilized the society there, and the U.S. government must take some responsibility for the deaths of millions after the bombing. But only those killed directly are included in the 3,000,000. Note that no one in Vietnam or Cambodia ever directly threatened anyone in the United States. I often heard military people speculat
Think for yourself... (Score:5, Insightful)
So both of these are mostly very unbiased, but on such a issue, probably leaning to opposite sides. one can expect them to report pretty much all relevant points to the issue between them, and then, once u have all the information, build your own opinion...no, not as easy as getting your opinion ready made for you by a single source, but i think the only way one has any chance at knowing even a part of the truth. I know this is what i am going to do.
One thing i am not going to do is read CNN, though. CNN has recently been a major dissapointment in its over all coverage of ALL issues, from the ENRON and co. scams, to the IRAQ issue. I think they are guilty of fraud, the way they omit an anti-goverment viewpoint, eg in the case of the hugely edited UN weapons inspector transscript posted on CNN (read about it on that other site [kuro5hin.org] )...thats just one example. Their coverage of the worldwide anti-war protests could have made one feel that it was just a dozen hippies who made a bit of noise, not the 10 million plus who marched all over the world. What good is the guarentee of freedom of press when the press is unwilling to use that freedom? Its weird that a govt. owned news channel (BBC) manages a much more balanced reporting that a completely independent and very powerfull entity like CNN. The irony get worse when you consider that CNN gained most of its worldwide popularity during operation desert storm, when it was the only international news network allowed to operate from inside iraq by saddam, because, as the iraqi govt put it: "they are the only ones we trust to objectively report the truth".
Its a weird world.
Ghoul2
Re:Think for yourself... (Score:2)
I love the fact that the BBC dont have to listen to anyone else but themselves (Not to the government, investors, advertisers etc.)
Re:Think for yourself... (Score:2)
Re:Think for yourself... (Score:4, Informative)
Liberal bias is calling 80000 protestors 250000 like in San Fansisco on 2/15.
Liberal bias is not showing video of protestors spitting on cops and hitting horses trying to provoke a "nazi crackdown on their freedom".
Liberal bias is calling Bush a cowboy with no world support (35+ nations disagree)
Liberal bias is thinking that the US should surrender its soverignty to the UN.
How about? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait... reliable
Radio Netherlands, and the GuardianUnlimited (Score:3, Informative)
Radio Netherlands [www.rnw.nl]
Guardian [guardian.co.uk]
alternet.org (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.alternet.org [alternet.org]
Unbiased news source (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Nothing wrong about that unless you pretend it is not true.
Moderate this to the ninth circle of hell (Score:4, Informative)
Tim
Not BBC (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not suggesting BBC coverage is terrible - it is very good in fact, just that any suggestions it is unbiased are exagerated.
Also, the BBC, especially on TV, has a nasty habit of wildly speculating about things. More than once I have seen them suggest that something is certainly going to happen, only for it to later not happen. Quire often the truth gets less coverage than the original incorrect speculation.
I think this is one of the nastier symptoms of "I WANT NEWS NOW!" syndrome. The media is so eager to report news the instant it happens (and public demand drives this) that by the time something has actually happened people are already moving on to speculating what will happen next.
Re:Not BBC (Score:2)
Its pointless trying to get unbiased reporting. Everyone has a opinion, a point of view. Even if everything that is said is true, there is still the issue of what is not said. You can not cover everything.
News is at it's best where alternative view points are presented, discussed and argued out. The BBC does quite a lot of this, and it's for this that I like to listen to it
Re:Not BBC (Score:2)
Just because the side they are biased for also screams bias doesn't mean they are unbiased. It means they are making a token effort to unbiasedness that isn't perfectly in line with what one side says.
In truth though, there is No such thing as unbiased reporting. Read it, know it, and get over it. Unbiased reporting cannot exist because even a middle report of both sides is biased (to a middle ground) There are many sides to most stories, and many many different viewpoints are possible. Instead read
Wait about 30 years... (Score:2)
But history is written by the victors (Score:2)
read about what really happened in the history books
Sorry dude
History books are written by the winners (and those who want to influance the young) and can be very biased.
eg Many history books fail to mention the staggering numbers of civilians killed when allies carpet bombed German cities in WW2.
You certainly wont find a US history book that mentions Regans bombing of Tripolli in the 80's [obs-us.com] nor will kids be tought about the US embarasment in Somallia. Simerly, here in Britain very little is tought to c
Re:Wait about 30 years... (Score:2)
Hey, attacking someone in advance out of self defense
I Get My Unbiased Info From.. (Score:2)
http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/ [uruklink.net]
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Score:2)
Nothing to do with the compliant US ABC
In particular, Max Uechtritz - one of Australia's most respected war correspondents - is currently the head of news and current affairs at the ABC.
