. So check your local TV listings.This has nothing to do with Cars?
-
Ironichumour
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 1288
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:31 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Contact:
I have to disagree that it's not the gov'ts - pertaining to the war in Irag the US gov't was censoring reporters. I know it's usually pretty much just apathy that stops people from seeking out other viewpoints, but in some cases (probably more than we know) the gov't has a hand in what its population has access to.
It's not what's on the outside, it's what's under the hood
Actually, no "true" censoring was done; what they did was offer journalists the option to ride with their units on the front lines and get a real feel for what's going on. If the journalists could not keep up (they had to be physically fit), did not cooperate w/ military orders (which they should, the military has to protect them), or were not positive in their reporting, they would be asked to return home. It was a propaganda tactic, and I think a well-intentioned one, as many of the journalists saw real military life, and bonded with the men in the unit assigned to protect them, but of course it doesn't show the negative side, although for understandable reasons.Ironichumour wrote:I have to disagree that it's not the gov'ts - pertaining to the war in Irag the US gov't was censoring reporters. I know it's usually pretty much just apathy that stops people from seeking out other viewpoints, but in some cases (probably more than we know) the gov't has a hand in what its population has access to.
IIIRC, they didn't ban reporters in the field that weren't with them; they simply refused to guarantee protection.
You mean, like Michael Moore's?Sypher wrote:Funny you should bring that up Humor, cuz just the past few days, I was watching a couple of 9/11 videos. They were talking about the 9/11 as an act by the gov't and was a huge conspiracy. Many of their facts were actually very wel proven with evidence...
I'm sure there are some valid viewpoints out there, but Michael Moore was a complete fraud, and he knew that he was bending facts and the truth to produce his mockumentary (I refuse to call that trash a documentary, because documentaries are based on facts and objective data).
And don't get me started on Passion of the Christ. Oooh, don't get me started.
-
Sypher
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 7337
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:52 am
- Cars: 05 Mazda 3 GT
- Location: Hiding behind the dancing Peter Griffin
- Contact:
nah it wasn't micheal moores'. It was a video on google. I think it was called loose change.LS1Leader wrote:You mean, like Michael Moore's?Sypher wrote:Funny you should bring that up Humor, cuz just the past few days, I was watching a couple of 9/11 videos. They were talking about the 9/11 as an act by the gov't and was a huge conspiracy. Many of their facts were actually very wel proven with evidence...
I'm sure there are some valid viewpoints out there, but Michael Moore was a complete fraud, and he knew that he was bending facts and the truth to produce his mockumentary (I refuse to call that trash a documentary, because documentaries are based on facts and objective data).
And don't get me started on Passion of the Christ. Oooh, don't get me started.
-
Ironichumour
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 1288
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:31 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Contact:
I think that the fact that you put quotation marks around "true" is an indication that you acknowledge that not everything was going on in a way that would keep civilians informed - and so they should be! After all it is their families being torn apart by war! I have read about other things that have happened when it came to the censorship of the press, but I'll have to find the links and stuff so that you don't have to just take my word for it.
While I agree that Moore manipulated the information to suit his purposes (and usually does no matter what), there is so much evidence outside of his films that support the conspiracy theories - and I have to admit, I'm being convinced more and more daily. I don't take things point blank, I go and research things from as many different angles as I can find, and things seem to be pointing in a direction that does not favour the US gov't at all. There are a lot of people picking up on this as more and more comes out in the wake of the frantic scurry of the 9/11 attacks and its response. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was an absolute tragedy - I've to ground zero and I've seen the videos and I know people affected and I understand the implications of it all. However, an attack on their own nation tends to blind people when it comes to their gov'ts actions in the aftermath...naturally, all people want is retribution. I am believing more and more that this whole ordeal of invading Iraq and gaining more control of the Middle East (consequently, where the largest amount of the world's easily accessible oil is) was put in motion long before George W. Bush got into office. There are a lot of credible, intelligent people making reference to Bush and Manifest Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny) - as in whether this is truly Manifest Destiny or if it is just an excuse. Actually at my school last year we were lucky enough to have Gwynne Dyer come in to speak to the senior students, and he has some very interesting theories, I don't agree with all of it, but two of his main points were 1) As I said, that Bush has set in motion the steps for the States to have future control over the world's oil and 2) That Bush is also trying to surround the rising China (with the goal of containing it), a nation not truly friendly towards the US - when you look at a map and see all the countries that Bush has either invaded or has ensured friendly relations with, they do in fact seem to go around China.
Anyway, I could go on and on but I'm about to be kicked of the net - which may not be such a bad thing because I should be studying for exams!!! Today's was postponed because of the bus cancellations. *sigh* I realize I never really got to concluding my point or even backing it fully, but I will finish it up when I can get back on the web. I owe you some links and more developed arguments! I love debates!!!
By the way, this has got me thinking. To anyone reading, how much control do you think that our governments should have over what information its citizens have access to? Some people think that everyone should have free access to everything, but other believe that only relevant and important things should be released to the general public. What do you think? And if you agree with the second viewpoint, who gets to decide what is relevant and important?
