Saddam is a very stubborn man. i think that he was a bit ****ed off that Bush was telling him what to do. He then destroyed them when a legitimate source told him to. This doesn't exuse the attrosities that he has inflicted on the citizens he was entrusted to protect. Bush didn't know what to do when he destroyed them! Going back to Kennedy, his lead party realised the war for what it was. He didn't lie. I hope we find such a brilliant politian to replace him. If I wern't a minor, I'd have voted liberal. i was kind of frustrated, that because other people my age don't want to vote, I can't. There was a survey to see if any minors wanted the right to vote. The majority didn't. I think the fact that there were some who did, should have prompted a minor vote, with some safeguards against phoney votes, although I appreciate that such safegaurds could be hard to accomplish. Perhaps lowering the voting age to fifteen, or sixteen? To link this to television, I agree with 'Greenday'. I think that the media is still used very much to control the views of the people.
Just like I always disclaim myself - Remember that these are opinions. i cannot tell them as fact.
Sorry to intervene here, but why write a non-tv related essay regarding Iraq in a Charles Kennedy Resignation topic?
Oh shut up.
I'm getting sick and tired of reading "what's this got to do with presentation" posts around here.
Are the soap threads in the TV home forum about presentation? The numerous threads on individual shows and the content of them?
It's about time that people realised that just as the TV home forum forays into discussion on programming (rather than just presentation), the Newsroom forum should be allowed to discuss news issues (rather than just presentation).
If these fora were genuinely only about presentation, there would be 20 posts per day by about 5 members.
Opinions and comment are what make this board a success and interesting to read.
Heavy handed moderation (e.g. the banning of an excellent contributor in cat) and thread-realignment frankly get in the way.
I support "news item threads" e.g. "kennedy resigns", "Sharon ill" etc. in the newsroom (in the same way we have threads on programmes in the TV Home Forum). They can be used for presentation and comment (as this thread proves).
Why say a thread shouldn't exist and should be covered in a generic "News 24 thread"? Do we have threads entitled "ITV Drama", "BBC Soaps", "ITV reality TV" etc in TV Home forum? No we don't.
If a news story thread doesn't get attention in terms of presentation and comment posts, then it dies a swift death down the forum. Simple.
Well you're not required here Dunedin. JB has proved your argument to be "weak" in your own words, so why do you attempt to retort at a poster who puts up a valid point about you thinking you know it all about Iraq so proceeding to hijack the thread?
You're rude, you're boring, and most importantly, you're wrong. So do us all a favour by going.
Well you're not required here Dunedin. JB has proved your argument to be "weak" in your own words, so why do you attempt to retort at a poster who puts up a valid point about you thinking you know it all about Iraq so proceeding to hijack the thread?
You're rude, you're boring, and most importantly, you're wrong. So do us all a favour by going.
don't you go speaking for all of us.
it's only a matter of time before Charlie comes along with his padlock anyway.
You're rude, you're boring, and most importantly, you're wrong. So do us all a favour by going.
"Hello, Kettle? It's Pot calling here."
Oh ho ho, how original.
Your comic editing of my name is just hilarious. My sides are quite truly splitting.
Sorry, but if I see rudeness, I respond rudely. I notice the poster in question has still not replied to JB's comments. Only sniped at his source and again referred to the "oil" argument as imbecilic.
Sorry to intervene here, but why write a non-tv related essay regarding Iraq in a Charles Kennedy Resignation topic?
Oh shut up.
I'm getting sick and tired of reading "what's this got to do with presentation" posts around here.
Are the soap threads in the TV home forum about presentation? The numerous threads on individual shows and the content of them?
It's about time that people realised that just as the TV home forum forays into discussion on programming (rather than just presentation), the Newsroom forum should be allowed to discuss news issues (rather than just presentation).
If these fora were genuinely only about presentation, there would be 20 posts per day by about 5 members.
Opinions and comment are what make this board a success and interesting to read.
Heavy handed moderation (e.g. the banning of an excellent contributor in cat) and thread-realignment frankly get in the way.
I support "news item threads" e.g. "kennedy resigns", "Sharon ill" etc. in the newsroom (in the same way we have threads on programmes in the TV Home Forum). They can be used for presentation and comment (as this thread proves).
Why say a thread shouldn't exist and should be covered in a generic "News 24 thread"? Do we have threads entitled "ITV Drama", "BBC Soaps", "ITV reality TV" etc in TV Home forum? No we don't.
If a news story thread doesn't get attention in terms of presentation and comment posts, then it dies a swift death down the forum. Simple.
Moderation barely required.
End of rant.
I'll Second your point there Dunedin. TV presentation changes when there is major news, but there is nothing wrong with debating that major news, whilst we are watching it.
