DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on November 22, 2011, 03:28:33 PM
-
Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests
By Kenneth Rapoza | Forbes
A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.
People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who they don?t watch any news at all.
Readers of The New York Times, USA Today and listeners to National Public Radio were better informed about international events than other media outlets.
In one major example, New Jersey poll participants were questioned about the outcome of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in North Africa earlier in the year. A total of 53% of respondents know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing dictator Hosni Mubarak. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful in Assad. But on balance, Fox News viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watched no news at all. Fox News viewers were also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news at all, suggesting a daily dose of soundbytes from CNN at the gym, and headlines from Google News were enough to surpass what average Fox viewers polled knew about current events.
Fox News is the leading cable news channel.
"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don?t watch any news at all."
The kicker is that MSNBC didn't do all that much better. In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers.
"Ideological media does a very poor job overall," Cassino told Forbes. "They don't challenge people's assumptions. In traditional news, you will find that more often than not, there actually is a correct answer and there is no gray area. People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest."
Occupy Wall Street leaders are not in support of any political party.
On international news, Fox viewers were by far the least likely to know that the Egyptian protests led to the resignation of Hosni Mubarek, followed by MSNBC in a distant second for least informed.
See: Some News Leaves People Knowing Less--Farleigh Dickinson University, poll results and methodology
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/ (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/)
==============================
Well, I do know that back when I was on the road in 2001 and 2002, about the only news and commentary I could get was on NPR, and from that I came to the (correct) conclusion that there were no WMD in Iraq, no Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, and that the American public was being lied to about the situation there to gull them into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, several folks whom I found relied on Fox News and derided all other sources thought there were WMD, etc. Seems things haven't changed much.
-
Interesting
Those who listen to talk radio are the most likely to answer the question correctly.
People who tune in to that generally conservative format are 17-points more likely to say
that Herman Cain is at the top, and 15-points more likely to be able to name either of the
leaders.
"The amount of time spent on an issue, and the depth to which it's discussed, makes a
difference," said Cassino. "Whatever its flaws may be, talk radio has spent a lot of time
talking about the nomination, and the basic facts seem to have gotten through."
Same link
-
what a crock!
thats like saying people that study Beethoven are "less informed" about
music because "people that study Beethoven" include school children.
No surprise a small narrow market like NPR could have a statistically
"better informed" audience. With such an ass-kicking huge audience
of course FOX is going to have more sheer numbers of newcomers
to news and people that casually watch news.
-
I don`t think I ever watched fox news. NPR is way easier to hear
-
There are people who choose not to have cable which eliminates Fox News Channel for a lot of them. NPR is available over the air, available to people in cars or on their phones with the right app.
I think if you want to compare who is better informed, perhaps a comparison between listeners of talk radio vs NPR listeners might be a more apple to apples comparison.
-
What I find most interesting is that "MSNBC [viewers] didn't do all that much better" yet the headline targets Fox viewers. This is indicative of a bias in the reporting - most people read only the headline and the first one or two paragraphs, where MSNBC is not mentioned at all.
-
I must be an Orange .
I listen to Hours of NPR and watch lots of Fox.
One of the hilarious things that you constantly hear is the self praise for being fair.
Reminds me of Mr. Asops tale of the contest of the animals.
The Dolphin , the Lion and the Eagle decided that they would test each other for the right to be the king of all animals.
The Eagles teat was for speed and height of flying.
The Dolphin set a test for depth of diving.
The Lions test was a test of strength , wrestling.
Well, each of these animals passed one test and failed two.
But each one felt that he had passed the test of greatest importance , so they were all three satisfied that they had won.
-
Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers"
EDITOR'S NOTE: On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart accepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."
On the June 19, 2011, edition of Fox News Sunday, comedian Jon Stewart -- host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central -- sat down for an interview with Chris Wallace. Many readers asked us to review one of his claims.
"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?" Stewart asked Wallace. "The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."
Wallace didn’t challenge Stewart’s assertion that Fox -- widely perceived as a conservative-leaning network -- produced more misinformed viewers. But we thought it was an assessment worth checking.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/)
-
What I find most interesting is that "MSNBC [viewers] didn't do all that much better" yet the headline targets Fox viewers.
I noticed that too Ami.
-
So what would you do to know which news outlet was the most informative?
I think what is being measured by these polls is which news shows are attracting the already well informed.
Which viewers could be called the most improved by the viewing?
-
I think this is an opinion piece masquerading as a scientific poll.
