Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 14, 2007, 06:45:10 PM
-
..which isn't surprising to say the least. Is anyone really surprised?
In 2006, they were first to report that Iraq's output was lowest since invasion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/ap/world/mainD8H969Q00.shtml
Today, only the BBC reports the highest output in Iraq, even before invasion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm
And yet the BBC cannot stand good news, notice how the article turns from good news to "but...".
Ah yes...the media is plenty liberal.
Incidently, the "good news not reported" is something I hear from alot of soldiers here in the Pacific Northwest (we live near McChord AFB and Ft. Lewis) as well as my nephew who is stationed in Iraq. Why do you suppose that is?
-
Good to see..but if there is a timetable for withdrawl who is really going to want to push for restructure(putting life on line) knowing full-well it will go to hell & a handbasket once the coalition force cut out?
i think a long term coalition precense is the only option.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Good to see..but if there is a timetable for withdrawl who is really going to want to push for restructure(putting life on line) knowing full-well it will go to hell & a handbasket once the coalition force cut out?
i think a long term coalition precense is the only option.
No different than Japan or Germany....
-
why are American troops still in Germany, where is the exit strategy? bring the boys home.
-
The occupations of Japan and Germany were conducted completely differently from each other to suit their differeing states after VE and VJ days...
Whereas ignoring the lessons learn't, the occupation of Iraq has been conducted different again from those two examples - why would you assume that Iraq would then also be a success based on the German and Japanese occupations?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
why would you assume that Iraq would then also be a success based on the German and Japanese occupations?
Tronsky
good point, lets keep troops in Iraq for 60 years and see how it works out.
-
Japan regained full sovereignty in 7 years, Germany was stable in less than 5 years and joined Nato in 10...why wait 60?
Tronsky
-
cause Germany & Japan weren't surrounded by religious fanatic theocracies bent on bringin arrmageddon to non-Islamists.
-
Germany has REAL useful bases for us, not sure about Japan
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
No different than Japan or Germany....
Well, there is that little declaration of war thing
-
(http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/chart1204.jpg)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20071204.asp
-
It isn't liberal bias, it is sensationalist bias. Good news is boring. You almost never see good news on any station on any topic. This has nothing to do with an Iraq agenda and everything to do with gaining viewers and profits.
-
Yup, some one robbed the bank I use about a year ago, it was all over the news.
I have been checking the headlines every day since, didn't see "The local bank was not robbed today" anywhere.
shamus
-
Originally posted by john9001
why are American troops still in Germany, where is the exit strategy? bring the boys home.
Because even though the Soviet Union is no more.
We still have Boroda to the east
(http://cap.anu.edu.au/cap/projects/linux/afraid.gif)
;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Because even though the Soviet Union is no more.
We still have Boroda to the east
(http://cap.anu.edu.au/cap/projects/linux/afraid.gif)
;)
Hey, you move your bases from Germany to Poland, Czhech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and Baltic "countries".
USSR brought it's boys home from Germany, you still move towards Russia!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hey, you move your bases from Germany to Poland, Czhech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and Baltic "countries".
USSR brought it's boys home from Germany, you still move towards Russia!
We are just chasing cheap women and beer.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
We are just chasing cheap women and beer.
Just a little to the East from where you are now - traditionally it quickly turns into sour adventures upon your arse.
Edit: if you come armed and want to get all for free. Ask your current hosts.
-
Interesting responses from the left in this thread ... it's only news if our boys die or injured - the fact they survive means nothing. You don't think if we had a donkey in the white house instead of an elephant, the media would not be showering accolades on their lefty POTUS bud? It is political, clean and simple.
you can't compare Germany/Japan in 1945 to Iraq in 07 as we left out the carpet bombing, firestorm bombing and the atomic bombs in Iraq. Something tells me if we'd made Baghdad (name your fav Iraqi crap-hole here) a Tokyo or Dresden not to mention a Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 03, the years following would not have had the insurgency issues we've had. Two very different wars, in two very different times.
-
I would bet MT's neighbors just about the time he reached shop class age considered an exit strategy from the neighborhood. Similar to how most of rational america feels about California today!
TJ
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Just a little to the East from where you are now - traditionally it quickly turns into sour adventures upon your arse.
Arse? Normally its the other end.. but your personal experience may differ. No matter, on this side of the curtain they developed shots for just that sort of complication. :aok
Originally posted by Boroda
Edit: if you come armed and want to get all for free. Ask your current hosts.
The Germans told us to go East too! No lack of cheap women and beer! Rumor has it they remain unsatisfied by the current stock.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hey, you move your bases from Germany to Poland, Czhech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and Baltic "countries".
USSR brought it's boys home from Germany, you still move towards Russia!
Thats cause we still have YOU to the east.
Move to Cuba and you will see all of those forces redeployed to southern Florida
;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hey, you move your bases from Germany to Poland, Czhech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and Baltic "countries".
USSR brought it's boys home from Germany, you still move towards Russia!
And that's why russia's economy continues to get stronger and the US economy is deteriorating. Guess we didn't learn from USSR's mistakes.
In a better world we'd have a president like Ron Paul who would curtail US militaristic waste.
-
Ripsnort you must be blind. Balanced reporting involves showing both sides of the coin on any particular issue. In that particular report they are showing that, despite alot of Basran Iraqis thinking the British presence has had a negative effect, there is clear evidence that improved security has brought a positive one - oil output.
Instead of reading for bias all the time, engage your brains and actually read for intent.
