Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable
- Thread starter Lyzel
- Start date
antime
Extra Hard Mid Boss
Nope, relations continued right until the invasion. But you're right in that the US realized what they were doing, in fact they knew it all along.
I know why the death of the Kurds was acceptable to the US, and I bet you know too. I'd just like you to explain it in such a way that you can express such shock and outrage today as to justify a war.
I have always found it interesting how we pick and chose which dictators we go after. Knowing many Cuban refugees, why are we not doing anything there? We all know about the atrocities the chinese gov't has committed, why are they a prefered trading partner? Hell, what about North Korea. They openly admit to building long range missles. They are going to have some that could strike the US west coast.
Sadam is an embarasment. The US created him, most likely as a pawn. And now we can not control him. So how do we respond, take him out. A different organization workes this way, the Mafia. And we put them in jail for it.
Do I think Sadam is a great guy. Hell. no. But I think its his people who need to fight back.
Sadam is an embarasment. The US created him, most likely as a pawn. And now we can not control him. So how do we respond, take him out. A different organization workes this way, the Mafia. And we put them in jail for it.
Do I think Sadam is a great guy. Hell. no. But I think its his people who need to fight back.
:bs
Seems Lyzel has forgotten the only 2 times a nuclear weapon has been used in warfare... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That has killed hundreds of thousands, even the ones that survived the blast died of radiation. And those who were lucky enough to survive suffered life long bouts with cancer and disease. And for all it's worth, no soldiers were killed during these attacks.
I think a lot of us here could easily go into more detail, such as economic sanctions, the well documented slaughter of surrendered troops in afghanistan, and of course the civilian deaeths I mentioned.
And I think the most ironic part of this entire conflict is the fact, yes fact(looks at Lyzel), is that the U.S. still has the sales records for all the biological agents that Sadam has ever obtained.
Lyzel, I don't want to have an all-out brawl with you.
What I'm trying to do is get you to understand that there is more than one side to this story. There is the US angle which you seem happy to inform us about, but it much more complicated than simply "Let's kill Saddam because he is evil, no matter what the final cost is". Saddam is probably evil. I don't know, I've never met the man.
If it wasn't for CNN you would not even know who Saddam is - you are only ever getting one side of the story
If you think the death of Saddam will mean the sudden revival of democracy and justice in a country like Iraq, then you need to think harder. There are other factions in Iraq - largely a tribal community - that would be as bad or worse than Saddam.
America seems to set these situations up. Saddam would not be alive today were it not for the information provided to him by the CIA in the 80's.
I'll do a bit of fortune telling myself here. In about 10 years time, the situation in Afganistan will blow up. Why? Because the US government persued a policy that involoved arming the tribal groups to fight the Taliban. Before too long, you might find yourself facing a situation similar to the one that lead up to Osama bin Laden's lot crashing planes into buildings. Remember - bin Laden was also once an ally of the United States.
What I'm trying to do is get you to understand that there is more than one side to this story. There is the US angle which you seem happy to inform us about, but it much more complicated than simply "Let's kill Saddam because he is evil, no matter what the final cost is". Saddam is probably evil. I don't know, I've never met the man.
If it wasn't for CNN you would not even know who Saddam is - you are only ever getting one side of the story
If you think the death of Saddam will mean the sudden revival of democracy and justice in a country like Iraq, then you need to think harder. There are other factions in Iraq - largely a tribal community - that would be as bad or worse than Saddam.
America seems to set these situations up. Saddam would not be alive today were it not for the information provided to him by the CIA in the 80's.
I'll do a bit of fortune telling myself here. In about 10 years time, the situation in Afganistan will blow up. Why? Because the US government persued a policy that involoved arming the tribal groups to fight the Taliban. Before too long, you might find yourself facing a situation similar to the one that lead up to Osama bin Laden's lot crashing planes into buildings. Remember - bin Laden was also once an ally of the United States.
Whoops, there goes the point. Did you see it go by as you missed it?
Not one of those images or quotes refers to any actions taken by the Iraqis or Saddam Hussain, but many of them are about atrocities that the 'good guys' America and Britain have done. [/b][/quote]
Oops. I'm so sorry. Did I missed the part where the site is mostly anti-american? I failed to see your point? The article describes what happens during wars. It's seem funny that there weren't images from Nazi, France, Japan, etc in there.
While it does lack references to Japan, France and Nazis, I don't believe it's trying to be anti-American.
