— Too many reeds, not enough oaks, perhaps (was it Mencius or Confucious (i think Mencius)) who said something like the leader is like wind upon the grass. People definitely lack resolve, and the TV bolsters that.
Not blair, but bush yea. War coverage that interests train spotters and stupid facts that are irellevant, like showing prisoners (how stupid is that? its like " look were kicking arse " WHO CARES i hope you get shot prisoner guide, thinking your high and mighty). All i wonted to see was blood and guts(which they did in Islam), but well i’ll see that in the film. 
Sometimes i really do wonder way i care about anything. It makes me wont to get out the cookbook and blow something up.
— Lots of Reality TV UNLESS it comes to war, America, Land of the inculcated, home of the brain-washed.
The one question i think needs addressed; what are the military going to do now evidence that there are weapons or were going to be weapons–is missing? Will they stay, fuel anger and slowly lose lifes or go? If they go they lose face but they’ve did it in Afganistan without anyone noticing and just gave rule back to the warlords. Saddam has been given to much credit, as his son was thought to be the new power in Iraq. But since 1991 Iraq was never likely to be a force again, so what excuse can the US give for not leaving the oil fields. People in America must start to think “hey what are we doing in iraq”: these are the views i can think of now
- Hey were fighting for democracy
- We need oil
- Saddams a naughty boy
- Kill em all
As of now i see that 2. we need oil 4. kill em all.
Now staying for oil, is going to be a bad idea (not in the vietnam bad idea sense) but it could start slowly getting worse, perhaps with a increasing amount of causualitys and the government couldnt go and say that there for oil anyways. At first causualitys will only make America mad and more determined to kill “terrorists”, but knowing how much oil is needed, would they still stay and how would people back home take a ever increasing amount of body bags? Do you think a government of today could openly come out and say were there for the oil; now try’en stop us? Because people are easily fooled and think good causes are behind governments, but the only way the US could stay in Iraq is if it had a good excuse(via oil).
— Did i mention the fact that Bush owns oil interests?
Not sure. but were im at Mark Thomas let that be publicly known when Bush was elected. And predicted that it would (been republician) go to war, but war as in meaning fuelling his shares and the Bush familys interests, for a long time to come. Is it ESSO or mirrox or something like that?
Yeah, Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld all have links with oil companies. And this war was about WMDs and liberating Iraq (Note that the US does not have a great human rights record) 
Anyway go to Google and type in Weapons of Mass Destruction and press the “I’m feeling lucky” button. 
— Metavoid, i would just like to say that your use of irony amazes me, i stand in awe. The US (translate: us at any cost) has a VERY poor human rights record. Go to Amnesty International to find out more. When i think of all the Kurds, Palestinians, South Americans, etc we have killed or had killed it fills me with loathing.
Yes, but the thing that enrages me the most is how effective the US media (read: propaganda system) is at controlling the minds of the general populace.
— That’s why i rarely watch television, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper, i prefer to do my own thinking. The people here that just watch television tend to be superficial and naive; and with the major media everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Its annoying! The way the media is just so false, ive taken i simular root. It only makes me angry, and thats were the of majority of people get all there twisted if not pointless information from.(i know people have beliefs but…). It amazes me how easy people are brain-washed by it, and take it all so literally; at times i think people need to open there eyes and take down this cloud of lies. (anyways im going on to much; the media is a topic that affects people around me so it affects me, and i hate it - i could go on all day).
That’s one thing I’ll give you Brits. I hate your food and your weather–and you’re all lousy-ass lovers–but you just can’t beat the BBC in the quality and integrity of news reporting. 
The downside is that the BBC constantly is accused of having a “centre-left” bias, strange when one takes into account that it produces material critical the government more than any other mainstream media source.
The BBC is fairly good. A lot better than the stations over here, maybe even better than National Public Radio.
Well i think the BBC should be the best (considering when i was on benefits i still had to pay a tax to watch it - even if i dont watch the BBC, and you dont get all the channels it supports). English is all over world, the BBC has a very good buisiness news report and open university in the learning zone. I wouldnt say it was bias “centre-left”, it is true that the chairman of the BBC votes labour but its a national channel and the conservatives still get alot of air time (its just that Britian itself is very much a centre-left place now).
CNN (7/15/03)
Bush says Iraq WMD proof will come
Defends ‘darn good intelligence’
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush, facing questions about his credibility, says the United States is working overtime to prove Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded Iraq.
“When it’s all said and done,” Bush said Monday, “the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program.”
Bush has been on the defensive since the administration acknowledged it could not document his State of the Union claim in January that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons.
That claim was based on British intelligence that had been called into question by the CIA, and the agency’s director, George Tenet, has accepted responsibility for not seeking removal of the statement from Bush’s speech.
. . .
Bush said the United States was reviewing documents and interviewing Iraqis in an intensive effort to support the still unproven claim that Saddam had forbidden weapons.
The embarrassing episode about questionable intelligence forced the administration to concede it did not know the source of the British claims – and, in fact, was not trying to determine the source.
“We don’t know if it’s true but nobody – but nobody – can say it was wrong,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. “That is not known.”
Rest of the article ‘Bush says Iraq WMD proof will come’
Why can’t they just admit that they made a mistake?
Don’t ask me how I came across the following, but I did and it is hilarious!
Bush and Blair Music Video
This is rather intriguing in the respect that Wolfowitz is denying the existence of the WMDs while Bush is asserting this. It shows a schism between the intellectual and bureaucratic facets of the neoconservative junta, though that’s not really the perspective I recieve from searching PNAC.
More intelligent propositions from Wolfowitz
HAha That’s classic!!!
Why has noone tryed the google search yet 