These are my responses to comments concerning my column, “Commies, Mommies, and Surrender Monkeys.
"At least Fox provides adequate sources.(Find proof that that Fox News has ever intentionally misreported. If you can't,
I would refer you to the film "Outfoxed". Please explain how the clause "some say/are saying" is an adequate source. Who are "some"? Are they authorities in the field/area of discussion? The fact is, the viewer doesn't know where FOX got its information at times. So no, FOX does not always provide sources. And that is irresponsible journalism.
You have my support. Fred Phelps has my hatred.
The first 5 points that you refute are mine. Thanks for taking the time to glance over them, but perhaps next time you should read them. If you had read them, you'd know that I had referenced The Power of Nightmares (1, 2, and 3) and that what's contained in that documentary is the basis for my claims. If you want to check the veracity of the claims then I invite you to view the documentary and look up their sources.
1. View The Power of Nightmares, as referenced above. Also read about Neoconservativism in the US and Leo Strauss.
Why did the Bush Administration wait 2 years? Because they first had to start out the war at a place where there were actually terrorists. It would seem a little out of place to start off the War on Terror without warring against terrorists. Once Afghanistan was secured we could then branch out to other places. You would know this, though, had you checked my sources.
2. Once again, had you done your research on The Project for a New American Century you would know where I base my knowledge on.
Why'd you pay $3.00 a gallon for gas? Partly because of the refineries (some of which closed due to Katrina damage) and partly because of what is called peak oil -- when oil no longer flows out of the wells easily and instead has to be pumped out. The oil in the top of the wells was very runny and was easily pumped (or floated out if the well was filled with water) but once that was gone, the tarry and highly viscous oil remained. It costs a lot of money to pump it out. Also, oil companies are making record profits. http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912
3. Yeah, I read your article on commies and mommies which is why I responded. To clarify, she said her son JOINED to protect America. She never, not in a right-winger's wildest wet dreams did she say he DIED. There is a difference. I'll let you consult a dictionary for factual sources on that.
4. Are you saying that we should bide our time with Saudi Arabia while their culture allows for the raising of suicide airplane hijackers for the sole reason of getting oil from them?
5. It does not stoke my ego to bash those who are meant to protect us. I was not bashing the military, but rather the policy of "shoot first, ask questions later". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11860
There's your proof, or better yet, do your own research and come to your own conclusion. With all the spin in today's society, pretty much everything is propaganda. Don't tell me to stop spouting propagand when you yourself are doing it as well. As you so like to say, I'm not a robot. I form my own opinions as I hope you do too.
I've been to Saudi Arabia (Riyadh, specifically). It really is a hellhole. There are some very spread out places where people don't care much about the laws regarding women, but for the most part, they follow them pretty strictly, because if they didn't, they would face some pretty horrible things (beating, stoning, hanging, being spit on, having your entire family disgraced, etc.).
The thing is, it doesn't matter if we went to war for oil or not. What matters is that we were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to the safety of America, which it was not, because they had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to produce more (both of which they did not). Then we invaded with the support of a coalition of the willing (mostly consisting of the smaller or less influential nations of the world), quickly defeated Saddam's not-so-hot army, occupied the country, and then gave ourselves a good pat on the back for a job well done, saying, "Look at how happy they were when we liberated their country!". And then we couldn't find ANY evidence of weapons of mass destruction or the ability to build them. And then the terrorist attacks started happening. They weren't happening before; when we invaded the country, we were fighting against Saddam's army, NOT al Qaeda. After Saddam's army became defunct, suddenly there are road bombs and car bombs and rocket-propelled grenades and kidnappings and beheadings . . . and we sit there going, "Oh . . . um, what the fuck do we do?" And that's kind of what's been happening ever since.
I'm sorry, but if that's not an absolute failure, I don't know what is.
I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning Saudi Arabia. The sooner we get rid of the government there and free the people the better. Of course, while the American military is the best in the world, we can do only so much. I hope and believe you do not think we can cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan which is what we would need to do to take them out(the Saudis have some big guns too).
As for the situation concerning Iraq, it is absolutly not a failure. We are winning this war. The people of Iraq have voted in a parliament(1/3 of which are women), are slowly forming a solid military, and are already telling off both Iran and Syria.
The situation there is not unique. It took more than five years to properly secure a defeated Germany. Our fighting men were dying left and right from cowardly attacks by Nazi sypathizers. People were even questioning how free the new nation would be considering that former regime elements there were still active in government. The only thing I can say is wait and see... We must have faith that good will be done because surrender is not an option.
1. In this documentary, a connection is claimed between neoconservatism(the definition of which is a more socially and economically moderate conservative with a hardline view concerning foreign policy) and fanatical Islam(which declares war on Judeo-christianity and takes a hardline on socio-economic freedoms).
I have very little to say to this. Comparing Neoconservatism to Islamafascism is like comparing Neoconservatism to a piece of toast. There is no way to debate this due to the fact that the claim is so absurd.
2. I will simply state the fact that it costs an OPEC country $4 a barrel to produce and market sweet crude. A barrel is now going for about $65. The money being produced by Iraqi oil is going to the nation. We are not getting free oil!