Sure they have probably all done their fair share (I don't know much about France's recent military history), but none of them are about to attack anyone right now.
Unless you'd somehow failed to notice, the US is.
Sure they have probably all done their fair share (I don't know much about France's recent military history), but none of them are about to attack anyone right now.
Unless you'd somehow failed to notice, the US is.
Just because someone isn't for the war, doesn't make them anti-american. And the point that people have been trying to make is that you are allowed your opinion. Just as we are allowed ours. When it comes to makes of war, you never have 100% concencsis. Even something like the American Reveloution had opponents to it.
The point of being "America" was freedom. Freedom from opression, freedom of speech, freedom of expresion, etc. I am proud of what america stands for. Thouugh, as of late, I personally find the government doing more and more objectionable things (in my opinion).
The point of being "America" was freedom. Freedom from opression, freedom of speech, freedom of expresion, etc. I am proud of what america stands for. Thouugh, as of late, I personally find the government doing more and more objectionable things (in my opinion).
Well, my hands are going into the fire as well..wish me luck.
War is a horrible thing. How can it ever be "good?" Warfare in the convential sense means death and destruction. But unfortunately it is also a political tool. And it will always be a political tool. Perhaps warfare as we know it today will change in visage, but never will it be eradicated.
I believe that Saddam is a convenient scapegoat, and I don't write this with malice or with the intent of change, Lyzel. I understand your point of view, and the numerous dissenters as well. When I heard about this war with Iraq, the first thought that hit my mind was "wait a minute, didn't we kick this guy's ass ten years ago?" It almost seems satirical, something an improve comedy show would think up of. Saddam was kept in power for a reason and I believe the reason is simple; the US believed that we could control him. But I also believe that we can still control him, but we choose not to right now. I believe that people, not just Bush Administration, perhaps before the current presidency, predicted the present economic crisis and started planning. If you needed to keep your country running in times of crisis, what do you do? Well it's blatantly obvious: start a war. Wars have always been a blessing for the american economy, save Vietnam which was handled in a disasterous manner. Whenever we get into a war, our aggressors are tens of thousands of miles away. We'll never have to worry about invasion or even major structural damage (9/11 is a special case). Look at both world wars - while we were profiting Europe was in shambles economically and physically.
The mideast conflict goes back centuries, as far back as the Crusades. Perhaps this is where the "east versus west" mentality arose; it was a classic example of race wars. It isn't hard to distinguish an arab from a "fine christian gentleman", is it? Fast forward to World War I: the industrial revolution was nearing an end and things everywhere were becoming mechanical. First, coal was used to fuel the machines, but it was a cumbersome and dangerous affair. Coal miners who have black lung can attest to this. Then came along the internal combustion engine, fueled by oil. Easier to transport, more efficient, more energy. After Daimler Chrysler's first iteration of the automobile, and Ford's method of mass-producing them at a price affordable to all, oil became a huge necessity for modernized states, including America. Which brings us up to World War I. President Wilson knew we needed oil and remember, this was the beginning of the Age of American Imperialism. If we enter this war, we could have a foothold into the middle east, an era full of oil. This mindset is more pronounced during World War II, after which the Allies (including the US) divided the Arab states into "sovereign" countries with western-friendly monarchies. Of course, this deterioated, with the poignant example of Iran in the 1970s. Which brings us back to the present: we still need oil.
