What is Digg?102 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+70Only Fox News could spin a civil war in Iraq as a good thing. Is anyone really surprised? Fox news can never admit a republican (Bush) was wrong; so everything that happens over there is good news to them.
This is why I dont watch Fox News. I believe its called 'Denial'. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Killinger:
>You guys are so brainwashed it is funny.
Well one of us is. At least we agree on that. Here's a litmus test -- do you think we found WMDs in Iraq? Are we winning?
If you say "yes" then I say "it's you." - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35This is the voice of evil. Evil is alive and loudly speaking in the US.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22The best part is how long they denied Iraq was in civil war. Now it's too obvious to deny so that have to pretend it's a good thing. I feel pity for any idiots watching TV and nodding along in agreement with this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Goat:
>This is why I dont watch Fox News. I believe its called 'Denial'.
Also known as "propaganda and lies" to make idiots feel that they're right, even though people are dying because they're absolutely wrong. They and their followers choose ego over truth. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Killinger:
>Big dave, if you want guests who all have the same opinions, watch PMSNBC or CNN.
Great fantasy -- here's the reality -- Fox offers one point of view and only one point of view and when they have someone on with a different viewpoint it's only as a foil to drive home their one point of view:
>FAIR’s current study looked at 25 weeks of Special Report ’s one-on-one interview segments (6/30/03–12/19/03), finding 101 guests. FAIR classified each guest by political ideology, party affiliation (where applicable), gender and ethnicity. When FAIR first studied Special Report in 2001, the dominance of conservative guests was so overwhelming (71 percent of all guests) that we used just two ideological categories, “conservative” and “non-conservative.” The latter included guests with no discernible political ideology. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16chris:
>Not to mention that over 90% of children are now vaccinated and over 12 million new books have been been put to use in schools.
Great. Also, toilet paper is in abundant supply and you can now get good quality shoelaces. Any other factoids you think are relevant? - SnakeO, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I thought we were there to liberate them, not destroy them.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Killinger is posting again? Most of us blocked him back in October/November.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Defeat is victory (see the comments of neocons after the last elections)
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20So... War really is Peace?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Master:
>You fail to see that instability and death were much a part of that region
Well that's dishonest and wrong. Iraq was actually quite stable -- no insurgency, no Sunni and Shiite extremists, no car bombings. Actually your entire statement is false, and so false that I would call it a lie.
>before Saddams death and before US invasion, that fact that the bad guys are killing each other instead of us is good for US.
Oh right, the bad guys are only killing each other, not each other's families, children, and our troops. Great victory. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Master:
>Again, you are forgetting something, MASS GENOCIDE!!!
Stop making things up. The only attacks that we have evidence for occurred during the support of Rumsfeld and Reagan and almost certainly using our poison gas, and that was long before 1992 happened.
As for "genocide" we've found a few mass graves, perhaps amounting to a few hundred people, perhaps even a thousand (not good) but certainly nothing approaching the damage that we've wrought -- and those graves were over decades. - Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26LOL, just when I though O'Reilly was the most retarded person on Fox News. Well, he still is but Cavuto is pretty dumb too!
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Umm...what exactaly are we winning? Last time I checked a civil war in Iraq can't include us...so what are we winning and how exactally are we winning it? :/
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Not so much propaganda as spin. If Kerry had inherited this war and it had gone exactly the same Fox would be demonstrating how Kerry sent Iraq in to a civil war and ruined what had been a successful war effort.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11master:
>He didnt say it was a good thing, he said it was in the US's interest, there is a difference...
Not much of one. He's trying, weakly, to make it sound like it's a benefit. Apart from the obvious problems with calling instability and death a "benefit" they're trying to make a skunk smell good. As Rush Limbaugh put it, they're just "carrying water" for the administration. - steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Aren't our interests a stable, secure, self-sufficient, and democratic Iraq? A civil war isn't part of any of that.
Terrible spin. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9OBDriftwood wrote: "Civilian deaths are fewer than those slaughtered by Saddam and his thugs."
Really? The best data I've seen estimates more than 650,000 Iraqis are dead who wouldn't have died under pre-war conditions. That's 2% of their population. To put that in perspective 2% of the US population would be 6 million people-- roughly six times the number of Americans who have died in all wars we've ever fought put together.