The BBC reporting is not biased - you simply have an in-built prejudice. That's fine, but it does make you a trifle dull and predictable.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The BBC reporting is not biased
cough buls*** cough
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Germany has REAL useful bases for us, not sure about Japan
I'd say Japan is an extremely important for us in regards to keeping North Korea under wraps. If there was ever a war with NK, it's almost certian they would try to invade South Korea.
So having a second staging area outside of South Korea is almost a must have when looking at the NK threat. Not to mention China being right there aswell.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hey, you move your bases from Germany to Poland, Czhech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and Baltic "countries".
USSR brought it's boys home from Germany, you still move towards Russia!
Only because you guys were broke at the time. :p
-
Nice counter argument, AKIron.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Nice counter argument, AKIron.
Sometimes things are just that simple.
-
Sometimes things are just that simple.
Isn't that the truth. If 'things' can be 'people' anyway.
-
I never claimed to be anything but simple. I'm kinda curious why you think the BBC is unbiased Dowding. I couldn't name a single news source I believe to be without bias.
-
I think you should qualify your assertion before I give you my views. Let's keep it simple.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I think you should qualify your assertion before I give you my views. Let's keep it simple.
You said the BBC was unbiased, I say it isn't. I'm not familiar enough with your politics to know if our left/right terminology perfectly applies to you. If it can be at least loosely applied then I say the BBC is not unbiased. Humans always see things through bias and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, (I reserve the right to prove you wrong) but I believe the BBC has far more lefties on staff than righties.
-
link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece)
THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.
It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.
The document, jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors, now replaced by the BBC Trust, includes details of a staff impartiality seminar at which senior figures criticised the corporation for being antiAmerican and pandering to Islam.
Criticisms highlighted from the seminar include: A senior BBC reporter attacking the corporation for giving “no moral weight” to America. Executives admitting they would broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away – but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims. The BBC deliberately championing multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, while betraying an anticountryside bias.
Mary Fitzpatrick, the BBC’s “diversity czar”, told the seminar Muslim women newsreaders should be allowed to wear the hijab, or headscarf, on screen. Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism over Fiona Bruce’s decision to wear a necklace with a cross while reading the news.
link (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3319064,00.html)
LONDON - What is keeping the BBC, which is ready to invest intense efforts and money, from publishing a report it commissioned to investigate whether its reporting is biased against Israel?
This question is being asked in Britain after a report about the BBC's petition to the High Court demanding the right to keep a report about its broadcasting secret. The report was commissioned by the BBC in 2003 and 2004.
In 2003, Israel complained about the broadcaster's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accusing the BBC of being biased against Israel.
Among other things Israel condemned the BBC's refusal to call Palestinian suicide bombers "terrorists"
The crisis reached a nadir when Israel banned diplomats and government officials from speaking with the broadcaster over its release of a documentary claiming that Israel has numerous weapons of mass destruction.
In 2004, the BBC decided to appoint editorial advisor Malcolm Balen to pile a report about the organization's coverage of the Middle East conflict.
The BBC refused to publish the full report although acknowledged that its reporting was biased against Israel.
link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770)
It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'
link (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/09/bias-at-the-bbc-and-britain-gone-soft-again/)
The London Telegraph reports that the bitter old BBC won’t air a drama about Britain’s youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero “because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.”
The subject of the drama was Private Johnson Beharry. Here’s the full citation of his heroism from the British Ministry of Defence:
“Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries). His valour is worthy of the highest recognition.
An incredible man, an incredible story. But British viewers won’t see it on the BBC because, as a source told the Telegraph:
“It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn’t show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.
“It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn’t approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn’t have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn’t do that.
“The film is now on hold and it will only make it to the screen if another broadcaster picks it up.”
Maybe Fox News can air it.
***
The BBC won’t broadcast a British war hero’s story, but it did have a reporter embedded last fall with…the Taliban as they killed British soldiers.
-
Damn, BJ....thats gonna leave a mark!
-
Originally posted by Shaky
Damn, BJ....thats gonna leave a mark!
Takes forever to look this stuff up on dialup, but I have time while P47 climbs:p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
No different than Japan or Germany....
That would be a poor correlation. And as much as I'm sure that's been beat to death here already .....
.... the "occupation" we currently have in both Germany and Japan has nothing to do with maintaining stability in either region. We're not there to protect the German people or the Japanese people from themselves nor are we there to deal with insurgents. We're there to project U.S. military presense globally, taking advantage of ongoing post-occupation agreements with now stable and peaceful allies to do so.
Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine but all these ridiculous WWII correlations that aren't even remotely comparitive get old fast. Kinda like Bush = Churchill and anyone critical of how the war's been handled to date = Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech and invading Iraq = D-Day and ....
*shakes head*
:aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
That would be a poor correlation. And as much as I'm sure that's been beat to death here already .....
.... the "occupation" we currently have in both Germany and Japan has nothing to do with maintaining stability in either region. We're not there to protect the German people or the Japanese people from themselves nor are we there to deal with insurgents. We're there to project U.S. military presense globally, taking advantage of ongoing post-occupation agreements with now stable and peaceful allies to do so.
Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine but all these ridiculous WWII correlations that aren't even remotely comparitive get old fast. Kinda like Bush = Churchill and anyone critical of how the war's been handled to date = Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech and invading Iraq = D-Day and ....
*shakes head*
:aok
Actually, I was thinking the first 5 years after winning the wars...no country defeats another, removes a dictator, then immediately pulls out.