3. I will not argue semantics with you. I'll let the readers decide.
4. If you'd like to push your car, I'd be glad to push mine. (Personally, I bike wherever I need to go if it's close enough.) Of course, you'll also have to push our tanks(we'll need those to fight the Saudi's) our police cars(crime doesn't take a break), and our EMT's.
5. “Do you think they felt safe in the Superdome while fellow refugees were being raped and murdered?
Thank you for reading and commenting.
The Downing Street Memo's state only that there probably were not chemical or biological weapons. I have said this before but I will repeat it again: the UK's MI6 intel., Russian intel., Isreali Mossad, French intel., and even the UN believed that Hussein had WMD's based ON THEIR OWN INTELIGENCE. Were they lying? If you were in the President's shoes how could you not act based on overwhelming evidence?
He was wrong. That does not equate lying.
And if you had read my column, "Commies, Mommies, & Surrender Monkeys," I do not justify the war with WMD's but with Hussein's animositiy towards the US.
Hello again. I take issue with everything you say here, but others have already covered a lot of it quite well. I'm just going to reply to one short comment you made:
"I believe you are watching the BBC which is very anti-american and have a left-wing bias. Feel free to watch it if you please. I will only suggest you check out first Fox News(foxnews.com) which is pro-american and conservative leaning to see the news from America's perspective. Then I suggest you go to drudgereport.com which reports news from both right and left-wing sources to see the news from an unbiased perspective."
Wait, so it's not okay to watch the BBC (which you claim has a left-wing bias), but it's perfectly fine to watch FOX News (which you say has a conservative bias)? Um, right there, you just said that we don't need impartiality in the news; in your opinion, right-leaning news sources are preferable to left-leaning ones. I presume this is because you agree with the right-wing news sources. Secondly, left-leaning does not equal anti-American, and right-wing does not equal pro-American. Al Jazeera, for example, is a very conservative, right-wing news channel . . . it just happens that it's reporting from a conservative Islamic perspective. And I'm pretty sure Al Jazeera is anti-American. The BBC is hardly anti-American, and it's also really not very left-wing. Thirdly, conservative news stations are not "America's perspective". They might be a few of America's perspectives, but to say that FOX has a monopoly on the "American side" of issues is absolutely idiotic. They don't have over 50% viewership, and there are plenty of other valid news stations out there. You just happen not to agree with them.
Personally, I watch C-SPAN. Yeah, it's boring sometimes, but really, they stick a camera in a room and let it roll and they shut their mouths. The most unbiased reporter is he or she who does not report. And I can tell you, C-SPAN is hardly biased in what they cover either. For at least a week, there was complete coverage of a convention for Young Conservatives of America. Afterwards, there was coverage of an environmental issues conference.
However, I'm sorry to inform you that something can't be fair and unbiased if it takes a stance on an issue. You said yourself that FOX is conservative and pro-America. That's a biased position. After that, all it comes down to is your opinion on what is better, which, when you think about all the opinions out there, isn't much.
Also, why do you post here? This has very little to do with gay, bisexual or transgender issues, and it's hardly a journal entry so much as an editorial for a column you write elsewhere.
Thank you for reading and commenting again.
I'm busy working on homework, columns, ect. so I'll make this one short.
1. "Wait, so it's not okay to watch the BBC (which you claim has a left-wing bias)..."
I simply never said any such thing. I believe the BBC DOES have a left-wing oppinion concerning the war and economic and social issues. However, there is nothing wrong with choosing to view it. On the other hand, there is very little alternative to this view in the UK or wherever the person I was refering to lives.
Like you said, it is a matter of personal opinion as to whether a news source is right, left, or down the middle(by the way, I do also like c-span :-D). So, how can it one decide if he does not watch or experience something himself?
As for Al-jazeera, the one thing neither CNN, Fox, nor the BBC do is openly support the intentional murder of innocent people. Al-jazeera does and this is unacceptable.
I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE RIGHT OR LEFT WING- IF YOU SUPPORT OR AID MURDERERS, YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!
2. "Also, why do you post here? This has very little to do with gay, bisexual or transgender issues..."
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THIS. The War on Terror, economic and social freedom affect everyone including GLBT's. I'm not so deluded as to believe that I will be able to convince many people(or maybe I am), but by putting forth an oppinion which is controversial and unpopular(at least here), I can get people interested in the issues.
Now, if you are looking for a column dealing more directly linked to gay rights, my next will be on Same-sex Marriage and the one after that will most likely deal with how to punish Hate Crimes against gay people.
"I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE RIGHT OR LEFT WING- IF YOU SUPPORT OR AID MURDERERS, YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!"
You yourself say that the US should kill people who don't believe in what we do. Ergo, you support and aid murderers.
Also, just a quick thing:
Nutty, left-wing documentaries are not the same as government documents and memos. Government documents and memos ARE THE MOST VALID SOURCE OF INFO REGARDING GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY!!! The Downing Street Memo is not a nutty, left-wing creation . . . it's AN ACTUAL GOVERNMENT MEMO!!! Those are completely valid sources for information.
If you are not getting confirmation e-mails from Oasis to complete your membership, don't hesitate to e-mail jeff at oasismag dot com. Be sure to include your username.