Iraqi deaths: http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
US war deaths: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm - luaplevap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8are all chess players suddenly ignorant left-wing lab rats? let's not make generalizations, please...
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Liberating the Iraqis by killing them is much, much more efficient when they kill each other instead of us having to kill all of them... so we ARE winning, and our goal is now achieving itself without us needing to do anything. Rumsfeld really was a genius after all.
Don't you just love america?
... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7OBdrift:
>It ain't no basket of fruit
Yeah, over 1.6 million refugees and hundreds of thousands dead, but it's ALMOST a basket of fruit. - Arainach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When you select a guest host, you're selecting someone who you consider responsible [and intelligent] enough to replace you, and their actions directly reflect upon you. This guy's lack of awareness is a direct reflection of Cavuto's.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"Also known as "propaganda and lies" to make idiots feel that they're right, even though people are dying because they're absolutely wrong. They and their followers choose ego over truth."
Agreed 100%. My dad loves that station and I am always just facinated to watch him watch it. He is a very smart intellegent man, but if fox news said it, it must be the word of god... - eatsushi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm waiting for any little spark of revolution...any time now..
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7killinger777:
If you've found any honest debate anywhere on American television I'd love to hear about it. Even when the sides are balanced it's still a war of talking points and trying to beat their opponent rather than have anything resembling intelligent discussion. No matter who wins you come away dumber and feeling dirty.
The BBC and some of the other international channels are not perfect but they're substantially better. American TV has sadly become a rhetoric wasteland. - sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The iraqi economy is skyrocketing true.. but uneployment is still about 60% (according to iraq study group)
even fox's guestimate of 20% is way way to high.
the economy is doing well for a couple of reasosn but it only helps a select few
when we forced iraq to make a constitution we made it a neo liberal wet dream
flat tax, no business regulation etc
So the wealthy iraqis are doing well as they always have but now a bit better..
You can easily make any economy look temporarily good by letting the rich plunder.
but that doesnt mean things are good for the adverage ali.
ANd most of the good economy codes from the lifting of sanctions... meaning they are making sales to foreigners and not as much to iraqis. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Killinger:
>And about media bias, here is a good scientific study:
Actually it's a bad scientific study, and it's already been discredited by everyone who's read it. It ranks the NRA as liberal, for example. I'm not surprised you cited it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6master:
>He is trying to say that the radical killers killing each other removes them from the planet, which is a good thing if collateral damage is minimum...
What wonderful logic, as if there's a finite pool of radical killers. - Xeller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Pundits" on Fox would try to convince you that global warming will help mankind by allowing us to save on heat.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Because when people die, we're all winners.
- mdfrake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Forget the fact that this was on Fox News. Forget the fact that someone is actually rooting for a Civil War in Iraq. What should be discussed here is the illogical leap that America is winning because of the threat of a Civil War. The only thing the Fox News guy should have done (and OK, it is primarily a conservative entity which is why he didn't) is said, "What?! How did you come to that conclusion Socrates?!" Note the sarcasm. How does a Civil War in the Middle East lead to America winning the war on terrorism? No one can explain that with a straight face.
If there is a Civil War, the Shiites have the would initially win in Iraq, they are the majority and have more forces. Then, most likely Saudi Arabia would throw in behind the Sunnis, or Jordan, or Egypt. You see, the Sunnis have the majority over all in the Middle East. Then Iran and Syria throw in with the Shiites, and a full war breaks out. Guess who has to come in then? That's right, the U.S. We will get a call from Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Egypt, asking for help, knowing that our dependence for oil means we can't say no, or at least they will make us a deal we can't refuse. We then talk Great Britain into going. China is the wild card, if they come in for Iran (look at their borders), World War III breaks out. If we can talk them into sitting, then we invade Iran and Syria. You think occupying Iraq is hard, try occupying those countries. We don't have a force large enough to handle it.
I could go on, but I think I made my point. That guy needs to explain himself. Explain how a Civil War means America is winning, because I just don't buy it. - flr666, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This has nothing to do with logic. it has everything to do with empty-headed blow-tards who need to fill airtime with their hot air.
- McLumpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That was...basically the most retarded thing I've heard all week.
- stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ahaha wow. Ahmadinejad must be licking his chops in Iran right now, as well as Assad in Syria, hoping to get a foot in the door and exert some behind the scenes influence on this supposedly "beneficial" civil war. I'm sure the Israelis are loving it too, considering their long time policy of pitting Arabs against eachother so they dont focus on Israel.
- stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I presume you support the civil war then so as not to not be called a "liberal"? That civil war is going to be the reason for so many more troops being sent over there 3 years after Bush's victorious "Mission: Accomplished" picture. Politically and diplomatically America can not afford to set the stage for a civil war and then just bounce. Perhaps you'll be unfortunate enough to know someone who gets sent, but I guess I'll stop my "liberal whining" for now...
p.s.-in 2003, us whining liberals were the ones who just so happened to foresee the DISASTER that this "war" was going to become, and WE'RE supposed to be the naive ones... - brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Peace comes when somebody loses.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>Iraq was actually quite stable
Stable and healthy are two different things. Constantly feeling threatened can be stable, but it isn't healthy. The two sides have been against each other for a long time and are clashing now because of the power vacuum produced in the wake of Saddam. If the United States hadn't been propping him up to begin with, it would have happened.
Compared to the past situation the civil war is a relatively good thing because everything up to this point was merely delaying it. I'm not saying that it was inevitable, just that it could have been foreseen long before Saddam was removed from power and nothing substantial was done to keep it from happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations - JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Iraq had multiple civil wars already. When the Baathists won, their leader was too friendly with Communist Russia, so the U.S. helped to overthrow that government. Then Saddam took over, and the U.S. was happy with it because he was killing Iranians with the biological weapons the U.S. supplied him. Now that Bush and the GOP have wrecked that country, who knows who will take over that country again.
- kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nope I think he might just be what he says. I say: Join the military!
- dipdog21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Perhaps there is something missing from a earlier part of this clip. As it was stated by President Bush our war is not with the people of Iraq but with a brutal dictator and his regime. How is a bloody civil war that drags in and kills those innocent people of Iraq while continuing the downward spiral of stability in this region a good thing. I thought our plight was to bring peace and love not civil war (well at least to get rid of the dictator and bring democracy). This guy is a total moron.
- Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3YEEEEHAW!
I don't like the name firebush, only ***** and sailors are called firebush. From now on you're Gomer Pyle. - unpurposed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6A la 1984, my friends. War is Peace. (How stupid)
- jockamopunk27, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3that guy has to be a complete *****
only someone who works on fox could think that thousands of innocent deaths is a good thing - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AKA divide & conquer.
Only it doesn't work when the other side knows what you're doing! - ybfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The plan was for Iraq to descend into a civil war. That has been the means of Western Imperialism since 1492, divide, conqure, take the land and the riches...And like perfect fools the locals fall right into the trap. Like the ol' Santayana cliche 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but
as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men... The people
of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their
sacred laws." (General F.S. Maude, commander of British forces in Iraq, 1917) - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3kinda how the U.S. trained Osama bin Laden back in the day to fight the Soviets? im pretty sure that method doesnt work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Andrew:
>Civil war should have been the plan from the start. Blow up the governments of nations supporting militant Islam, then make it known in no uncertain terms that whoever wins the civil wars should not mess with the United States.
Beyond divorced from reality. The ones who are "winning" the civil war in Iraq are the Iranians. Iraq was previously not a theocracy, now it is.
You're just passing by reality and trying not to touch it. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Jihadists are going to fight. Is there really any question about this?
I wish it were not so but it is a reality.
The only question is who are they going to fight?
Non Muslims countries or each other.
I vote that they fight each other.
Go at it guys.
So if they are fighting each other, isn't that better than them fighting everyone else including us? - Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I didn't think that it was going to be argued for the reasons that it was, those sound a little stupid.
If I were looking for a way to try and put a positive spin on the Iraqi civil war I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that they are taking an active interest in the future of their country. Somewhat similarly to vigor in founding the United States of America. Of course I think that the analogy is grossly misapplied and in the case of Iraq is dissimilar in its voracity and merit, but this is the closest I got (and what I expected to see).
Thomas Jefferson on Shay's rebellion: A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is