LS1Leader I am right there with you about the Passion though!!!!
While I agree that Moore manipulated the information to suit his purposes (and usually does no matter what), there is so much evidence outside of his films that support the conspiracy theories - and I have to admit, I'm being convinced more and more daily. I don't take things point blank, I go and research things from as many different angles as I can find, and things seem to be pointing in a direction that does not favour the US gov't at all. There are a lot of people picking up on this as more and more comes out in the wake of the frantic scurry of the 9/11 attacks and its response. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was an absolute tragedy - I've to ground zero and I've seen the videos and I know people affected and I understand the implications of it all. However, an attack on their own nation tends to blind people when it comes to their gov'ts actions in the aftermath...naturally, all people want is retribution. I am believing more and more that this whole ordeal of invading Iraq and gaining more control of the Middle East (consequently, where the largest amount of the world's easily accessible oil is) was put in motion long before George W. Bush got into office. There are a lot of credible, intelligent people making reference to Bush and Manifest Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny) - as in whether this is truly Manifest Destiny or if it is just an excuse. Actually at my school last year we were lucky enough to have Gwynne Dyer come in to speak to the senior students, and he has some very interesting theories, I don't agree with all of it, but two of his main points were 1) As I said, that Bush has set in motion the steps for the States to have future control over the world's oil and 2) That Bush is also trying to surround the rising China (with the goal of containing it), a nation not truly friendly towards the US - when you look at a map and see all the countries that Bush has either invaded or has ensured friendly relations with, they do in fact seem to go around China.
Anyway, I could go on and on but I'm about to be kicked of the net - which may not be such a bad thing because I should be studying for exams!!! Today's was postponed because of the bus cancellations. *sigh* I realize I never really got to concluding my point or even backing it fully, but I will finish it up when I can get back on the web. I owe you some links and more developed arguments! I love debates!!!
By the way, this has got me thinking. To anyone reading, how much control do you think that our governments should have over what information its citizens have access to? Some people think that everyone should have free access to everything, but other believe that only relevant and important things should be released to the general public. What do you think? And if you agree with the second viewpoint, who gets to decide what is relevant and important?
LS1Leader I am right there with you about the Passion though!!!!
It's not what's on the outside, it's what's under the hood
Just to add to this, while I think that the families of those soldiers deserve to hear about what's going on on the front lines, I don't think they should expect it. I haven't heard of anyother nation with "fair and balanced: reporting showing the negative things their soldiers are going through. We don't learn about the dark side of the war until it's over, and sometimes we never learn about it. Every country tends to put a positive spin on their war news. And the one time that the US didn't (Vietnam War), they lost badly... Not because they were outgunned/outclassed/outnumbered/outmaneuvered, but because they lost a propaganda war and the people back home lost the stomach to fight. It's the same tactic being used by terrorists now; they can't win by tactics or numbers, so they use propaganda to try and sway American opinion. The US tried to do the same thing in the Middle East, by opening up their own TV station to counter Al Jazeera, but it's hardly as effective.
People haven't come to terms with the power of propaganda and public opinion... In the most extreme case, I really can see the case made by those "patriots", because every citizen that protests the war proves to the other side that they are fighting for a reasonable cause, and when taken to the extremes of logic, war protesters ARE getting American soldiers killed. I don't believe they should be silenced, but I believe people need to be aware just how much of an effect they have on a war effort.
Back to the censorship issue, i say it's not "true" censorship because I don't believe the military was actively censoring anything; they simply helped journalists report on the positive side of the war, and few journalists were willing to take the risk of life and limb to report on the negative side. Just like you won't see any tapes released by Bin Laden about how many Al Qaeda members were captured, how many missions were failures, and how much resistance they're meeting. Not to mention the disinformation provided to potential suicide bombers to get them to join the ranks. As for Al Jazeera, I doubt they are as harsh on Al Qaeda as they are on the Bush administration.
As for conspiracy theories, I bet you could find a couple logical documentaries suggesting that Katrina was unleashed by the Bush administration as well. Maybe I'm a little biased, because I tend to stick to the scientists' concept that "the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct", rather than the poly sci's concept of shadow games and intrigue, but to me, incompetence and miscommunication seem like much more likely explanations of why 9/11 happened vs. a great government conspiracy to eventually attack Al Qaeda and Iraq, and siphon huge amounts of government money to party cronies and friends in the way of government contracts for rebuilding. Yes, we know there's corruption in Iraq, yes, we know that the NSA has been spying on Americans, and probably improperly incarcerating and interrogating a few of them, and yes, we know there's shady stuff going on with torturing so-called suspects in other countries, but I don't believe they're all part of a greater plan to build the government's power. The corruption is expected; even the oh-so-neutral UN had boatloads of corruption in the oil-for-food program with Saddam. As for the NSA, people get so angered when they hear that Americans are being treated like spies and terrorists and seem to deny that there's domestic terrorists. Al Qaeda is now using non-Middle Easterns who sympathize with their cause to carry out their work, since they don't fir the profile. Finally, I don't believe that what's been going on was a well-orchestrated power grab by the government, but rather a natural succession of events, resulting in a power grab by the government. Either way, intentional or accidental, I don't like it.
