Chemical weapons being used ... how about it America?

by Simon 135 Replies latest social current

• 

  hillary_step

  Z,

  We must beg to differ in this one. You have presented no actual evidence of BBC bias, merely the opinions of those, who seem to have a very stout agenda, claiming that they do have evidence. You must Z, give instances and examples of this bias so that they can be examined outside of political agenda.

  The most common acusations of bias revolve around the fact that the BBC have made a policy decision not to refer to the proponents on either sides of the war in Iraq as terrorists, and I note much of your previous cut and past items revolved around this issue. I can well understand this decision, as can numerous people, including Donald Rumsfeld who now refers to them as 'insurgents'. The BBC refers to the US & Britain as 'American troops' and 'British troops' - not 'invading army'. This issue has been debated on this Board before.

  The reason the BBC chose not to use the term 'terrorist' in many of the Middle East scenarios was to uphold accurate reportage, not to display a bias. For example, is it accurate to refer to Hezbollah as a 'terrorist group'? The BBC thinks not, as they do not fit the accepted definition of the term terrorist, the Bush Administration and the Israeli's disagree.

  Some have accused the BBC of being made up of left-wing Socialist dinosaurs. If this is true, and I doubt it very much, it did not for example stop them referring to combat ready members of the IRA, a socialist organization, as 'IRA terrorists'. These combatants of course would not have viewed themselves as 'terrorists' claiming to be soldiers at war, but they fell inside the definition of the term 'terrorist' and were thus accurately reported as such by the BBC.

  'The Real Terror Network - Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda' by Edward Herman is an interesting read. It shows the hypocrisy of the US in labelling those whose interests they share as 'freedom fighters', and those whose interests they do not as 'terrorists'. That they use exactly the same methodologies, is of no interest to the US, what is important is whether they share ideals. An example of course is how the West backed the terrorists in Afghanistan, including Osama Bin Laden, when they were fighting the Russian army. Perhaps the BBC is trying to be more accurate and honest than its critics can see.

  We will talk on your return. Have a pleasent trip.

  HS
• 

  james_woods

  My name got mentioned by Hillary_Step, so I had to say thanks (I guess...):

  "to Forscher: Perhaps you should take a lesson from James Woods and his political growth on this board..."

  Thanks, that was very nice of you to say. However: Just prior, you wrote the following (in a reply) to me -

  _______

  I have made no secret of the fact that I have little respect for either side of the US political bastions. Kerry is a feeble hypocrite and Bush a dangerous moron. The American electoral system is imho a circus run by cynics and liars with marketing degrees and populated by people who missed their true calling, which is providing source material for Stephen King novels. If the US electorate were a little more used to thinking through the issues rather than voting for the man with the straightest teeth and the least plausible lies, perhaps the US might regain some of the international respect that it has lost the past while.

  My political affiliations, should you want to know, veer much more toward European Social Democracy than anything the US has to offer these days.

  _______

  I think it is quite possible to challenge an issue without resorting to gross personal slander. You have managed to do this against both previous US Presidential Candidates, the governance of all American Elections, and finally all American Voters.

  If anyone thinks I have "grown" politically, I would hope they would note that it is in the directions of (a: considering both or all sides of an argument at least a little) and (b: reserving the personal name calling to the privicy of my own house). You would, BTW, be surprised how good at this some of us are who also restrain ourselves in public.

  Now, let us get this straight; you like Reuters and the BBC. I just quoted your opinion of America, in most graphic terms. You think the American form of government is architected by Stephen King wannabes. You "veer" toward "European Social Democracy"...("veer???")

  Maybe stuff like this is where us yanks are getting the idea that the BBC does not like us, nor our allies. This may be all the proof that a normal Texan needs.

  Ya think?

  Regards, James
• 

  hillary_step

  James,

  This may be all the proof that a normal Texan needs.

  lol....nuff said.

  I stand by what I wrote regarding the US electoral system and its very poor choice of candidates on all fronts, including my earthy but accurate definitions of both Kerry and Bush. I am quite sure I could prove my 'slander' ( actually I wrote this, so it is libel ) in a court of Law with great ease, that is if I could call Laura Bush as a witness for the defence, and if John Kerry's wife allows him to attend.

  As the dangerous moron might himself have said '...'bring 'em on'.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  james_woods

  Hillary - Ha! I just thought you might like to take a bite of my little piece of bait -

  "all the proof a normal Texan needs"...

  So, would you call this learned writer from Texas a "normal"? If not, would it be better if I became an "abnormal"?

  My point is still in play - the tone of the quoted remarks (both yours about America, Simon's provocative title for the thread, and the above slight slur on the great state of Texas) shows and admits decided bias against centrist American attitudes. When we read the same thing in a newspaper or hear it on the air (yes, we have BBC here in the far western frontier), we rightly (IMHO) impute a hostile attitude on the part of the author and/or speaker.

  OK - back to the real topic of the thread (and it was not the veracity or bias of the BBC)...

  I looked back over this whole little tempest just now, and it occurs to me that a few of us may be "hijackers". Simon asks the question "Chemical weapons being used... how about it America?".

  I will answer this as simply as possible for a person from (oh - forget about that, as simply as I know how...):

  Weapons of which I have a reasonable working knowledge come in several major types: Primitive - Kinetic & Edged Instruments (knives, swords, clubs, nightsticks etc.). Simple Ballistic (Chemical Explosives) (guns, cannon, napalm, iron bombs, mines, etc.). Chemical & Biological Agents (anthrax, mustard gas, sarin, other poisons, dirty nuclear agents, etc.). ThermoNuclear (A-bomb, H-bomb, the so-called Neutron Bomb).