But back to the topic, what say ye about the media not reporting good news in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, I was thinking the first 5 years after winning the wars...no country wins a war then immediately pulls out.
Gotta "win" the war and see the region stabilize to the same extent as Germany and Japan before you can make such a comparison or project it's success. Now, if you're dead set on such a comparison, let's do so more than superficially and declare the conclusion foregone. Do you not see some particularly obvious differences between this war, the region, the people, logistics and WWII?
And the media is in the job of reporting the news. Not just the news you .. or I .... want it to ("good", "bad" or "politically beneficial to my team".) I understand you're convinced that it's indeed doing number two and three in a conspiratorial effort to sabotage either Bush or the Republicans but I need a bit more convincing. Yeah, I know. Even after fifty threads "proving" the conspiracy I'm not yet convinced. ;) :aok :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Today, only the BBC reports the highest output in Iraq, even before invasion:
So what you're saying is that the BBC is less biased that all US media? :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Gotta "win" the war and see the region stabilize to the same extent as Germany and Japan before you can make such a comparison or project it's success. Now, if you're dead set on such a comparison, let's do so more than superficially and declare the conclusion foregone. Do you not see some particularly obvious differences between this war, the region, the people, logistics and WWII?
And the media is in the job of reporting the news. Not just the news you .. or I .... want it to ("good", "bad" or "politically beneficial to my team".) ;) :aok :D
We won the war. Saddam was removed. What you see on TV is insurgency, and a "continuation" of a "war".
Dude...we won. Saddam was dethroned. Syria, SA, Iran and every other nutcase infiltrated AFTER we took the country. Sure, you can call it a war, but it is a war after the victory.
Admit it, the success in Iraq is not kosher with the media.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So what you're saying is that the BBC is less biased that all US media? :aok
To a point, but as the link suggests in the first point, they STILL felt they needed to change the subject (good news) and report on bad news. Go back and read BJ's posts. The proof is there. YOu have to be willing to READ and COMPREHEND the truth first though...:rolleyes:
-
All media do that. That's not bias, that's sensationalism ... like I'm sure someone already have pointed out. Bad news is more exiting = more readers/viewers.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
We won the war. Saddam was removed. What you see on TV is insurgency, and a "continuation" of a "war".
Dude...we won. Saddam was dethroned. Syria, SA, Iran and every other nutcase infiltrated AFTER we took the country. Sure, you can call it a war, but it is a war after the victory.
Admit it, the success in Iraq is not kosher with the media.
I'm not seeing it "kosher" on your plate. Not even properly prepared and cooked. See. You can't even make up your mind if it's "mission accomplished" or "stay the course and eventually the plan has to work." It's either a war that's not over or a war that's over. If it's not over then, after five years, expect someone to ask why. If it's over, expect someone to ask when the boys come home (this includes your nephew, yes?). The U.S. military has no time machines.
-
not everyone would call killing innocent people with car bombs war, some of us call it criminal activity.
-
Originally posted by john9001
not everyone would call killing innocent people with car bombs war, some of us call it criminal activity.
Newsflash: The Bush administration stopped considering terrorism a purely a crime when they gave up on international law and declared a U.S. (you're either with us or against us) foreign war on it.
Insurgency, however is indeed a term of warfare and is what the occupation of Iraq was allowed to devolve into.
Some are of the opinion that the men who designed our present form of government never intended the militia nor a standing U.S. army to become a global police force against international crime .... even as a stand-in for the U.N. when it, as a body, fails to do the bidding of the U.S.
Stay tuned for updates as they happen.
Sorry the news wasn't what you wanted to hear.
:noid
-
news flash.........al qaeda is losing.
-
Originally posted by john9001
news flash.........al qaeda is losing.
Tell ya what. When the war on terrorism is over and all the terrorists are gone forever you and I can have a party. No ... really. Call me when it's over.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Only because you guys were broke at the time. :p
People saying "vae victis" deserve the same attitude towards them. Only Russians are traditionally too kind towards defeated enemies....
Didn't you hear that on Dec 12 we stopped our participation in Conventional Arms in Europe treaty? Could be interesting to see Russian Railway corp statistics now, how many tanks/artillery are relocated from Siberia/Far East to European Russia now.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Tell ya what. When the war on terrorism is over and all the terrorists are gone forever you and I can have a party. No ... really. Call me when it's over.
They are not going to get extinct until US stops supporting them in Chechnya and terrorist enclaves like Kosovo.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
They are not going to get extinct until US stops supporting them in Chechnya and terrorist enclaves like Kosovo.
Hate to tell ya. Terrorism is not gonna "get extinct" until the human race is. True pragmatism knows no politiks. :D
-
Originally posted by T0J0
I would bet MT's neighbors just about the time he reached shop class age considered an exit strategy from the neighborhood. Similar to how most of rational america feels about California today!
TJ
Here's a great example of the deterioration of the ability of young Americans to write something either relevant or funny. Sad but educational. Maybe they'll catch you up when you get to high school.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hate to tell ya. Terrorism is not gonna "get extinct" until the human race is. True pragmatism knows no politiks. :D
There was NO terrorism in USSR. Know why?
Let me tell you.
There was no environment for spreading terror. No so-called "free press".
Anyway "free-press" is a nonsense, it doesn't exist in the West too.
I am an enemy of any kind of "democracy", all for Totalitarism. Totalitarism means much more freedom for an individual then so-called "democracy".