Exposure to Sunday morning news shows helps respondents on this question: seeing
these programs leads to an 11-point increase in the likelihood of getting the answer
right. Listening to NPR also helps, but the biggest aid to answering correctly is The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart, which leads to a 6-point decrease in identifying the protestors
as Republicans, and a 12-point increase in the likelihood of giving the correct answer.
"Jon Stewart has not spent a lot of time on some of these issues," said Cassino. "But
the results show that when he does talk about something, his viewers pick up a lot more
information than they would from other news sources."
So the Daily Show is more informative than NPR?
-
We best not go down that lying about WMD hole again, then
-
Not to me , but it is possibly true.
There is more to News than just stateing a lot of facts.
Stewart might be starting with a viewer that knows little and making each fact or factoid interesting with humor so that more of it sticks.
Imagine someone who reads National Geographic and Science and Discover and Brain Floss. He would flunk these tests , but would he really be poorly informed?
-
Seems to be all part of the meme that Republicans are dumb.
Republicans watch Fox, Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch news at all.
Ergo Republicans are dumb.
rinse
repeat
-
Oh that is silly, everyone knows that it is Democrats that are dumb .
Independants even moreso.
-
We best not go down that lying about WMD hole again, then
True, might upset them what are still in denial. Besides, Bush, Cheney and Condi, et al, got the war they wanted. And for them in denial, we might still find them WMD yet. ;)
-
True, might upset them what are still in denial. Besides, Bush, Cheney and Condi, et al, got the war they wanted. And for them in denial, we might still find them WMD yet. ;)
"By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/chemical-weapons-iranian-agents-and-massive-death-tolls-exposed-in-wikileaks-iraq-docs/) reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/)
-
D'oh ;)
-
Most of what is on the Fox Cable News channel is not news, it is mostly commentaters, essentially entertainers like Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and so forth. PBS and NPR run about 55 minutes of news, usually one or two in depth stories, plus an update of current stories. Fox and CNN run 22 minutes plus 8 minutes of ads, then repeats the broadcast again. NPR runs shows like Diane Rehm, who summarizes the story and often invites callers to comment, generally including people on all sides of the issue.
A person who knows he is uninformed will be less adamant about his opinion than someone who has been given false "facts".
-
Actually I like O'Reilly. He's pretty upfront about the fact that he's in the opinion business, "Ideological media", and that he got into it for the money. If I ever watch Faux News, which I rarely do, I watch O'Reilly.
MSNBC is, yes, just as bad as Faux News with The Rachel Maddow Show, etc. I do watch Morning Joe though. Excellent show.
NPR is good stuff. Some of it reminds me of old time radio. I fell asleep as a kid listening to The Lone Ranger, the Shadow, The Thin Man, all that stuff.
BSB
-
WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward,
U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists
in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk#)
-
Most of my news is online and npr. Nothing from tv. I simply don't watch tv anymore since the internet came around.
-
Former Sec. of State Rice said that even had she known then what she knows now about the lack of WMD in Iraq she still would have supported the invasion.
Saddam Hussein, Rice said, was the most brutal dictator in the Middle East, and had the Arab Spring prompted the Iraqis to attempt an overthrow of Hussein's regime the governmental response would have been viscous beyond what we're seeing in Syria.
As much as I respect Ms. Rice's intellect, my reaction to that is, who cares? It's the judicious use of our troops against terrorist organizations that threaten the United States that concerns me. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a colossal waste of blood and treasure and has set our military preparedness, and capability, back 10 years.
BSB
-
Naaa.....that 'd be the current gutting of our defense budget
-
Rice says she would have still supported the invasion even knowing that Saddam had no WMD's. Of course she would say that, otherwise she would have to admit to causing the death, maiming and exile and uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people.
I don't think she would have been given a chance.
If 9-11 had not happened and there was no evidence of WMD's, there would have been only a very small amount of support for the invasion, just as there is very little support for attacking Pakistan or Iran now.
It was a mistake.
Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia was a huge mistake. Not making sure that they had no Arabic Bibles to pass out there was an even BIGGER mistake. It is always a mistake to allow US troops or diplomats to serve as missionaries for any religion.
-
As much as I respect Ms. Rice's intellect, my reaction to that is, who cares? It's the judicious use of our troops against terrorist organizations that threaten the United States that concerns me. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a colossal waste of blood and treasure and has set our military preparedness, and capability, back 10 years.
BSB
My thoughts exactly.
Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia was a huge mistake. Not making sure that they had no Arabic Bibles to pass out there was an even BIGGER mistake. It is always a mistake to allow US troops or diplomats to serve as missionaries for any religion.
Stationing troops there was not the problem, it was analagous to stationing troops in Germany and Korea during the Cold War. It provided the troops an opportunity to train in terrain and climates they might have to fight in, and kept a ready force close at hand if needed.
Proselytizing, or allowing it, was stupid, especially in a host country with strict laws against it and against our SOFA (status of forces agreement) we made with that country to allow our troops in.
Our SOFA with Turkey when I was there in 75-76 prohibited any outdoor display of the American flag, even as a patch on our uniforms, and any outdoor formation. On the Bicentennial, July 4 1976, in order to have any ceremony commemorating Independence Day, we had to have it indoors.
-
Stationing non-Muslim troops in an overt fashion was clearly offensive to many Saudis. I agree that in the modern world this is rather primitive, but the Koran states "There shall not be two religions in Arabia", and that means that everyone in Arabia (defined by all Saudis as Saudi Arabia in particular) must be a practicing Muslim. Again, Saudis are XIV Century fanatics, but we know this to be true.
Proselytizing made this much, much worse.
The religious police in Saudi Arabia tend to be fundamentalist fanatics. Our State Department knows this. Our military certainly should have known it as well. Arabic Bibles should have been confiscated from the people trying to smuggle them in.
People died as a result of this foolishness, and not one soul found Jesus as a result.
-
Stationing non-Muslim troops in an overt fashion was clearly offensive to many Saudis. I agree that in the modern world this is rather primitive, but the Koran states "There shall not be two religions in Arabia", and that means that everyone in Arabia (defined by all Saudis as Saudi Arabia in particular) must be a practicing Muslim.
That is not quite true. Other religions are allowed to be practiced, as long as they are not overt, and do not make any attempt to proselytize the Muslim population. We were allowed to practice Christianity - well, those who did - as long as they kept it in their homes and did not hold public services or gatherings. Bibles were not even confiscated at the airport on the way in country. Many of the non-Saudi workers - and there were millions of them - were Christian.
-
Before the invasion of Iraq, was the probability of WMD existance or use the only justifacation given?
-
Before the invasion of Iraq, was the probability of WMD existance or use the only justifacation given?
=======================
It was at least 90% of the reasons given. The other was "He gassed his own people!", which happened a decade or more before.
-
All this really says is that Americans are uninformed about world events in general. That is pretty damn true.
Then some journalist thought it would be funny to spin it into a Fox News story.
Yawn.
-
Before the invasion of Iraq, was the probability of WMD existance or use the only justifacation given?
=======================
It was at least 90% of the reasons given. The other was "He gassed his own people!", which happened a decade or more before.
I am pretty sure it was mentioned that he was still killing a lot of his own people, right up to the last minute.
I don't consider it proven that Sadam Hussien had given up on WMD, he seemed rather to be waiting for the pressure and scrutiny to let up.
When the WMD turned out to be scarce , mysteriously missing, THEN it turned into 90% of the discussion, because opponents of Bush didn't take notice of anything elese.
-
All this really says is that Americans are uninformed about world events in general. That is pretty damn true.
Then some journalist thought it would be funny to spin it into a Fox News story.
Yawn.
Exactly. It seems to be a meme floating around the leftsphere. It is getting heavy play on MSNBC, who by the way didn't do much better in the poll of Jersey Shore viewers.
-
Before the invasion of Iraq, was the probability of WMD existance or use the only justifacation given?
=======================
It was at least 90% of the reasons given. The other was "He gassed his own people!", which happened a decade or more before.
I am pretty sure it was mentioned that he was still killing a lot of his own people, right up to the last minute.
I don't consider it proven that Sadam Hussien had given up on WMD, he seemed rather to be waiting for the pressure and scrutiny to let up.
When the WMD turned out to be scarce , mysteriously missing, THEN it turned into 90% of the discussion, because opponents of Bush didn't take notice of anything elese.
BINGO. Note also the tribe that worships at the "Bush lied" alter have yet to demonstrate any proof that Bush knew there were no WMD, but took us to war anyways. Kinda the minimal standard necessary to validate a lie. Quite the contrary in fact. Apparently, it's just a gut feeling
-
It was at least 90% of the reasons given. The other was "He gassed his own people!", which happened a decade or more before.
Let us not forget the ties to Al Qaeda that also didn't exist, and the mobile weapons labs (poor Colin), and the threat of mushroom clouds over American cities.