Damn, that was long. I'm hungry.
People haven't come to terms with the power of propaganda and public opinion... In the most extreme case, I really can see the case made by those "patriots", because every citizen that protests the war proves to the other side that they are fighting for a reasonable cause, and when taken to the extremes of logic, war protesters ARE getting American soldiers killed. I don't believe they should be silenced, but I believe people need to be aware just how much of an effect they have on a war effort.
Back to the censorship issue, i say it's not "true" censorship because I don't believe the military was actively censoring anything; they simply helped journalists report on the positive side of the war, and few journalists were willing to take the risk of life and limb to report on the negative side. Just like you won't see any tapes released by Bin Laden about how many Al Qaeda members were captured, how many missions were failures, and how much resistance they're meeting. Not to mention the disinformation provided to potential suicide bombers to get them to join the ranks. As for Al Jazeera, I doubt they are as harsh on Al Qaeda as they are on the Bush administration.
As for conspiracy theories, I bet you could find a couple logical documentaries suggesting that Katrina was unleashed by the Bush administration as well. Maybe I'm a little biased, because I tend to stick to the scientists' concept that "the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct", rather than the poly sci's concept of shadow games and intrigue, but to me, incompetence and miscommunication seem like much more likely explanations of why 9/11 happened vs. a great government conspiracy to eventually attack Al Qaeda and Iraq, and siphon huge amounts of government money to party cronies and friends in the way of government contracts for rebuilding. Yes, we know there's corruption in Iraq, yes, we know that the NSA has been spying on Americans, and probably improperly incarcerating and interrogating a few of them, and yes, we know there's shady stuff going on with torturing so-called suspects in other countries, but I don't believe they're all part of a greater plan to build the government's power. The corruption is expected; even the oh-so-neutral UN had boatloads of corruption in the oil-for-food program with Saddam. As for the NSA, people get so angered when they hear that Americans are being treated like spies and terrorists and seem to deny that there's domestic terrorists. Al Qaeda is now using non-Middle Easterns who sympathize with their cause to carry out their work, since they don't fir the profile. Finally, I don't believe that what's been going on was a well-orchestrated power grab by the government, but rather a natural succession of events, resulting in a power grab by the government. Either way, intentional or accidental, I don't like it.
Damn, that was long. I'm hungry.
Further reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
It seems to be DARPA-level stuff, but it's definitely an indication that the US government does not intend to play a passive role in the propaganda war. Their direction appears to be towards delivering propaganda and misinformation rather than censorship, although they achieve similar results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
It seems to be DARPA-level stuff, but it's definitely an indication that the US government does not intend to play a passive role in the propaganda war. Their direction appears to be towards delivering propaganda and misinformation rather than censorship, although they achieve similar results.
-
Honda Rules
- Junior Standardshifter
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:38 pm
- Location: Toronto
Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind-John F Kennedy
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.- John F Kennedy
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free -John F Kennedy
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses
These quotes are all from John F Kennedy....I respect him..i wasnt alive when he was president or when he died...however from looking at the quotes..I respect him and his quotes sound so good..for example That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind...it sounds good
Sometimes it scares me how much i know about U.S.A
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.- John F Kennedy
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free -John F Kennedy
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses
These quotes are all from John F Kennedy....I respect him..i wasnt alive when he was president or when he died...however from looking at the quotes..I respect him and his quotes sound so good..for example That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind...it sounds good
Sometimes it scares me how much i know about U.S.A
Last time the NDP was in power was NEVER. In 1988, they ahd the highest number of MPs in parliament. in 1987-93, it was the conservatives with Mulroney, and yes, he screwed up the country. Btw, the spending in social programs would cost less than the tax cuts planned by Harper. Sure, les GST sounds nice, but we'll ahve to pay for it one way or another.Sypher wrote:Agreed. Last time NDP was in power was either before when I was born (1987) or just after.
-
Sypher
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 7337
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:52 am
- Cars: 05 Mazda 3 GT
- Location: Hiding behind the dancing Peter Griffin
- Contact:
I don't know too much about political history so I would have to take your word for it. What I said, I heard from a co-worker.acadien wrote:Last time the NDP was in power was NEVER. In 1988, they ahd the highest number of MPs in parliament. in 1987-93, it was the conservatives with Mulroney, and yes, he screwed up the country. Btw, the spending in social programs would cost less than the tax cuts planned by Harper. Sure, les GST sounds nice, but we'll ahve to pay for it one way or another.Sypher wrote:Agreed. Last time NDP was in power was either before when I was born (1987) or just after.
And yes, I don't like the GST tax cut idea either.