• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Europeans trying to influence US election

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was reading an interesting article in the newspaper recently about how iran is on the verge of revolution, and the iraqi war is simply spurring it further along. the argument made was that many of the anti-u.s. forces in iraq are quite simply iranians. don't know how much of this is valid but it was interesting. sorry, don't have a link to the article.
 
kevin said:
I was reading an interesting article in the newspaper recently about how iran is on the verge of revolution, and the iraqi war is simply spurring it further along. the argument made was that many of the anti-u.s. forces in iraq are quite simply iranians. don't know how much of this is valid but it was interesting. sorry, don't have a link to the article.
Click to expand...

They've been nearing revolution for a while. The Iranian people are sick of being fvcked out of extensive trade by their government.
 
Threadjack:

As far as Iran is concerned--- If the revolution went hot and the country went south really fast, what would we do? I've never worried so much about Iran and its sabre-rattling, but more so about what would happen if the country destablized and became anarchaic (right spelling?). Other than putting a massive troop buffer between Iraq and Iran, what are the possibilities/ramifications of peace-keeping U.S., UN, or Arab forces being deployed to the region. I'd think we'd have a pretty vested interest in keeping a tight lid on that place. Just food for thought.
 
Iran is already as far "South" as you can get. If there is a revolution, it will be the Muslim orientated but relatively secular youth overthrowing the current theocracy.
 
I'm sorry, by "south" I was referring to general lack of order and infastructure which usually accompanies revolution. I believe a successful revolution by the young people would be a good thing, just that it would mean a period of uncertainty and chaos before success. I am curious about what the world would do in reaction to revolution and this ensuing chaos; how we would play our cards in restoring order?
 
I think he knows what you mean. I think he was implying that Iran has been and is close to revolution. Sh!t is always going on in that country.
 
Maybe that's why they've been so vocal lately: "when your dictatorship is in doubt: blame/threaten somebody else."
 
the other main point that guy brought up in the article is how full of bull**** it is that the media has mentioned next to nothing about iran (i hadnt even heard of it till this article) when simultaneously all they talk about is iraq....implying that it was a disservice to the world that we are not putting a spotlight on the situation which may ultimately help move the revolution along.
 
Kevin, as easy as it is to believe otherwise, the media's job isn't to incite revolution in foreign countries; its job is to report the news as accurately as it can without influencing the newsmakers (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding). When revolution occurs in Iran, it'll be headlines, but until then, CNN can't ethically encourage people to revolt.
 
Cate said:
Kevin, as easy as it is to believe otherwise, the media's job isn't to incite revolution in foreign countries; its job is to report the news as accurately as it can without influencing the newsmakers (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding). When revolution occurs in Iran, it'll be headlines, but until then, CNN can't ethically encourage people to revolt.
Click to expand...

Who told you that, some professor? Take a look around you. The news media is not and has not exactly been accurate or truthful in many MANY cases. Start by looking at the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War.
 
Whuh-whuh-whoa. We're not talking accurate or truthful here. Of course, there have been incidents - sometimes rashes of incidents - in which the media has been neither accurate nor truthful. The issue is whether or not the media should be used to influence world events, whether news reporting should be purposely skewed or redirected in the interest of changing world events, and the answer is no. Yes, such things have happened in the past, usually by individuals or groups of individuals who take advantage of their position to push politics. This is journalistically unethical and shouldn't happen in the future, especially as governmental "push journalism," as it completely bastardizes the entire purpose of a free and mostly-honest press. In short, has happened - yes, should happen - no.

And Fly Navy, I love you like the mother I had committed, but maybe watch your tone. I know these things because yes, I went to journalism school, and I work in the evil biased liberal media, and I would have said so in the beginning if you had asked nicely.
 
Cate, if you really believe that, then we need more people like you in the evil biased liberal media. :)
 
Cate, thanks for using common sense and holding back on inflammatory partisan language. The idealists among us need to realize that they can be wrong...just because your party or your ideological heroes are spinning facts to support their interests doesn't make them or you right. Use some common sense.
 
the thing with france, germany and a lot of the members of the EU, is their economy.

the EU was created so that europe could compete with the US economically, notice they got in a hissy fit when Bush put up the tariffs on steel. They said it was against trade laws and were creating a court case, they were also threatening to start trade wars with us.

The French were in bed with Hussien, it was much better for them to leave him where he was then have the US come in and kick their little deal out the window.

And sorry to say, but most alliances these days are for economical reasons. They usually boil down to power and money.

Notice how S. America isnt in a hussy, they are not in an economic fight over the middle east.

There is much dissention between the US and europe because it is a struggle for economic dominance.

Not to mention the fact that every country is going to take its well being into account first.

Honestly i belive that the US should do what is in its power to secure what is best for it.

also notice how japan is over in iraq, its to their benifit to be there, that country is very dependent on oil imports.

And this is very to the point but if countries dont like what we are doing that is too bad, you cant tell everyone to **** off, but the fact is the US needs to look out for number one, not the concerns of other nations.

that ties into why a lot of ppl dont like Bush, he is putting his own country above other countries needs.

If france or germany dont like it they can shove it, our priorities come first.

Politics is a game of money and gving ppl what they want.

The US's needs are number 1, everyone else is below that.
 
Cate said:
Whuh-whuh-whoa. We're not talking accurate or truthful here. Of course, there have been incidents - sometimes rashes of incidents - in which the media has been neither accurate nor truthful. The issue is whether or not the media should be used to influence world events, whether news reporting should be purposely skewed or redirected in the interest of changing world events, and the answer is no. Yes, such things have happened in the past, usually by individuals or groups of individuals who take advantage of their position to push politics. This is journalistically unethical and shouldn't happen in the future, especially as governmental "push journalism," as it completely bastardizes the entire purpose of a free and mostly-honest press. In short, has happened - yes, should happen - no.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

And Fly Navy, I love you like the mother I had committed, but maybe watch your tone. I know these things because yes, I went to journalism school, and I work in the evil biased liberal media, and I would have said so in the beginning if you had asked nicely.
Click to expand...

Lighten up Francis. I wasn't trying to spite you or anything, I was being sarcastic at the idealism in the comment. Need more people with your type of thinking in the media. Tone is pretty difficult to convey on the board, so I'm sorry if I came off like an a$$hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top