-
Originally posted by Boroda
There was NO terrorism in USSR. Know why?
Let me tell you.
There was no environment for spreading terror. No so-called "free press".
Anyway "free-press" is a nonsense, it doesn't exist in the West too.
I am an enemy of any kind of "democracy", all for Totalitarism. Totalitarism means much more freedom for an individual then so-called "democracy".
Apparently the totalitarian definition of terrorism (and freedom) is different from the non-totalitarian version. But that's not news, either. And we're all about the news in this thread. :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
There was NO terrorism in USSR. Know why?
Let me tell you.
There was no environment for spreading terror. No so-called "free press".
Anyway "free-press" is a nonsense, it doesn't exist in the West too.
I am an enemy of any kind of "democracy", all for Totalitarism. Totalitarism means much more freedom for an individual then so-called "democracy".
There was 600 recorded terrorist acts per year in 1985 through 1987 in Soviet controlled Afghanistan. So much for Soviet "no environment for spreading terror".
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Apparently the totalitarian definition of terrorism (and freedom) is different from the non-totalitarian version. But that's not news, either. And we're all about the news in this thread. :D
Terrorism is terrorism: tell me bout any terror acts in USSR after 1925.
Freedom is what I can personally afford to do myself. Doesn't have to do anything to do with political/social system. Freedom is inside You.
But I have to admit that you are right to some extent: "democratic" definition of "freedom" means that someone can bomb your home and kill your family to "liberate" you.
-
Originally posted by Viking
There was 600 recorded terrorist acts per year in 1985 through 1987 in Soviet controlled Afghanistan. So much for Soviet "no environment for spreading terror".
Now in "democratic" Iraq you guys have 600 terrorist acts in how long? one week?
My friends who served in Afghanistan said they could illegally run away from their base in Kabul and walk in the marketplace wearing Soviet uniforms, unarmed, absolutely no fear. Is it possible in Iraq now?
You guys teaching us how to wage wars - it's more then funny :D
-
So you admit you were wrong and that there were terrorists acts under the Soviet system?
-
Originally posted by Viking
So you admit you were wrong and that there were terrorists acts under the Soviet system?
No. Why did you think I do?
There was no Soviet system in Afghanistan. That's simple. They didn't have a system of working people Councils there. USSR was the only country in the world that had this very special system of self-government.
There was at least one terror act performed in USSR in 1977, but it didn't reach it's goal of spreading terror, and it was made by people obviously insane, Armenian nationalists, fighting, as they said, "Russo-Jewish occupation".
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Terrorism is terrorism: tell me bout any terror acts in USSR after 1925.
Freedom is what I can personally afford to do myself. Doesn't have to do anything to do with political/social system. Freedom is inside You.
But I have to admit that you are right to some extent: "democratic" definition of "freedom" means that someone can bomb your home and kill your family to "liberate" you.
Obviously you don't consider terrorism conducted on the people by those in power as qualifying. But then you're confused about the actual ideology and lies and practices, in general, aren't you?
I know the true definition of Democracy and totalitarianism. I'm not confused about what properly represents the ideals of my nation or not when leaders, legislators, diplomats and bureacrats here screw the pooch. I'm even allowed to say when they do, in public. Is the book "1984" still banned in Russia?
:D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
No. Why did you think I do?
There was no Soviet system in Afghanistan. That's simple. They didn't have a system of working people Councils there. USSR was the only country in the world that had this very special system of self-government.
There was at least one terror act performed in USSR in 1977, but it didn't reach it's goal of spreading terror, and it was made by people obviously insane, Armenian nationalists, fighting, as they said, "Russo-Jewish occupation".
And there you have it, in a nutshell. Under our system a failure to adhere to legality by our forces abroad is considered a failure and may be subject to legal ramifications. Apparently you, as a self-appointed spokesman for all that's good under a totalitarian regime, see any and all illegality conducted by Soviet troops abroad as not only excusable but acceptable.
So much for proving anything practically superior about totalitarianism. ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Obviously you don't consider terrorism conducted on the people by those in power as qualifying. But then you're confused about the actual ideology and lies and practices, in general, aren't you?
Any state or government is nothing but an instrument of oppressing a personality.
And don't tell me about "actual ideology and lies and practices, in general" :D
Originally posted by Arlo
I know the true definition of Democracy and totalitarianism. I'm not confused about what properly represents the ideals of my nation or not when leaders, legislators, diplomats and bureacrats here screw the pooch. I'm even allowed to say when they do, in public. Is the book "1984" still banned in Russia?
LOL.
Another Orwell fan :D Did you read 1984 yourself? And you boast that you know something "true" :D 1984 was written about Western society, and you watch it coming true right now. JFYI: Orwell was a Communist.
And you still think you are _allowed_ to disagree. Your words speak for themselves.
As if your disagreement changes anything. How about saying that you disagree and openly saying that you are a Communist back in 1952?...
Don't tell me fairy tales, mate.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And there you have it, in a nutshell. Under our system a failure to adhere to legality by our forces abroad is considered a failure and may be subject to legal ramifications. Apparently you, as a self-appointed spokesman for all that's good under a totalitarian regime, see any and all illegality conducted by Soviet troops abroad as not only excusable but acceptable.
Anything like Mi-Lay done by Soviet troops anywhere? Or just Abu-Graib? Such things happened only in Rambo movies.
I don't think any war crime is acceptable.
How many aggressions from Russian Empire or USSR since, say, 1900? How many by USSR? Go figure.
