TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- enough american bashing - now its europe's turn
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

some of you take this forum waaay too seriously

and some of you could publish books by now with all the info that you have typed in here

hehe. but keep typing i loove to hear different opinions

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Jocker i keep on being amazed on how blindly believing people can be to what they are told in "pearl harbor", "saving private ryan" and all other bullshit movies (they are actually good movies, but they are bullshit in the historical value sense). USSR lost 40 (!!!!!) million people in that war. Belarus (former USSR republic which was the first that Germans invaded) lost 1/3 of all its citizens! the 2nd front wasn't opened until fucking summer of 1944 - when the war was actually already won by USSR and our soldiers were chasing German soldiers not on our land, but already outside, freeing Hungary, Poland and other countries. IT WAS NOT FOR AMERICANS THAT THE WAR WAS WON!!!!!!!! get it once and for all!!!

Actuully come to think of it the only reason that war was one is because germany and japan both made 1 major fuck up each.

Oh well. I guess I'll roll over, America sucks, Europeans are always right

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Stupid. But what's your point? You appear to be comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks for answering my question. The US Attacks on Iraq are stupid, but my point is, we're not so much better than these terrorists if we're just going out and killing people who ATM are doing nothing to us, just because we FEEL (because we have no other evidence at this point) they are a threat.

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r anyone who's antiwar on this iraq issue is a spineless fool, being held up only by the starch in their smug business shirts.

hrm i thought i heard something?? nevermind, i was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Skaya Thanks for answering my question. The US Attacks on Iraq are stupid, but my point is, we're not so much better than these terrorists if we're just going out and killing people who ATM are doing nothing to us, just because we FEEL (because we have no other evidence at this point) they are a threat.

well said. The US has no evidence that Iraq is a threat. Since the gulf war, there has been no immediate danger...why now? Dubya's balls are shrinking because has done nothing positive for this country yet

quote:

Originally posted by King_Mack Dubya's balls are shrinking because has done nothing positive for this country yet

I'm glad there are others besides me who can see through the 911 sympathies and the Iraq bullshit and realize that Bush hasn't done anything.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Skaya Actuully come to think of it the only reason that war was one is because germany and japan both made 1 major fuck up each. Oh well. I guess I'll roll over, America sucks, Europeans are always right

i didn't say Europeans are always right, and America sucks. as a matter of fact, i'm much more pro-american (happen to live in this country at the moment) than pro-european. what i say is that it really hurts millions of Russians (and ex-Soviet) people, including myself, that the role of our country in the war is so overshadowed. yes, i understand, that in 50s and 60s the whole capitalistic world was against the ussr because they were against our regime (communism, that is)... i hate communists myself, but when it comes to war, our grandparents were fighting to free their homeland and they fought not looking back and not fleeing from the battlefield. if you know, stalin signed an infamous law in the first months of war, called "not a single step back" by the folk. special batalions, called "zagradotryad" were created, to stand behind the avantgarde infantry. and whoever tried to run back, those batallions had to shoot them. ussr lost twice as much as germany in that war (and it's only a raw estimate), and almost all the southern-european part of it was completely destructed. so it would be nice of any person at least to know the basic facts of that terrible war, and not to throw the words around about who sacrificed the most.

and as for europeans. Russia isn't europe... neither it's asia. it's something from both. we are strange people. strange enough not to be understood by the whole world

now to the "bashing europe" part... i really hate all those people who try to tell us how to fight war with chechnya. denmark is at its best by not extradicting to russia the top terrorist supporter akhmed zakaev (he's in britain now actually) and by not forbidding the world chechen conference to be held in copenhagen in dec'2002. europeans cry about human rights being deprived from chechens and shit like that, while it is in europe where neonazis are evolving, beating up and hating everyone except their own breed. if you had that war in your countries (like great britain and spain - they have major separatist fources to fight with, - so they don't walk around and cry about chechen people being so poorly treated), if you had your innocent people blown up in the buildings by some mad radical islam fanatics, then probably you would speak differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i still stand by that original arguement. just becuase you dont hear of something doesnt mean its not happening, there are tons of news worthy stuff happening on the continent of africa, just becuase its not being reported doesnt mean its not happening.