On my list (Score:2)
Some Arab links (Score:3, Informative)
Pentegon TARGETS independent reporters (Score:5, Informative)
ALL news will be censored since the pentegon have said unauthoriesd satellie broadcasts (including those from journalists) will be targets. Read this [gulufuture.com] from Kate Adie. (Kate Adie is a BBC reporter who covered the last gulf war and is regared very highly in the UK)
If the US blocks all outside broardcasts we can only wait until after the war to see anything like the truth. Censorship sucks.
Re:Pentegon TARGETS independent reporters (Score:2, Informative)
"I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes
Again, it was not a threat, it was a warning. We are using RADAR-seeking missiles to disable Iraqi intelligence and communications, and those missiles have no way of telling what they are going to hit--only that it is a strong radio source. Thus journalists have been duly warned o
BBC News (Score:2, Flamebait)
BBC News Online [bbc.co.uk].
The BBC World Service [bbc.co.uk] is available on both online and Radio [slashdot.org]World-Wide.
BBC News 24 [bbc.co.uk] is available on Digital Satellite thought the world.
Press Freedom Index (Score:2, Interesting)
Start at number 1 and work your way down.
NPR & PRI (Score:2)
Re:NPR & PRI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh! (Score:2)
World News Guide (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggest consulting several sources with a broad range of perspectives. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Guardian Unlimited's World News Guide [guardian.co.uk] is a good starting point. It contains pointers to international sources for news from every region of the world.
The worst source for information is the American electronic media. They are obsessed with breaking the newest little piece of news, ignoring normal journalist practices of verifying information before going live with it. They focus on areas and events where they have reporter who can transmit live, and give little time to anything else. I watched CNN for half an hour this morning, and not even once did they slow down long enough to provide a summary of what was happening. FOX, CBS, etc. are just as bad. ABC is a little better, but only when Peter Jennings the anchor.
Give up now. (Score:4, Insightful)
All media is biased, one way or another; the only difference is the direction of that bias. The most dangerous media outlets are the ones who claim to be unbiased, because they've lost sight of their bias in their arrogance.
So if you want a balanced view of the war, looking for a single source will do you no good, because no single source exists. Instead, get your news from multiple sources, always aware of each source's bias, and then think for yourself. The classic "CNN and the BBC" may not work well in this particular case, given that they're both located in nations with a direct hand in the attack. If you really want to walk on the wild side you could use Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, but many people can't stomach either of them, much less both.
Look around, and you'll find something. Just remember this rule: don't let anyone do your thinking for you.
US Military? (Score:3)
http://www.centcom.mil/ [centcom.mil] is where the US military distribute their news, eg transcripts of press briefings, images of leaflets they've been dropping on Iraq, that kind of thing. Unfortunately they seem to be running it off a teeny weeny server so its always on the brink of falling over.
The BBC's John Simpson was going to be crossing the border into Iraq from the Kurdish side as soon as possible, and is not travelling with Army units (he says "the army - anybody's army - gets in the way of reporting"). His reports can be interesting if a little self-aggrandizing (if you heard his reports when he arrived in Kabul last year you'll know what I mean). Anyway, unlike most of the press, he won't just be reporting what he's been briefed by the military.
FBI posting this? (Score:2)
If not, well Ive found the Observer, the UK Independent, russian interfax, Pakistans dawn.com to be nice and unbiased. Ever BBC is pretty objective with not overflowing opinions like the CNN or NYTimes.
A smart person would gather objective data from these and form his own opinion rather than sucking up the world's opinion.
The Christian Science Monitor (Score:3, Informative)
They have won many awards, respected by the industry, and are very neutral. They do have points of view, but are expressed in op/ed type sections, not news stories.
How about Marginally Intelligent News (Score:3, Funny)
I know the media wants to be there for every shot and get incredible footage of things blowing up. I'm sure we'd have cameras broadcasting footage from each bomb, plane, tank, and rifle if the media had their way. They would receive advance notice, so they could go in and set up cameras to get the best angles on the attack.
What the hell is wrong with the media? As early at 10:00 EST they were doing estimates on how much money the strike cost. At 9:45 they were speculating on what had been bombed and why.
I think the Daily Show last night had the best coverage - it was taped before the deadline and aired after. They cut to a segment where Steven said "If we have not bombed them, I disagree with this war with every fiber of my being, but if we have, then I have been behind this effort wholeheartedly the entire time."
Unbiased War News? (Score:5, Informative)
I recommend looking to The Onion [theonion.com]. It is, after all, America's [theonion.com] Finest [theonion.com] News [theonion.com] Source [theonion.com].
In all seriousness, I shall probably be checking the BBC's web site regularly (News Ticker [bbc.co.uk] (Win32) | RSS [bbc.co.uk]), as well as buying a decent newspaper [independent.co.uk] for greater depth and insight.