Originally posted by Arlo
So much for proving anything practically superior about totalitarianism. ;) :aok
For a personality - totalitarianism (thanks for correct spelling, I used transliteration from Russian Cyrillic) is much better then democracy.
Look, I live here and I have seen both systems. I can't list all the crimes that were committed in the name of "democracy" here in one post. October 1993 was enough for anyone to understand. Totalitarianism = total literacy, education, medical care, human rights (i mean - true basic rights to live, to work, to have accomodation etc, not stupid things like so-called "freedom of speech"). Democracy = genocide, organized crime, homeless people, unemployment, illiteracy, total brainwashing.
The main difference is in goals. Totalitarianism is aimed on development of everyone for the sake of the whole society, democracy is aimed on fooling the masses to ensure profits for very few political and financial groups. Anyone saying that competition is good for corporations is absolutely stupid.
So it goes.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
People saying "vae victis" deserve the same attitude towards them. Only Russians are traditionally too kind towards defeated enemies....
Didn't you hear that on Dec 12 we stopped our participation in Conventional Arms in Europe treaty? Could be interesting to see Russian Railway corp statistics now, how many tanks/artillery are relocated from Siberia/Far East to European Russia now.
Yes you Russians were so kind to the Ukraine when you cut off their gas lines. I'm sure Putin just wanted to help them save money. :rofl
Don't worry though Broda I don't hate u Ruskies but you guys would be at it right with us had your country not collapsed. Soon as Russia starts to get some money flowing in Putian starts going gung ho with the Military as he is right now.
Your country would be so much better off if you guys would just work with the rest of the West in Europe and so on, instead of trying to take the hardline on everything.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Any state or government is nothing but an instrument of oppressing a personality.
And don't tell me about "actual ideology and lies and practices, in general" :D
Why. Does not compute? ;)
Originally posted by Boroda
LOL.
Another Orwell fan :D Did you read 1984 yourself? And you boast that you know something "true" :D 1984 was written about Western society, and you watch it coming true right now. JFYI: Orwell was a Communist.
And you still think you are _allowed_ to disagree. Your words speak for themselves.
As if your disagreement changes anything. How about saying that you disagree and openly saying that you are a Communist back in 1952?...
Don't tell me fairy tales, mate.
You're an authority on fairy tales, alright. I think I'll take Orwell's take on his work rather than the party reinvention you spew. ;)
"Orwell's inspiration
In the essay Why I Write, Orwell explains that all the serious work he wrote since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism."[6] Therefore, Nineteen Eighty-Four is an anti-totalitarian cautionary tale about the betrayal of a revolution by its defenders. He already had stated distrust of totalitarianism and betrayed revolutions in Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Coming Up For Air, at points, celebrates the personal and political freedoms lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Much of Oceanic society is based upon Stalin's Soviet Union. The "Two Minutes' Hate" was the ritual demonisation of State enemies and rivals; Big Brother resembles Joseph Stalin; the Party's archenemy, Emmanuel Goldstein, resembles Leon Trotsky, (both are Jewish, both have the same physiognomy, and Trotsky's real surname was 'Bronstein') Another suggested inspiration for Goldstein is Emma Goldman, the famous Anarchist figure. Doctored photography is a propaganda technique and the creation of unpersons in the story, analogous to Stalin's enemies being made nonpersons and being erased from official photographic records; the police treatment of several characters recalls the Moscow Trials of the Great Purge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Wiki banned there? :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Anything like Mi-Lay done by Soviet troops anywhere? Or just Abu-Graib? Such things happened only in Rambo movies.
I don't think any war crime is acceptable.
And they weren't. As stated, we here are accountable for our actions. You, there, apparently excuse yours. :D
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yes you Russians were so kind to the Ukraine when you cut off their gas lines. I'm sure Putian just wanted to help them save money. :rofl
It's free market. Do you think we should give them all for free and let our own people freeze?
It was their choice to leave the Union. Democracy in action again. 52 million lemmings can't be wrong. Oh, sorry - only 42 million now after 15 years...
Gas prices they got before were 10-20 times less then what Europeans payed. It was a discount for not helping our enemies. Not even for loyalty, just for neutrality - they got it cheaper then consumers inside Russian Federation. And WTO still complains that Russian consumes get gas cheaper then EU.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And they weren't. As stated, we here are accountable for our actions. You, there, apparently excuse yours. :D
Who "weren't"?
I don't see anything to excuse ourselves for. I asked for examples and again you keep reasoning.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who "weren't"?
I don't see anything to excuse ourselves for. I asked for examples and again you keep reasoning.
What additional examples do you need other than the ones you, yourself, provided. You said the Soviet troops in Afghanistan were excused from their actions because it was Afghanistan. I said the examples you gave of U.S. troops in Vietnam and Iraq were not only considered worthy of investigation and consideration of punative measures over here in the U.S., such actually happened.
No wonder you want me to take over and complete your arguments for you. You're at a loss.
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Why. Does not compute? ;)
Just look around. Or see some threads at this very board.