  As these things go, escalation should only take place on an as-needed basis. And here, I mean as really needed. This is why civilization tries to adhere to reasonable morals (if such a thing is even possible in war). There are, of course, cases where these weapons can hit un-intended targets and that is always regretted by civilizations that have honor and integrety.

  Each of these can only be morally used to expedite theend of the hostility as necessary to return the situation to a more peaceful state. I believe that this was the case with the A-bombs at the end of WW2. Sometimes it takes a horrible weapon use to stop an even greater horror, given the nature of man and his historical need to dominate one another in wars.

  I believe that people who like to highlight so-called indiscriminate use of war weapons upon innocents to make a political point (and who aim the criticism on only the side they are against) bring shame upon themselves (and their capacity to reason in a balanced way).

  Hope that was reasonably civil, sir - the topic of debate is a worthy one.

  James
• 

  hillary_step

  James,

  My point is still in play - the tone of the quoted remarks (both yours about America, Simon's provocative title for the thread, and the above slight slur on the great state of Texas) shows and admits decided bias against centrist American attitudes. When we read the same thing in a newspaper or hear it on the air (yes, we have BBC here in the far western frontier), we rightly (IMHO) impute a hostile attitude on the part of the author and/or speaker.

  What can I say? I once had a long-term relationship of love and respect for the US. The past while we have not been getting on. I think I share this sentiment with millions of people around the world, though I wish that I were unique in my cynicism. The Bush Administration has driven the US to the sort of embarrassed isolation such as one previously reserved for those who thought Pol Pot was the Polish dish of the day.

  I first came to the US almost 40 years ago. It was a country struggling with itself, grappling with Vietnam and its own social conflicts, but through all the passion, the nihilism and division I saw a hope shining through, a hope best revisited in the music of the age. When young people took to the streets and changed the world, it was a victory of people over power. I was proud of the US. In many ways I still am. But where are the people and where is the passion? A government is running roughshod over many of the noble principles that once set the US apart from its peers, and all we hear are feeble whimpers in response.

  Returning to my original post which if you recall was in response to your suggestion that I backed John Kerry, I wrote in answer :

  And here I thought you admired John Kerry for his firm and resolute stand upon the issues...

  I have made no secret of the fact that I have little respect for either side of the US political bastions. Kerry is a feeble hypocrite and Bush a dangerous moron. The American electoral system is imho a circus run by cynics and liars with marketing degrees and populated by people who missed their true calling, which is providing source material for Stephen King novels. If the US electorate were a little more used to thinking through the issues rather than voting for the man with the straightest teeth and the least plausible lies, perhaps the US might regain some of the international respect that it has lost the past while.

  In your national sensitivity, and I well understand a person having deep national pride, you have taken what I write as a flippant insult toward the US. My insults were directed toward the Kerry, Bush and the electoral system that has evolved in the US, and I would like to put it record that they were not flippant - I mean them all. Though I might have chosen more tender words, they would probably not have been read as carefully. Your country is in deep crisis on many fronts James, it can only be saved by its people, many of whom are asleep at the wheel.

  As to Simon being anti-American, well perhaps he does go over the top at times, as do those who sit on the other side of the house. Reading the comments from some of the inane neo-cons on this discussion Board, I can understand his passion. When you are faced with people seriously suggesting that 'all Muslims should be nuked', or still arguing that WMD exist in Iraq, or implying that those who criticize the Bush Administration hate Americans, or those who think that Iranians are Arab, as I have read on this Board a number of times, his anti-American sentiments pale in comparison to these sorts of ignorant comments.

  Best regards - HS

  PS - Sorry about the long-winded posts on this thread, but I just read Terry's post and rose to the occasion. Hi Terry.
• 

  james_woods

  Hillary, the above comments are well taken.

  There does not seem to be any simple solution to the problems of the middle east, and the radical factions that drive this conflict.

  People of various views can debate this without resorting to "suicide bombing", however. You and I have perhaps given an example of this in our public discussions.

  Now then, on to Simon - yes, he does go "over the top" from time to time.

  The latest evidence is his seeming support for the "self-shifting" or F1 style "paddle shifting" automatic transmissions.

  The only "automatics" that we appreciate here in Texas start with the P08 Luger 9mm and continue through Sig-Sauer, Beretta, and H&K.

  Happy Halloween from Dallas, fellow Devil Worshippers!

  James

  PS - maybe one of us should start a serious thread on the possibility of forming a 3-state hegemony in Iraq as an exit strategy?
• 

  stillajwexelder

  There does not seem to be any simple solution to the problems of the middle east, and the radical factions that drive this conflict.

  I beg to differ - if the US could do billions of dollars of research and get an alternative to crude oil and the US to wean itself off cheap gas - it would go a long way (not all the way), to solve the problem
• 

  james_woods

  So - (and please excuse any impressions of sarcasm...) -

  I beg to differ - if the US could do billions of dollars of research and get an alternative to crude oil and the US to wean itself off cheap gas - it would go a long way (not all the way), to solve the problem -

  Should this be taken to mean that if the US were to find the perfect energy solution, so that the oil reserves of the middle east were then worthless, radical Islam would just roll over and say "thank you american scientists for putting us all back into the stone age"?

  I think in that unlikely event, even the Royal House of Saudi would be ready to kick our asses.

  James
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Should this be taken to mean that if the US were to find the perfect energy solution, so that the oil reserves of the middle east were then worthless, radical Islam would just roll over and say "thank you american scientists for putting us all back into the stone age" I think in that unlikely event, even the Royal House of Saudi would be ready to kick our asses.

  No but we (Anglo-American-European Union) could mind our own business and keep out of the Middle East -
• 

  james_woods

  And then the middle-eastern agitators of low moral intent would keep out of our subway systems?