Of course, for those committed to both sides of the argument, I recommend visiting Al-Jazeera [aljazeera.net] with the use of a Arabic-English [ajeeb.com] translator. Apparently, Al-Jazeera will soon be launching an English language service (e.g. the end of March).
One journalist's perspective. (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading many of the comments in this thread, it's clear there is a lot of skepticism and mistrust toward how the US media will cover the war with Iraq, and I would heartily encourage this.
The biggest reason to take everything you hear with a grain of salt is because of how the US media is approaching this conflict. Essentially, the US press is beholden to the military in every way, shape and form in trying to cover this war.
Most of the information you will read in the newspaper or see on TV is from "imbedded journalists," who are reporters who have been officially credentialed and assigned to particular US military groups around Iraq. As you might expect, they have no freedom or initiative to actually go out and obtain first-hand observations. They are spoon fed information from official government press conferences. Although one argument to justify this situation could be is that it's to protect the journalists, in reality it's one big spin-control session.
It's hard to fault the journalists parroting our government's propaganda right now. They are strongly influenced by their environment and the pressure to produce some sort of story, whether or not it is fair, accurate and responsible. Personally, I doubt we will vitness any true "front-line" journalism for quite a while, but I know there are reporters wandering in the war zone who will publish pieces free of the yoke of our government's influence. These stories (and photos) will appear in newspapers -- not on TV where there pressure for "up to the minute" news is too great. Just be patient.
Re:Source? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who? Assuming you're not making this up-- no offense intended; I'm just being honest-- I probably know him. So who was it? Feel free to email me privately if you would prefer not to reveal the name in this forum.
Re:Source? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, controls on reporters are so lax right now that a journalist speaking on Liddy's radio show today revealed operational details of the unit in which he is-- or maybe was-- embedded. He said, live and over the air, where they were staging, what their target was, and what kind of resistance they expected to meet, leaving no detail out. Hardly the iron-fist approach that Ms. Adie claimed.
Probably what happened is this: a Pentagon official, speaking on background, told her about one of the weapons in our arsenal, a radiation-seeking missile called HARM. Fire one of those and it homes in on the strongest radio source it can find. We use those missiles primarily to take out radar facilities, but we can also use them to sever wireless communications links. She probably misunderstood and asked, "What if it's a journalist broadcasting on television?" To which the Pentagon official replied, "Well... they've been warned." Or something like that.
That's a much more likely scenario than the thought that there's a secret plan to kill unruly journos and only Ms. Adie knows about it. Occam's Razor, don't you know.
Re:Source? (Score:5, Informative)
She's covered just about every conflict - major and minor - of the last 20 years, and she didn't make it this long by being dumb, so when she says that unathorised transmissions are considered to be legitimate targets by the US forces, it's because she's been told so, and having been told so she double-checked with her sources to verify what she was reporting was accurate.
I find it far more plausible to believe that the Pentagon was trying to spin this story back their way than to believe that Adie misrepresented the facts - either intentionally or unintentionally.
Besides, I've heard the same story being reported by several other news sources and agencies. I find it hard to believe that they've all got it wrong.
Please, let's not make the truth any more a casualty of this war/invasion than it already is.
WILL attack un-authorised sat links: See this link (Score:2)
I have actually heard a high placed member of the Bush administration threaten to attack 'un-authorized' satelite links.
Yes this is true. :-) But they do link in to the transcripts.
First quote I have found is here [theregister.co.uk]
Not that the regester is known for unbiased reporting
Re:WILL attack un-authorised sat links: See this l (Score:2, Informative)
A missile isn't smart enough to tell the difference between a high-power television transmission and a radar dish of the same power... RTFA people, this isn't censoring of the media, they're simply trying to keep the repor
Re:WILL attack un-authorised sat links: See this l (Score:2)
The AR in HARM (Anti-Radiation) means that it finds the strongest source of EMF around, locks onto it and explodes, taking out the transmission equipment. Typical uses are radar installations, but if a sat uplink or radio tower was pumping out more wattage than the radar facility next door, I guess you are SOL. Problem is, Saddam would be kind of pissed about an re
Re:WILL attack un-authorised sat links: See this l (Score:5, Informative)
In a past life I was one of the guys who tested these puppies (Shrikes, HARMS, Cruise Missles, Mavericks, Smart Bomb guidance systems, etc.) at China Lake NWC [navy.mil]. For Shrikes and HARMS we would setup dozens of "threat" simulators, each with slightly different modulation (CW, PRF, PW, jitter, spread codes, etc.) to simulate particular makes and models of radar, and each at different location to simulate real life deployment. You don't want to be near any source that is on a target signal profile list. One of my other duties included measuring the distance between the boresite and the missle's impact crater after a test. Often enough my simulators were damaged or destroyed by inert warheads alone :-). Let's just say the 100-hour 1st Gulf War wasn't much of a surprise - China Lake has geography a lot like Kuwait and Iraq.