Originally posted by Arlo
You're an authority on fairy tales, alright. I think I'll take Orwell's take on his work rather than the party reinvention you spew. ;)
"Orwell's inspiration
In the essay Why I Write, Orwell explains that all the serious work he wrote since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism."[6] Therefore, Nineteen Eighty-Four is an anti-totalitarian cautionary tale about the betrayal of a revolution by its defenders. He already had stated distrust of totalitarianism and betrayed revolutions in Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Coming Up For Air, at points, celebrates the personal and political freedoms lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Much of Oceanic society is based upon Stalin's Soviet Union. The "Two Minutes' Hate" was the ritual demonisation of State enemies and rivals; Big Brother resembles Joseph Stalin; the Party's archenemy, Emmanuel Goldstein, resembles Leon Trotsky, (both are Jewish, both have the same physiognomy, and Trotsky's real surname was 'Bronstein') Another suggested inspiration for Goldstein is Emma Goldman, the famous Anarchist figure. Doctored photography is a propaganda technique and the creation of unpersons in the story, analogous to Stalin's enemies being made nonpersons and being erased from official photographic records; the police treatment of several characters recalls the Moscow Trials of the Great Purge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Wiki banned there? :D
Wiki = popular bull**** for dummies written by morons.
I can't see where Orwell's quote ends and where some moron's college work begins.
Putting words into someone's mouth is a typical "democratic" method.
And you totally misunderstand my definition of "totalitarianism". In your terms Democracy = USSR and Totalitarianism = modern West.
And Trotsky is a true symbol of inhuman tyranny, you, as many Westerners, see him only as a victim of Evil Stalin (tm), simply not knowing what he planned for me and you.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What additional examples do you need other than the ones you, yourself, provided. You said the Soviet troops in Afghanistan were excused from their actions because it was Afghanistan.
I seriously advice you to stop putting your words into my mouth. I kindly ask you to provide a quote where I said that.
Originally posted by Arlo
I said the examples you gave of U.S. troops in Vietnam and Iraq were not only considered worthy of investigation and consideration of punative measures over here in the U.S., such actually happened.
How long did Calley spend in prison for slaughtering several hundred people? Russian Colonel Budanov spends 10 years in prison for killing a Chechen sniper.
Originally posted by Arlo
No wonder you want me to take over and complete your arguments for you. You're at a loss.
Hey, you have an advantage anyway: I write in a foreign language and I simply don't understand some of your sentences. All I do is asking to elaborate, because I can;t see what your words are connected to my sentences.
Please don't start laughing at me or saying that I know Eng good enough: our languages are very different, and constructing a sentence in English way is sometimes very difficult for me, as well as disassembling yours to reach the meaning and re-build it into Russian equivalent. I try to think English, but some constructions are too complicated and I have to translate them, losing some flavor and meanings, I hope you understand.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Just look around. Or see some threads at this very board.
Wiki = popular bull**** for dummies written by morons.
I can't see where Orwell's quote ends and where some moron's college work begins.
Putting words into someone's mouth is a typical "democratic" method.
And you totally misunderstand my definition of "totalitarianism". In your terms Democracy = USSR and Totalitarianism = modern West.
And Trotsky is a true symbol of inhuman tyranny, you, as many Westerners, see him only as a victim of Evil Stalin (tm), simply not knowing what he planned for me and you.
I'm sorry, you obviously expect me to believe your spin over Orwell, himself. In spite of your love of Stalin (who I'm sure you fondly remember, personally), I'm not particularly convinced by your endless assertion (and not much else) that he was a particularly effective leader ("purge" all those who threaten you, especially the most skilled, experienced and practical of the lot) or a morally superior individual (example two .... wait, example one serves, as well).
You also have to reinterpret what I write to equal your own pre(mis)conceptions to "form an argument" (which really isn't one but since that's the best you can do you stick to it).
Do you actually have something with meat on it or are you longing to stnd in that line? :D
-
....Only Russians are traditionally too kind towards defeated enemies
Ummm...90,000 starving Germans surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 were ever seen again.:huh
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I seriously advice you to stop putting your words into my mouth. I kindly ask you to provide a quote where I said that.
I seriously will do the backtracking for you:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Viking
So you admit you were wrong and that there were terrorists acts under the Soviet system?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boroda responds:
No. Why did you think I do?
There was no Soviet system in Afghanistan. That's simple. They didn't have a system of working people Councils there. USSR was the only country in the world that had this very special system of self-government.
Originally posted by Boroda
How long did Calley spend in prison for slaughtering several hundred people? Russian Colonel Budanov spends 10 years in prison for killing a Chechen sniper.
" After a 10-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, Calley was convicted, on September 10, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, during which time he was allowed routine and unrestricted visits by his girlfriend.[28]
In a separate trial, Captain Medina denied giving the orders that led to the massacre, and was acquitted of all charges, effectively negating the prosecution's theory of "command responsibility", now referred to as the "Medina standard". Several months after his acquittal, however, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and had lied to Colonel Henderson about the number of civilian deaths.[29]
Most of the enlisted men who were involved in the events at My Lai had already left military service, and were thus legally exempt from prosecution. In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction.
Some have argued that the outcome of the My Lai courts martial was a reversal of the laws of war that were set forth in the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals.[30] Those tribunals set a historic precedent, establishing the principle that no one may be excused from responsibility for war crimes because they were "following orders". Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders — a rationale that stands in direct contradiction of the standards set in Nuremberg and Tokyo, where German and Japanese soldiers were executed for similar acts."
Also from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai (obviously "flawed" - ahem)
You see .... Nixon screwed the pooch there and, guess what? People here are allowed to be critical of him. But don't you pretend to offer up a convincing case that there are no cracks in the system of justice in a totalitarian regime because of the two examples you're parading around. I'm sorry ... I mean two examples I put in your mouth.
The system exists. The sentence was even given. A President interceded when he shouldn't have (and isn't universally praised for his action).