Everybody is entitled to their own view. You can scruitinise the views, and pick faults in others' views, but you can't scruitinise somebody for holding the view. when this happens it takes the name-callinng-bearer's integrity for having the view away. There is no exuse for initiating name-calling. There is also only a very diminished-true exuse for sinking down to the level of a name-caller, by calling them back. Just tell the name-caller that their actions are inexuseable, and shouldn't re-occur. I hope this argument diffusion happens universally through the forums.
EVERYBODY'S view is important.
I'm getting sick and tired of reading "what's this got to do with presentation" posts around here.
Funny that! What with TV Forum been a forum for television
presentation
discussion.
Please stop been so rude, it's neither endeering to your character or add's to the debate. If you want to firestorm I suggest you make your own site and grow up. Child.
I hate to do this, because at MediaSpy I'd declare this to be off-topic and send it off to the relevant forum...
Nevertheless, the debate is here and now.
I simply can't accept the view that governments around the world conspired to lie to their people to go to war in Iraq. And this is not a conspiracy, by the way, between the US, the UK, Australia, and other members of the Coalition of the Willing. It would have been a conspiracy with France, Germany and Russia as well - all countries who believed Saddam had WMD.
The debate in 2002/03 was never about whether Saddam had WMD or not. The verdict was unanimous. It was conventional wisdom that Saddam had WMD. Now, as it seems to have turned out, that was wrong. But it's what virtually everyone thought at the time. I don't know a single person who said, "No - that's wrong. Iraq has no WMD." Yes, there were claims that some stuff had been exaggerated - "sexed up" as the phrase was later coined. No one however was trying to argue that Saddam had no WMD. No one was arguing that Iraq was completely harmless, and would never cause any trouble. The debate was based around one simple question - given Saddam's non-compliance, what do we do?
To me, it's entirely disingenuous for the anti-war mob to claim it was all a great lie when even countries who were opposed to the war would have had to have been part of that lie. Russia, to take an example, passed on intelligence to the US saying that Saddam's regime had been planning attacks on the US in a similar way to Al-Qaeda's September 11 strikes. So clearly, even non-COW countries saw Iraq as some sort of threat - they just didn't see the need to go to war over it.
The only logical conclusion that one can reach when looking at the events as they actually happened, and not through the warped perspective of time that some seem to have, is that these countries, these governments, genuinely believed Saddam had WMD and posed a threat. That belief was predicated on faulty intelligence - a global intelligence breakdown. That shouldn't absolve the governments responsible - a lot of the blame has to go on the Americans and the CIA because of the CIA's reluctance to pass on raw intelligence to allies, instead opting to pass on the processed information, with the leading conclusion that Saddam had WMD. Intelligence agencies around the globe operated off the core assumption that Saddam wasn't fully disarmed by UN weapons inspectors, and that he therefore still had WMD. In fact, as it turns out, UNSCOM appears to have done a far better job than anyone had actually thought. Intelligence agencies however should have taken a more critical look at the information, and should have been more willing to discard those sorts of assumptions that led them to make the faulty assessments that they did. Indeed, it wasn't until Hans Blix came along that anyone started to do that - prior to him, even UN weapons inspectors (at least when they were allowed in) operated on the assumption that Iraq did have WMD, and it was their job to find them and disarm them. Blix came along with the attitude that Iraq was hiding
something
, but he just didn't know what. If the intelligence agencies had operated on a similar basis, we could have, of course, ended up with an entirely different situation.
In the end though, I don't think anyone can lie if they believe to be true what they're saying. Governments should have a reasonable assumption that the intelligence they're receiving is sound and accurate, in order for them to make good decisions. They're reliant on intelligence agencies, and if those agencies aren't doing their jobs properly, then it stands to reason that that will affect the quality of the decisions made by governments.
A well argued and thought-provoking piece of writing- well done.
Matrix- if you're going to criticise something I write, please at least have the balls to respond to my full point.
Presumably if you want to clamp down on non-presentation related threads you would take a great axe to pretty much all of the TV home forum? Go back and read my post fully and then I'll bother to take your criticism remotely seriously.
Also from now on, please stop each and every time you post in these fora and think whether your post related to presentation.
Here's a quick hint for you- out of your last 5 posts, just 1 has been about presentation. I'm not criticising you for this, because I think this is what makes these fora work- but those with glass houses...
Jaime Alexandez- it's called a debate. You obviously agree with "JB", but I don't. Therefore I put up an opposing view and would be fascinated to read "JBs" response. I absolutely respect your decision not to agree with me, but perhaps it might be more constructive if you actually engaged in the debate by trying to address the points that I have raised.
You'll see I did very carefully address each and every point in JB's post- look back if you don't believe me. Whether you read it all or not is your prerogative.
Also as a final word (as this may be my last visit here today)- I'm flying off tomorrow and so won't be around this site until next weekend. I don't normally reveal my travel plans to the world, but I just want to make sure nobody thinks that I've run away from a debate- I hope that aspects of this debate continue (particularly accepting that the content of these fora go beyond just presentation).