-
Blessed be to Obama for bringing the troops home.
-
Blessed be to Obama for bringing the troops home.
From Iraq? They never should have been sent. I won't reciprocate with a curse for the Bushies though, it's a waste of time.
-
It was at least 90% of the reasons given. The other was "He gassed his own people!", which happened a decade or more before.
Let us not forget the ties to Al Qaeda that also didn't exist,
But did
and the mobile weapons labs (poor Colin)
That we believed, per intel (bad intel, but intel none-the-less) Hardly nefarious
and the threat of mushroom clouds over American cities.
Not even going to entertain that fallacy
-
Blessed be to Obama for bringing the troops home.
From Iraq? They never should have been sent. I won't reciprocate with a curse for the Bushies though, it's a waste of time.
The reality is that they were sent. And Obama (blessed be his name) brought them home.
-
and the threat of mushroom clouds over American cities.
Not even going to entertain that fallacy
[/quote]
Then you might wanna read up on Condi Bird.
-
Than there was the, "you have one of those!?", bit.
Colin Powell was reading an intercepted conversation between two members of the Iraq military during his case for war speech at the UN. It went approximately like this: Iraqi no.1 "You have one of those!?! (gasp). Iraqi no.2: "Yes". Iraqi no.1, "You better get rid of it!".
That was all there was to it, but by the way Powell showcased it clearly the world was supposed to believe it had something to do with either WMD or proof of Satin's true existence. The fact, however, is that they could have been talking about a copy of Playboy Magazine for all we know.
BSB
-
and the threat of mushroom clouds over American cities.
Not even going to entertain that fallacy
Then you might wanna read up on Condi Bird.
That's gonna require a tad more specificity I'm afraid
-
And yet another conversation dies with sirs claiming that Bush had no way of knowing that his claims were actually lies.
-
And Xo dies not being able to demonstrate 1 shred of proof of an actual lie
-
That's gonna require a tad more specificity I'm afraid
Search for the 'smoking gun'
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
January 10, 2003|By Wolf Blitzer CNN
Last September 8, I interviewed President Bush's National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I was pressing her on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities.
"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."
Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Full article: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US)
Now were you that uninformed, or is your memory that bad? I do believe that quote has been provided here before. Despite the fact it only took all of thirty seconds to find, if you are going to play the game of asking me to verify what has been posted here before, you can do your own homework from now on.
-
That's gonna require a tad more specificity I'm afraid
Search for the 'smoking gun'
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
January 10, 2003|By Wolf Blitzer CNN
"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."
Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Full article: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US)
Was that part true?
That is worse than I remember.
Saddam Hussein needed nothing but a little time left alone, he still had all the know how, he still had a good supply of Uranium ore.
What do we know now that lets us conclude that we could have left Iraq uninvaded and never had to worry about WMD?
-
That's gonna require a tad more specificity I'm afraid
Search for the 'smoking gun'
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
January 10, 2003|By Wolf Blitzer CNN
Last September 8, I interviewed President Bush's National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I was pressing her on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities.
"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."
Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Full article: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US)
Now were you that uninformed, or is your memory that bad? I do believe that quote has been provided here before. Despite the fact it only took all of thirty seconds to find, if you are going to play the game of asking me to verify what has been posted here before, you can do your own homework from now on.
Oh, I recall her statement. I also recall it was specific to the context of what she said....which would be a mushroom cloud over the immediate region of where our troops and/or allies might be, such as Israel, or Kuwait, even Egypt or Jordan perhaps. He never had a delivery system that could reach the U.S. I was actually expecting you to provide some quote from her that was new, that was making it more specific to having tried to worry us that it was a potential strike against our country here.
You know its funny, the ONLY folks that insist that Miss Rice's comments had to be in reference to a cloud over the U.S., are those who insist Bush lied. Ask pretty much anyone, who was supportive of our efforts, you know, supported the call in the need for taking out Saddam, and you'll be sorely missing anyone who believed the Rice was referring to the U.S.
Imagine that, only to the egregiously-lacking-proof-that-Bush-lied crowd, did Rice must mean Saddam was on the verge of nuking Boston :o
-
Make of it what you wish. The sole purpose of the statement was to scare Americans into supporting Bush's little war.
-
Of course you'd think that. You have to, in order to justify some ridiculous notion of Bush lying. The fact remains, that the only folks who think Rice meant Boston, or some other U.S. city was about to be nuked by Saddam, are those who insist Bush "took us to war on false pretenses". Both, ironically, yet to be proven with any actual facts.