A recent article from Salon.com states that oil is still the most economically viable resource in terms of cost of production and power output - solar energy cells are expensive and harmful to the environment, electric cars get their electricity from petroleum and coal power plants, and hydrogen fuel cells derive their hydrogen from natural gas. One irate protester of the original Gulf War said to MTV that oil was Uncle Sam's heroin. He's right, to a degree. But Uncle Sam doesn't want oil, it needs it. Oil is its blood, as it is for many other countries. Hasn't anyone found it strange that Tony Blair, an ardent liberal, a complete opposite of Margaret Thatcher, would be pushing for war so hard? His supporters come from the opposition party!! I feel sorry for Mr. Blair because I think I know why he has to do this. The Bank of Britain is primarily funded by oil. Lose that, and you lose the British economy. He has no choice but to fight for the "claims" in the middle east. You can tell he doesn't like the words he spouts out - he looks like he hates his lying (ever notice?). Bush, on the other hand, is just following orders from the people that helped him into office, a good portion of which come from the energy industry. Now, does that mean that if say Ralph Nader was president, there would be no war in Iraq? In my opinion, no. In an interview on Foxnews, Nader said that if he were president he would use black ops tactics to take out terrorist leaders and potentially terrorist states, which seems like less civilian casualties but the Reagan government used this tactic a lot, especially in Chile (some of you might have the Costra Gavras film). Use that tactic, more will sprout up, blame the US, and the bombings continue anyway. **note, this last thought is a big opinion on my part. Those who disagree, the only thing I have to say is look at Tony Blair**
My grief is that we're letting our ideologies get in the way of the matter, from both sides. I don't believe morality exists in international politics, and it never will. Cold rationale and objectivity seems to me the only sensible way at attacking this argument. Yes, these wars will lead to many civilian casualties. But I think showing those war pictures is a pretty low scare tactic. Pro-lifers and animal rights groups get guff for showing pictures of dead fetuses and slaughtered animals, and the action here seems hypocritical. But I can understand the fear of these countries attacking the US. I do think there is a fundamentalist sect that wants to convert the world to an islamic standard. This is not a statement of paranoia or racism - it's human nature. Organized religions seek to gain followers and power wherever they can. Look at Christianity, the best example. Political-minded Muslims want the kind of power the Vatican and the Pope has. And there are fundamentalist christians here in America that talk of war between the east and the west . This is a definite possibility.
Now, where do I stand in this issue? Do I raise a flag and chant the national anthem? Do I raise picket and yell "down with the bushies?" Neither, I stand in the sidelines and watch as George Carlin calls it the "freak show." It's not easy being neutral in such a matter. I really do feel compelled to take one side or the other. I really do. The reason I'm writing this is to work out my own personal thoughts (at the expense of this board
) to sort these things out. It's hard to be like this. It would be extremely easy just to take a side and say I'm "open-minded" about the other side, but I don't believe that. Sweden got it right - stay the hell out of these conflicts and reap the rewards. If they're cowards, fine. They make damn good watches and knives
(excuse the stereotype). History moves on. Empires will rise and fall. Life goes on and ends when it ends.
I end with one question: does anyone else want to be neutral in this matter? Is anyone else sick with the moralistic redirect on both sides? I think their are a few, but they made their lives easier by taking a side. Which is not a bad thing. Oh well...
War is a horrible thing. How can it ever be "good?" Warfare in the convential sense means death and destruction. But unfortunately it is also a political tool. And it will always be a political tool. Perhaps warfare as we know it today will change in visage, but never will it be eradicated.
I believe that Saddam is a convenient scapegoat, and I don't write this with malice or with the intent of change, Lyzel. I understand your point of view, and the numerous dissenters as well. When I heard about this war with Iraq, the first thought that hit my mind was "wait a minute, didn't we kick this guy's ass ten years ago?" It almost seems satirical, something an improve comedy show would think up of. Saddam was kept in power for a reason and I believe the reason is simple; the US believed that we could control him. But I also believe that we can still control him, but we choose not to right now. I believe that people, not just Bush Administration, perhaps before the current presidency, predicted the present economic crisis and started planning. If you needed to keep your country running in times of crisis, what do you do? Well it's blatantly obvious: start a war. Wars have always been a blessing for the american economy, save Vietnam which was handled in a disasterous manner. Whenever we get into a war, our aggressors are tens of thousands of miles away. We'll never have to worry about invasion or even major structural damage (9/11 is a special case). Look at both world wars - while we were profiting Europe was in shambles economically and physically.
The mideast conflict goes back centuries, as far back as the Crusades. Perhaps this is where the "east versus west" mentality arose; it was a classic example of race wars. It isn't hard to distinguish an arab from a "fine christian gentleman", is it? Fast forward to World War I: the industrial revolution was nearing an end and things everywhere were becoming mechanical. First, coal was used to fuel the machines, but it was a cumbersome and dangerous affair. Coal miners who have black lung can attest to this. Then came along the internal combustion engine, fueled by oil. Easier to transport, more efficient, more energy. After Daimler Chrysler's first iteration of the automobile, and Ford's method of mass-producing them at a price affordable to all, oil became a huge necessity for modernized states, including America. Which brings us up to World War I. President Wilson knew we needed oil and remember, this was the beginning of the Age of American Imperialism. If we enter this war, we could have a foothold into the middle east, an era full of oil. This mindset is more pronounced during World War II, after which the Allies (including the US) divided the Arab states into "sovereign" countries with western-friendly monarchies. Of course, this deterioated, with the poignant example of Iran in the 1970s. Which brings us back to the present: we still need oil.