It's certainly possible to discriminate targets well enough to avoid targetting TV satellite uplinks. It's even possible that journalist's military-supplied uplinks are provided with known spread code signals that are put on an avoid list. A warning and insistence on "equipment registration" may be CYA - unless they know the equipment's signature, there's still a small chance of a "mishap". However, unless they choose to target TV stations it would still probably be pretty safe (How many TV broadcasters does Iraq really have? Ah, maybe one? Compared to simply being shot by accident?) The spectral signatures of analog or digital TV are pretty different from radar (even spread spectrum radar).
<OffTopicWarning KarmaLock="disabled">
Despite my experience with this stuff, I'm still against this war and the facile justifications pathetically provided for it. If you don't see a patriot described above, you need to get your head examined!
This war is about extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the entire world and Manifest Destiny as a world hyperpower. It's spelled out on the PNAC web site [newamericancentury.org]. Note the founders include Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other major hawks in the Bush Adminstration. Also note that the entire obsession with regime change and axis of evil predates 9-11 back to when Clinton was approached by PNAC with essentially the same Iraq/Axis of Evil plan. Clinton rejected it. Bush has embraced it. Linkage between Al Qaida and Iraq? Machiavelian fiction, nothing more. Weapons of Mass Destruction (worked on those too ;-| )? Doesn't add up in the context of post-War Iraqi infrastructure and economics, and especially not with forged documentery evidence provided by the US and UK intelligence agencies.
Creating a hegemon might not even seem so bad if you happen to be an American, but this type of foreign policy is certain to be mirrored in domestic policy: the beginning is Patriot I, Patriot II, TIA, CAPP and other recent laws and proposals.
For those who have read Linked [slashdot.org], consider what a Bose-Einstein condensation of a geopolitical social network is in comparison to what it is for an economic social network. Consider that one of the desires of PNAC is to assure that the relationship between the US and each other country shall be stronger than the relationships between any pair of countries. What social network topology is that? Can you say: "All Roads Lead to Washington".
There are many active and reserve duty officers with similar concerns. I recently gave a speech about this subject where an officer I know, who is now serving in the Middle East, was in attendence. I was concerned about his reaction - these are scary ideas most people would prefer to ignore - but he approached me after the speech and was my stron
Re:Might I suggest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might I suggest (Score:2)
To trust journalists for unbiased anything is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. "Fair and Balanced," via Fox News means they just try to present an offsetting viewpoint to the other mainstream networks. They do this because many feel the others present a decidedly left bias--an assessment open to debate depending on which end of the spectrum one finds himself. However, if this bias weren't perceived by a significant number of people, then Fox News would not b
Re:Might I suggest (Score:2)
Re:Might I suggest (Score:4, Interesting)
The military does not have much of a problem with its soldiers forming their own opinions. I have been in quite a few facilities where CNN and other news feeds are piped in. Post exchange facilities, even those in theatre, have access to Newsweek and Time.
The reason why the military does not care is because it really does not need to. Discipline, integrity and professionalism are typically motivation enough for a soldier to serve in combat. Comradery is another. There are some who do serve because--well, because they're crazy. Those in the latter category consider it the ultimate X-sport, or just like the thought of killing. Regardless of the cause, the Army does not need to misinform its personnel because there are factors other than one's opinion of contemporary events that compels one to serve.
My point that you contend with is that when one is an eye witness, then the source of bias is oneself. To illustrate my point, seeing Auswitz first-hand did a lot to convince those present that they were fighting the Germans for all the right reasons. The fact that Saddam commits attrocities will be aparent most to those who witnessed first hand. The fact that Saddam has weapons he recently said he didn't will be aparent to those who have to react to them.
The only time in my years of service where I was out of touch was when I was in Basic Training--and that was because there's really too much going on to muck with TV. Oddly enouch, that was during the last Gulf War.
Besides, who's to say that those who don't support the war aren't being brainwashed? Afterall, my key point is all news is biased, and if one gets his opinions from what is gleaned from the media, then is that not brainwashing?
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
As for "unbiased news", you expect we'll listen to someone with a blatent 'anti-american' slant?
Yeah, I know you're a troll. Just frustrated at the latest anti-american 'fad'...
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
wo3 ye3 dong3 zhong1wen2.
(why did Slashdot disable Unicode HTML entities? Tried to post in UTF-8, but got the stupid
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.)
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
It looks like proper Japanese to me... There are many ways to romanize Japanese--the particle "wo" is often romanized as "o". And while you've shown me that you're quite impolite, that's you, not me.
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
Yes, while I admit I had no idea who he was from the picture, I read the caption. Which is how I knew he was a Danish guy.