-
You are the only one who believes that, sirs. You have convinced no one.
Cheney and Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning. Saddam apparently thought he had WMD's, and his officers would not tell him that he did not. He let everyone believe that he did, because it had a deterrent effect on Iran, Syria and perhaps others. But there were none, and more important, no means of delivering them.
It was all a farce, and thousands died.
-
Cheney and Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning. Saddam apparently thought he had WMD's, and his officers would not tell him that he did not. He let everyone believe that he did, because it had a deterrent effect on Iran, Syria and perhaps others. But there were none, and more important, no means of delivering them.
LOL......Of course you'd think that. The fact remains, that the only folks who think Rice meant Boston, or some other U.S. city was about to be nuked by Saddam, are those who insist Bush "took us to war on false pretenses". Both, ironically, yet to be proven with any actual facts
By all means, if you think I'm the only one that grasps that Rice was referring to a mushroom cloud over the immediate region, which would include our soldiers and allies, to which he did have such delievery systems, ask anyone else here, who supported Bush going to war, if they believed Rice was referring to the continental U.S.
-
>>America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence against us of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.<< George Bush
=============
"....the threat gathering against us." Nothing about any far flung battlefield. Furthermore sirs, terrorists don't need a delivery system and we were talking about Saddam aiding terrorists I believe. That was the whole point.
BTW, little known fact. About a month before the invasion the CIA sent several Iraqi's, who had previously left the country at various times, back to Iraq to gather information on their WMD program. They all reported that there were no active programs, and no known stockpiles. (Full disclosure:I got that from a former Marine I know who was working for the CIA in Afghanistan at the time)
In case no one remembers there was NO rush to find and secure any possible WMD sites. Many of our combat units were walking around with their heads up their asses instead.
BSB
P.S. Note I said nothing abot anyone lying.
-
Did I ever claim you did??
-
I belived that deposing Saddam was a good idea.
Still do.
I am starting to wonder if our follow through was adequite and thought through.
Al Queda took the power vacuum as an invitation,so that we had an oppurtunity to kill a bunch of those idiots. I don't know if that was intentional on our part in the first place.
Iran couldn't resist the oppurtunity to arms its catspaws and kill Americans , I don't even know whether this was expected or surprising to us.
Now we are leaving , I always knew we would leave , but I never and still don't know how much remnant we will leave , nor what sort of confusion our leaving will engender.
Saddam , for all his bluster, seemed a lot like a pushover. We have had a lot more trouble with the wannabe Saddams that sprang up after Saddam left town.
This suggests a diffrent and cheaper policy if we have occasion to do this sort of thing again. Depose the nasty ruler, then leave immediately.Let the chips fall where they may but tell the new nasty ruler that he is in no uncertain terms another pushover , so good behavior is a good idea.
-
While deposing Saddam may have been a good idea, the sacrifice of all the Americans who died doing it, the dislocation of a third of the people of Iraq and the deaths of all the Iraqis, along with the huge cost to us Americans was NOT a good idea.
It might be a good idea to fly to Saturn, but the question is always "is it worth the cost?"
And it wasn't.
-
That's one opinion. Included with myself are those that given the intel we had at the time, it was. Especially in the aftermath of 911
-
I suppose the people whose opinions would really matter the most here are the families of those who died or were maimed, both Americans and Iraqis.
I am pretty sure that if I had lost a brother, I would say that it was not worth it.
-
A valid opinion.
I personally know a co-worker who lost their son in Iraq, and while holding back the tears, stated how they couldn't have been more proud of his service and attempts at protecting this country. At no time did they ever proclaim how the Iraq was was was supposedly being fought for invalid reasons, or that ther son's death was in vain. Quite the oppiosite in fact
Are you going to try and rain all over that position, call them stupid, ignorant, and/or misinformed, for holding such an opinion?
-
I am going to say they have a perfect right to any opinion they wish.
I am unlikely to meet them in any case.
If they feel happier knowing that Saddam is dead and feeling that it was worth losing their son over, that is okay by me.
You are the one that likes calling people names. I will leave all that up to you. You enjoy putting words in the mouths of others and being a chickenshit in general. Go ahead, have at ti!
Still, I personally feel that invading Iraq to remove Saddam was not worth it.
-
I have yet to call you a name, despite your claim that its "what I like to do", while you unload the Chick slur. Best look in the mirror, as that'd be yet another issue you're wrong on