Just as I still stand by mine. If it�s not reported � as far as the conscience of the general public goes - it�s as good as not happening. Granted yes, in reality things are physically happening but in essence, from the publics perspective it�s not.

quote:

i guess what i said was also to be taken on a personal level as well. if you cared about afghanistan you would have found out that there are plenty of articles one can read about the daily proccess in afghanistan, let me start you off if you need a stepping stone. http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=...cat=Afghanistan (a collection of current articles from agencies such as AP, Rueters, NY times, CBC, etc... specifically about news from afghanistan)

Ok, so from a trawl of the internet you can come up with some related stories. However, I�m referring to proper news coverage � updates on the campaign on every news broadcast, large sections in the printed press. Though I can�t comment for other locations, perhaps I was wrong to imply that in my initial post, in the United Kingdom, you don�t see any longer. It all just kind of fizzled out and died. Also on a personal level, the majority of the public are not going to bother to go out of their way to find out what�s going on, they want it delivered to them, spoon fed, so they don�t have to think too hard. Thus, even though it�s important, if it�s not getting �vital� news coverage, generally speaking who�s going to go out of their way to try and find out? A very small minority. This again kinda ties in with the false consciousness thing I was on about with the media again, that they could engineer what they want public attention towards.

quote:

Modern news agencies do not nessicarly report on what is happening but rather report on the issues that will draw them the biggest audience (which in return gives them higher advertisment dollars). right now the majority of the world would rather hear news about the upcoming war with iraq rather then the reconstruction of afghanistan.

Oh I agree, the Media will report with greater emphasis on what will generate the highest ratings and this is what is inherently wrong and why I have such an issue with the media. It�s immoral in every sense. I don�t want to be told news that I find more interesting � I want to be told news that�s more important. Take celebrities for example, I couldn�t give two hoots which Hollywood actresses have stolen what form which overpriced shops, I want to know what is going on in the world, politics reports, war reports, famine updates, hospital waiting times, crime rates etc. That time that�s wasted by reporting useless brain dead rubbish could be used more constructively, but it�s not. The sooner that everyone realises that this constant strive for personal economic gain, which is what the media want, more viewers equates to more money, the better for the whole world and it�s population. And morally I ask you � what�s more important; Facing up to the destruction and rebuilding of a land that we helped in, or the latest who�s sleeping with who celebrity bulls**t gossip? Yes I do think that the Iraq �crisis� deserves the lion�s share of attention (unless something bigger comes up), but Afghanistan should not be forgotten like it is.

quote:

i still dont see then how you can say that bush jr. will help his re-election. how do you know it wont hurt it? your example with bush sr. is a good example of what could happen. how can you comfortably predict the future outcome of peoples opinion with regard to this war when there are so so many variables at stake.

I�m working on two levels here, firstly my run down of the Iraq �crisis� was written from a Bush perspective how I see it. That is what I wrote is how I think Bush�s mind is working over Iraq. Secondly it also has �in all probability� elements to it. Granted, the Iraq campaign could go all wrong like Afghanistan, however in all probability we�ll see a generally successful campaign. Granted, Bush could make the same mistake as his father, but in all probability he won�t be stupid enough to leave Saddam where he is. So going on these likelihood�s, a successful campaign will help his election prospects. Besides, not once have I categorically said that if Bush wins in Gulf Wars Episode 2 he will win the next election, I said he�d use it as a lever in the next election. (And before you point this out, I am well aware that Winston Churchill was not re-elected directly after the second world war )

quote:

Originally posted by JM some of you take this forum waaay too seriously

And In all honesty JM, people don�t take this forum seriously enough. Politics, in general is not taken seriously enough. These are important issues that affect everyone. Yes, we may not all agree, but the only way we will come to any solution is through debate and discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Oh I agree, the Media will report with greater emphasis on what will generate the highest ratings and this is what is inherently wrong and why I have such an issue with the media. It�s immoral in every sense. I don�t want to be told news that I find more interesting � I want to be told news that�s more important. Take celebrities for example, I couldn�t give two hoots which Hollywood actresses have stolen what form which overpriced shops, I want to know what is going on in the world, politics reports, war reports, famine updates, hospital waiting times, crime rates etc. That time that�s wasted by reporting useless brain dead rubbish could be used more constructively, but it�s not. The sooner that everyone realises that this constant strive for personal economic gain, which is what the media want, more viewers equates to more money, the better for the whole world and it�s population. And morally I ask you � what�s more important; Facing up to the destruction and rebuilding of a land that we helped in, or the latest who�s sleeping with who celebrity bulls**t gossip?

i dont know if it is inherently immoral to give the people what they want, ie stories of which celeb is doing who. but it is a shame, probably even a trajedy, that the majority of the people out there care more about that then any of the other stuff you mentioned.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.