A recent article from Salon.com states that oil is still the most economically viable resource in terms of cost of production and power output - solar energy cells are expensive and harmful to the environment, electric cars get their electricity from petroleum and coal power plants, and hydrogen fuel cells derive their hydrogen from natural gas. One irate protester of the original Gulf War said to MTV that oil was Uncle Sam's heroin. He's right, to a degree. But Uncle Sam doesn't want oil, it needs it. Oil is its blood, as it is for many other countries. Hasn't anyone found it strange that Tony Blair, an ardent liberal, a complete opposite of Margaret Thatcher, would be pushing for war so hard? His supporters come from the opposition party!! I feel sorry for Mr. Blair because I think I know why he has to do this. The Bank of Britain is primarily funded by oil. Lose that, and you lose the British economy. He has no choice but to fight for the "claims" in the middle east. You can tell he doesn't like the words he spouts out - he looks like he hates his lying (ever notice?). Bush, on the other hand, is just following orders from the people that helped him into office, a good portion of which come from the energy industry. Now, does that mean that if say Ralph Nader was president, there would be no war in Iraq? In my opinion, no. In an interview on Foxnews, Nader said that if he were president he would use black ops tactics to take out terrorist leaders and potentially terrorist states, which seems like less civilian casualties but the Reagan government used this tactic a lot, especially in Chile (some of you might have the Costra Gavras film). Use that tactic, more will sprout up, blame the US, and the bombings continue anyway. **note, this last thought is a big opinion on my part. Those who disagree, the only thing I have to say is look at Tony Blair**
My grief is that we're letting our ideologies get in the way of the matter, from both sides. I don't believe morality exists in international politics, and it never will. Cold rationale and objectivity seems to me the only sensible way at attacking this argument. Yes, these wars will lead to many civilian casualties. But I think showing those war pictures is a pretty low scare tactic. Pro-lifers and animal rights groups get guff for showing pictures of dead fetuses and slaughtered animals, and the action here seems hypocritical. But I can understand the fear of these countries attacking the US. I do think there is a fundamentalist sect that wants to convert the world to an islamic standard. This is not a statement of paranoia or racism - it's human nature. Organized religions seek to gain followers and power wherever they can. Look at Christianity, the best example. Political-minded Muslims want the kind of power the Vatican and the Pope has. And there are fundamentalist christians here in America that talk of war between the east and the west . This is a definite possibility.
Now, where do I stand in this issue? Do I raise a flag and chant the national anthem? Do I raise picket and yell "down with the bushies?" Neither, I stand in the sidelines and watch as George Carlin calls it the "freak show." It's not easy being neutral in such a matter. I really do feel compelled to take one side or the other. I really do. The reason I'm writing this is to work out my own personal thoughts (at the expense of this board
I end with one question: does anyone else want to be neutral in this matter? Is anyone else sick with the moralistic redirect on both sides? I think their are a few, but they made their lives easier by taking a side. Which is not a bad thing. Oh well...
I'm disappointed that you see it that way.
The only reason I posted the link was because of Lyzel's very off hand comment:
It's all well and good to dismiss civilian casualties when you don't have to see them and don't have to acknowledge them as human beings.
It was not meant as a scare tactic, I only intended to show that real people will be killed and injured rather than considering them as unfortunate mistakes or mere statistics.
<!--QuoteBegin-tsumake@Mar 17, 2003 @ 04:06 PM
I end with one question: does anyone else want to be neutral in this matter? Is anyone else sick with the moralistic redirect on both sides? I think their are a few, but they made their lives easier by taking a side. Which is not a bad thing. Oh well...[/quote]
I'd be more than happy to stay neutral in this but it's not going to happen.
No amount of international protest is going to stop the Bush administration and sadly the Howard Government (over here in Oz) has a free trade agreement to negotiate with the US so there's no getting us out of it either.
According to Fran Shor, a Wayne State professor and someone who I've seen at several teach-ins/protests related to the Iraq conflict, human casualities are increasing dramatically with every new conflict.
Around 1900, in a battle there would be about 6% civilian casualties. By Vietnam and then Desert Storm, that increased to 60%.