I noticed you didn't push on ahead with Abu Garib, though. Why?
Originally posted by Boroda
Hey, you have an advantage anyway: I write in a foreign language and I simply don't understand some of your sentences. All I do is asking to elaborate, because I can;t see what your words are connected to my sentences.
Please don't start laughing at me or saying that I know Eng good enough: our languages are very different, and constructing a sentence in English way is sometimes very difficult for me, as well as disassembling yours to reach the meaning and re-build it into Russian equivalent. I try to think English, but some constructions are too complicated and I have to translate them, losing some flavor and meanings, I hope you understand.
I'm not taking advantage of your skill or lack thereof in the English language. You've a greater mastery with it than I do Russian. Doesn't excuse the fault in your reasoning, however. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I seriously will do the backtracking for you:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Viking
So you admit you were wrong and that there were terrorists acts under the Soviet system?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boroda responds:
No. Why did you think I do?
There was no Soviet system in Afghanistan. That's simple. They didn't have a system of working people Councils there. USSR was the only country in the world that had this very special system of self-government.
So what?! What do "terrorist acts" that Viking mentioned have to do with the fact that there was no system of Councils of People's Deputies (it's how Soviet is translated into English, "Sovet" = "Council" or "Advisory") have to do with my approval of military crimes (if there were any, I still wait for examples other then Rambo-III).
Originally posted by Arlo
You see .... Nixon screwed the pooch there and, guess what? People here are allowed to be critical of him. But don't you pretend to offer up a convincing case that there are no cracks in the system of justice in a totalitarian regime because of the two examples you're parading around. I'm sorry ... I mean two examples I put in your mouth.
The system exists. The sentence was even given. A President interceded when he shouldn't have (and isn't universally praised for his action).
I noticed you didn't push on ahead with Abu Garib, though. Why?
People here are not "allowed" to be critical.
Don't you understand that this "being allowed" buries all your further arguments completely? It means that there are some things that you are _not_ allowed to do. Pure essence of Western "democracy".
Maybe you need to have some special permission to think?...
Budanov is in prison for 10 years - and it makes me respect Nixon, not Putin.
As for Abu Graib: I understand that sometimes inconvenient measures have to be taken, and they were used by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, but _not_ for fun and _not_ taking pictures like nazis did here in 41-44. As my friends said - people taking such pictures could have their cameras deep in their arses, by their own mates.
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not taking advantage of your skill or lack thereof in the English language. You've a greater mastery with it than I do Russian. Doesn't excuse the fault in your reasoning, however. :D
Again you don;t understand: it's ME trying to save your face. :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
So what?! What do "terrorist acts" that Viking mentioned have to do with the fact that there was no system of Councils of People's Deputies (it's how Soviet is translated into English, "Sovet" = "Council" or "Advisory") have to do with my approval of military crimes (if there were any, I still wait for examples other then Rambo-III).
No punishment due to no councils .... no advisories .... to investigate, sentence or enact punishment sounds like a pretty weak excuse. What's with your Rambo fetish/fixation? No matter how much you wanna project that rather bizarre affliction on me I, well, really don't get it, nor do I particularly desire to. Don't tell me it's another "Russian inside joke." ;)
Originally posted by Boroda
People here are not "allowed" to be critical.
Don't you understand that this "being allowed" buries all your further arguments completely? It means that there are some things that you are _not_ allowed to do. Pure essence of Western "democracy".
Maybe you need to have some special permission to think?...
Budanov is in prison for 10 years - and it makes me respect Nixon, not Putin.
Yeah. Ummmmm ..... makes perfect bizarrosense. *ShruG*
Originally posted by Boroda
As for Abu Graib: I understand that sometimes inconvenient measures have to be taken, and they were used by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, but _not_ for fun and _not_ taking pictures like nazis did here in 41-44. As my friends said - people taking such pictures could have their cameras deep in their arses, by their own mates.
If you really don't have an actual point to make behind the example you use, apparently a Russian example of something else will serve as well.
Mmmmmmright. ;)
Originally posted by Boroda
Again you don;t understand: it's ME trying to save your face. :D
Well thank you for telling yourself that. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
No punishment due to no councils .... no advisories .... to investigate, sentence or enact punishment sounds like a pretty weak excuse. What's with your Rambo fetish/fixation? No matter how much you wanna project that rather bizarre affliction on me I, well, really don't get it, nor do I particularly desire to. Don't tell me it's another "Russian inside joke." ;)
Well you either pretend to be stupid or just completely misunderstand me.
Soviet system = a system administrated by People's Councils. Every other country had different system of government, I don;t know what Afghanis had - but it wasn't a system of Soviets/Councils.
In USSR we had same 3 branches: Legislative (in fact more then legislative, hard to explain): Councils/Soviets, from village level to Supreme Council that was a Parliament of two houses, Council of the Union and Council of Nationalities. Then - Executive, from local Executive Committees to council of Ministers/People's Commissars. Then - Judicial, from local People's Courts to Supreme Court. Plus we had a Party structure that was parallel to legislative and executive branches. Plus we had Press/Media that _had_ to react to any correspondence and initialize investigation, involving all 3 branches plus Party.
That's too simple, but maybe will give you an idea.
There was no system of Councils in Afghanistan, they had something else, I don;t know exactly what. There was no Soviet administration there, Soviet 40th Army was solving current military and humanitarian (sic!) problems, and did it quite successfully.
Afghanistan didn't have "Soviet system", it had a different form of government. You see - I try to repeat everything at least twice and s l o w l y.