Why? Think about the kinds of weapons you are shooting off. They're not dsigned to kill one person. They're not designed to kill one target. They're designed to turn everything in a certain blast radius into charcoal.
And how do we use these weapons? We pick a city that has one or two military targets in it and shower it with such missiles for 48 hours. No fucking wonder so many civilians die.
And even the term "civilian casualities" is just a happy way of ignoring the fact that you're murdering innocent people who just happen to be in the way of your objective. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people at that. It's amazing how easy it is for the warhawks to forget that. It's like the part of their brain capable of realizing the "collateral damage" of their actions in REALITY terms instead of military objective terms just shuts off and goes away.
Personally I'd rather pay $0.10 more for my gas than have the blood of hundred sof thousands of civilians on my hands. Too bad the rest of America doesn't think that.
Around 1900, in a battle there would be about 6% civilian casualties. By Vietnam and then Desert Storm, that increased to 60%.
Why? Think about the kinds of weapons you are shooting off. They're not dsigned to kill one person. They're not designed to kill one target. They're designed to turn everything in a certain blast radius into charcoal.
And how do we use these weapons? We pick a city that has one or two military targets in it and shower it with such missiles for 48 hours. No fucking wonder so many civilians die.
And even the term "civilian casualities" is just a happy way of ignoring the fact that you're murdering innocent people who just happen to be in the way of your objective. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people at that. It's amazing how easy it is for the warhawks to forget that. It's like the part of their brain capable of realizing the "collateral damage" of their actions in REALITY terms instead of military objective terms just shuts off and goes away.
Personally I'd rather pay $0.10 more for my gas than have the blood of hundred sof thousands of civilians on my hands. Too bad the rest of America doesn't think that.
Fairly unrelated (I've made my case already in regards to this 'war') - but wouldn't this be the perfect time to channel all those funds into developing these alternative sources of energy? Right now, these technologies are developed solely because of the private sector's volition and small funding from the gov't... couldn't that 95 billion be used to make solar power cheaper, and less damaging/dangerous to produce (tsumake refers to the actual making of the solar panels, not their operation)?
Just a thought.
Of course it could. But do you honestly think a hillbilly like GWB can think that far ahead?
You know we could also do something about the fact 70% of the world doesn't have adequate clothing or clean drinking water too. But it's simply not one of America's "interests" at the moment.
Why help people when you can just rob them blind and hang them out to dry.
You know we could also do something about the fact 70% of the world doesn't have adequate clothing or clean drinking water too. But it's simply not one of America's "interests" at the moment.
Why help people when you can just rob them blind and hang them out to dry.
We can argue until the database on the server is filled to capacity, but it'll do no good.
War is coming and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it.
My view is that this war is without reason and nothing good will come from it. Nothing has convinced me that there is a clear-and-present danger. I doubt that the impending conflict is just about oil, or just about disarmament, but I am sick and tired of being lied to by our leaders. I hate hate hate hate hate the lies we are told. We are being lied to now as we have been lied to in the past. It is no basis for a "democracy".
War is coming and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it.
My view is that this war is without reason and nothing good will come from it. Nothing has convinced me that there is a clear-and-present danger. I doubt that the impending conflict is just about oil, or just about disarmament, but I am sick and tired of being lied to by our leaders. I hate hate hate hate hate the lies we are told. We are being lied to now as we have been lied to in the past. It is no basis for a "democracy".
Right. We are being told lies. But not just by our leaders.
With respect to the energy bit I wrote, I would personally like to see us move into a new fuel resource. Petroleum fuels are inefficient and pollutive. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells, but there is no demand for such a product. And I believe demand is what is needed. Government funding of such research projects would not do any good, my example being the space program. Innovations and inventions for the most part do not come out of a desire for helping humanity - it is fueled by greed. Our country produces more prescription drugs than any other country - drugs used internationally. Why? Because that sector isn't nationalized like in other countries. While that doesn't mean all of the drugs are safe to use, progress has been made for disease treatment and therapy that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. My tactic for switching towards a different energy source would be to create a huge advertisement campaign for a new energy source, like the hydrogen fuel cell - one supported by the current energy suppliers. Yes, the @ssholes who pollute our lives today. Why? Because they have the resources and they realize that oil isn't going to last forever. They're holding to oil as long as they can though because they feel it's more convenient and the demand is still high. But if there is a high demand for fuel cells, say, then perhaps they would be more inclined to switch. It would be cheaper to produce these cells locally rather than rely on OPEC for their needs.