Originally posted by Arlo
Yeah. Ummmmm ..... makes perfect bizarrosense. *ShruG*
Hard to discuss anything with you if you don't understand it.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well you either pretend to be stupid or just completely misunderstand me.
Soviet system = blah blah blah = we couldn't punish our soldiers in Afghanistan because we didn't have a system that allowed for such.
That's too simple, but maybe will give you an idea.
There was no system of Councils in Afghanistan, they had something else, I don;t know exactly what. There was no Soviet administration there, Soviet 40th Army was solving current military and humanitarian (sic!) problems, and did it quite successfully.
Afghanistan didn't have "Soviet system", it had a different form of government. You see - I try to repeat everything at least twice and s l o w l y.
And still can't make a decent point doing so. No punishment of soldiers doing something illegal because they're not in the Soviet Union and .... the system your government used couldn't figure out an effective way to make them obey the law, much less punish them for breaking it ... still doesn't make your case for "superior totalitarian morality." It actually makes the picture more and more pitiful.
Now I know your pride is gonna make you lash out because of that but, Boroda, that's your problem, not mine. The first step toward enlightenment is recognition in your lack of such. Take that first small step. Let the power of Jesus heal your blindness.
(Slaps Boroda's forehead)
HE-YUL!
Originally posted by Boroda
Hard to discuss anything with you if you don't understand it.
Hard for you to make a point unless there's a decent point there to make. Don't blame me for it not being there. :D
-
Now I am quite sure that you don't pretend to be an idiot.
Can anyone here explain this character what I meant? I failed completely. He's trying to explain his sick concepts with my posts that don't have anything to do with that. This village fool called me a "rube" instead.
-
Feelin' a bit skint, are we? Heh.
Here. You try to explain it real slowly for me again.
The Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan were exempt from criminal prosecution because ... why? :D
With respect
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Feelin' a bit skint, are we? Heh.
Here. You try to explain it real slowly for me again.
The Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan were exempt from criminal prosecution because ... why? :D
With respect
What makes you think they were not prosecuted for crimes committed?
Are you really such a fool as you try to look?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What makes you think they were not prosecuted for crimes committed?
Are you really such a fool as you try to look?
Well I don't know. How foolish of me is it to not notice the punishment you think you illustrated while you were slowly explaining to me why the system of Soviet military law broke down outside the curtain? Besides, I thought your feelin's were so horribly wounded that you had to drop the matter and rush to the infirmary. I'm glad you're not as hurt as you previously thought. We're still good for pie in the other thread, right? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well I don't know. How foolish of me is it to not notice the punishment you think you illustrated while you were slowly explaining to me why the system of Soviet military law broke down outside the curtain? Besides, I thought your feelin's were so horribly wounded that you had to drop the matter and rush to the infirmary. I'm glad you're not as hurt as you previously thought. We're still good for pie in the other thread, right? :D
Keep chewing and wait for Christmas time when your breed gets acquainted with a 40cm Austrian bayonet.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Keep chewing and wait for Christmas time when your breed gets acquainted with a 40cm Austrian bayonet.
Could you please repeat that s l o w l y til it makes sense? I mean, it worked so well last time and all. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Could you please repeat that s l o w l y til it makes sense? I mean, it worked so well last time and all. :D
Austrian knife-bayonets from WWI are still kept in Eastern-Slavic villages - they are long enough to reach a heart through a thick layer of fat. We don't torture our pork.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Austrian knife-bayonets from WWI are still kept in Eastern-Slavic villages - they are long enough to reach a heart through a thick layer of fat. We don't torture our pork.
And that made your previous statement make perfect sense, how? Wait, it's some sort of "threat" I'm supposed to take seriously? I get it! See? I'm not all that slow. I'm feelin' really threatened by you now and am not at all inclined to make fun of you until you blow a gasket again .... sister. :D
-
I suppose working as a dummy for surgery students lobotomy practice gets payed quite well?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I suppose working as a dummy for surgery students lobotomy practice gets payed quite well?
If you're considering it, why not just apply and ask? Listen sister, you better show me, the other white meat, a little more respect or come Christmas time I may hafta hide your Freddy Kruger implements of holiday spirit from ya and you'll be at a loss as how to eat me. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If you're considering it, why not just apply and ask? Listen sister, you better show me, the other white meat, a little more respect or come Christmas time I may hafta hide your Freddy Kruger implements of holiday spirit from ya and you'll be at a loss as how to eat me. ;)
I ask a person who obviously has some experience.
And again, s l o w l y: w e k e e p y o u r b r o t h e r s a n d s i s t e r s i n a s t y.
-
And now go report on me, you, enlightened Democratic intellectual, the White Bone of the planet, for calling you names.
-
You don't have to live in fear about that, with me (though I know that's your first instinct). I'll just make fun of you til you think you win. ;) :aok
-
Think someone has been drinking too much Vodka.
-
Is it just me, or have these two begun arguing the same point?
It's quite clear both have keen intellects and are quick of wit, but for some reason it seems in recent exchanges they are both making the same point, just from different points of view.
Maybe I've missed something and I need to go back and read it all again.:confused:
-
Originally posted by SD67
It's quite clear both have keen intellects and are quick of wit,
:rofl
-
Don't worry, john. Someday someone might say the same of you. Probably because they felt sorry for ya. :D
-
Originally posted by SD67
Maybe I've missed something and I need to go back and read it all again.:confused:
I'm thinking you do. ;)