BTW...I am pro-life. If I showed you guys pictures of dead fetuses, how many of you would automatically convert?? How many of you would dismiss it and comment how disgusting a tactic that was? And I agree. There are a lot of ugly things in this world and scaring a person into a mindset is imo manipulative. It's how organized religions work. I have my reasons and beliefs on the issue. And the opinions are well known on both sides. I am going to assume out of respect that all of you have thought these issues out, so showing horrific pictures is a meaningless act. We may not all agree on an issue, but name calling, moral indictments, or plain acts of stupidity aren't the way to go about it. Lyzel, I understand your feelings and sentiments. I don't think Saddam is exactly a saint either. But guys like Saddam and Hitler will always exist. You can't get rid of them all. Nor is that the intention of this war.
Lyzel, I like the fact that you have a dissenting opinion on this board, but please at least do some research to back up your claims. Are you afraid that you might find information that will change your mind? You might. But that's the risk you take. I'm not asking you to convert, just find the info. Everyone else seems to do this. I do it to an extant, though admittedly I'm wary of any "information" presented by the media of any kind. Bias is everywhere, which means you have to read between the lines and read as much as you can, which is a damn hard thing to do. I use the drudge report, even though Drudge is a right-wing loon, he provides tons of links to other news sites (though his headlines are usually bullshit). I try to read fair.org, but the bias is truly thick when it comes to their publications. Same with frontpagemag. So, basically I try to look at all kinds of mainstream publications and wade through the facts. True, they have biases, but they try to disguise it just presenting specific facts. Like in Pokemon, you gotta collect'em all! before you can see the true picture.
With respect to the energy bit I wrote, I would personally like to see us move into a new fuel resource. Petroleum fuels are inefficient and pollutive. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells, but there is no demand for such a product. And I believe demand is what is needed. Government funding of such research projects would not do any good, my example being the space program. Innovations and inventions for the most part do not come out of a desire for helping humanity - it is fueled by greed. Our country produces more prescription drugs than any other country - drugs used internationally. Why? Because that sector isn't nationalized like in other countries. While that doesn't mean all of the drugs are safe to use, progress has been made for disease treatment and therapy that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. My tactic for switching towards a different energy source would be to create a huge advertisement campaign for a new energy source, like the hydrogen fuel cell - one supported by the current energy suppliers. Yes, the @ssholes who pollute our lives today. Why? Because they have the resources and they realize that oil isn't going to last forever. They're holding to oil as long as they can though because they feel it's more convenient and the demand is still high. But if there is a high demand for fuel cells, say, then perhaps they would be more inclined to switch. It would be cheaper to produce these cells locally rather than rely on OPEC for their needs.
BTW...I am pro-life. If I showed you guys pictures of dead fetuses, how many of you would automatically convert?? How many of you would dismiss it and comment how disgusting a tactic that was? And I agree. There are a lot of ugly things in this world and scaring a person into a mindset is imo manipulative. It's how organized religions work. I have my reasons and beliefs on the issue. And the opinions are well known on both sides. I am going to assume out of respect that all of you have thought these issues out, so showing horrific pictures is a meaningless act. We may not all agree on an issue, but name calling, moral indictments, or plain acts of stupidity aren't the way to go about it. Lyzel, I understand your feelings and sentiments. I don't think Saddam is exactly a saint either. But guys like Saddam and Hitler will always exist. You can't get rid of them all. Nor is that the intention of this war.
Lyzel, I like the fact that you have a dissenting opinion on this board, but please at least do some research to back up your claims. Are you afraid that you might find information that will change your mind? You might. But that's the risk you take. I'm not asking you to convert, just find the info. Everyone else seems to do this. I do it to an extant, though admittedly I'm wary of any "information" presented by the media of any kind. Bias is everywhere, which means you have to read between the lines and read as much as you can, which is a damn hard thing to do. I use the drudge report, even though Drudge is a right-wing loon, he provides tons of links to other news sites (though his headlines are usually bullshit). I try to read fair.org, but the bias is truly thick when it comes to their publications. Same with frontpagemag. So, basically I try to look at all kinds of mainstream publications and wade through the facts. True, they have biases, but they try to disguise it just presenting specific facts. Like in Pokemon, you gotta collect'em all! before you can see the true picture.
