If you think our local MSM gives you bias reports, try looking at foreign ones.
This is the face of Roxana Saberi, an American journalist of Iranian descent, who has just been set free from Iranian prison. It was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to the Iranian judiciary that allowed her to walk away from an 8-year jail sentence.
Read story here.
The issue here is this. Iran has been demonised by the foreign MSM, in particular Ahmadinejad's rhetoric against Israel. However, when the president pardons a US citizen, the mainstream news media played low key. Just like it was when Ahmadinejad called for the release of some British marines who were captured by Iranian forces some years back.
A search with google on the news of Roxana Saberi shows that major tabloids downplay the news of the Iran's goodwill gesture of releasing her, although they up-played her arrest and subsequent sentence.
So why has the foreign media been so hard and bias against Iran? The answer is that America has been very war hawkish towards Iran. Foreign MSM, like local MSM will dance to the tune of its government. In this case, the foreign media needs to play to America's need to build a case against Iran to sell to the public the next war.
In the meantime, it should also be noted that while Iran released the US citizen, US is still holding Iranian diplomats captive illegally.
Glenn Greenwald: ‘Roxana Saberi’s plight and American media propaganda’
http://freeroxana.net/?p=559
Right now — as the American press corps celebrates itself for demanding Saberi’s release in Iran — the U.S. continues to imprison Ibrahim Jassam, a freelance photographer for Reuters, even though an Iraqi court last December — more than five months ago — found that there was no evidence to justify his detention and ordered him released. The U.S. — over the objections of the CPJ, Reporters Without Borders and Reuters — refused to recognize the validity of that Iraqi court order and announced it would continue to keep him imprisoned.
One finds only a tiny fraction of news coverage in the U.S. regarding the treatment of al-Haj, Hussein, Jassam and these other imprisoned journalists as has been devoted to Saberi. It ought to be exactly the reverse: the American media should be far more interested in, and opposed to, infringements of press freedoms by the U.S. Government than by governments of other countries. Yet the former merits hardly a peep, while the latter provokes all sorts of smug and self-righteous protests from American journalists who suddenly discover their brave commitment to press freedoms when all that requires is pointing to a demonized, hated foreign government and complaining.
Well, that's the bias MSM, foreign style. Our local media, especially the ST, and of late the alternative media as well, are no different.
Posts
30 comments:
True, who can we trust to tell the truth?
However, there is a slight difference between this case and our MSM, and that is, the foreign MSM is biased against another country but our MSM is biased against the country's own people, in favour of foreigners.
And may I add that some of our talented 'journalists' have abused their positions, writing based personal preferences. Does not matter if it ST or online blog.
Who was it who told conservative readers to get out of his elite uncaring face? That wasn't his personal blog, but one under the MSM.
ST did not mention the comments made by MICA about their biased coverage of the Aware issue in this highlight.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_377077.html
They chose to highlight the religious aspect again.
Anon 11.04am:
When one is guilty of an infringement, why would he highlight it? -- project lucy
Gonna have to disagree with bear on this one.
I think Iran is a great danger to ME peace, I thought this even before the MSM started pushing this idea under GWB.
And the MSM did not push this universally, some disliked the idea of Iran as dangerous simply to go against the GWB admin, which most MSM loathed.
Iran is dangerous because of their extremely religious fanatical govt and their everyday death threats against their enemy, israel.
Their country needs to change and they need to do it before one of the mad people in their govt shoots nuclear weapons onto Tel Aviv and gets an israeli nuclear response that wipes Iran off the map.
Note that I am against the iranian govt, not the iranian people. My family's gone to iran a few times on business, and we understand that the people there are no different from any other people, altho some of them are a bit messed up by religious extremism.
For instance, if you walk around on the street(wearing veil), you'll get touched or rubbed up by the guys there who I think are really repressed and desperate.
sigmundringeck
sigmund
>>>>I think Iran is a great danger to ME peace, I thought this even before the MSM started pushing this idea under GWB.
>>
Why is Iran a danger? It has not invaded its neighbours for hundreds of years. US on the hand has invaded many lands. Who is the oppressor?
>>And the MSM did not push this universally, some disliked the idea of Iran as dangerous simply to go against the GWB admin, which most MSM loathed.
>>
To the US, Iran has been "the devil" after the Shah was overthrown. Before that, they were "best friends".
GWB was not around then.
>>Iran is dangerous because of their extremely religious fanatical govt and their everyday death threats against their enemy, israel.
>>
What has Israel got to do with the this? As if Israel is so important, all other countries in the ME is unimportant?
>>Their country needs to change and they need to do it before one of the mad people in their govt shoots nuclear weapons onto Tel Aviv and gets an israeli nuclear response that wipes Iran off the map.
>>
Iran has no nukes. Israel has 200+ nukes at least. It is also the only country in the ME that has nukes. Let's place our priorities right if we want to talk about peace in the Middle East.
>>Note that I am against the iranian govt, not the iranian people. My family's gone to iran a few times on business, and we understand that the people there are no different from any other people, altho some of them are a bit messed up by religious extremism.
>>
What is extremism to you, is their culture. Are you not the foreigner interfering with their domestic issues? Imagine foreigner workers and expats telling us how to lead our lives. Would you take that kindly?
As for their "threats" against Israel, please note that Israel has also threatened them. Foreign MSM played up Iran's threats, downplayed Israel's threats.
>>For instance, if you walk around on the street(wearing veil), you'll get touched or rubbed up by the guys there who I think are really repressed and desperate.
>>
But that happens about anywhere, doesn't it? You mean you don't have perverts in MRT trains pretending to bump into women and girls?
"When one is guilty of an infringement, why would he highlight it?"
That is an acid test for a truly professional press/journalist.
What is project lucy? Sounds interesting. I love Lucy.
If Mr Bear doesn't mind, I am now a REACH fan.
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/SnapshotsofHotIssues/tabid/233/ctl/Details/mid/917/ItemID/82/Default.aspx
Look how WayangParty is trying to appear neutral after painting the town red.
And no, no, no to Siewdious for NMP. No too to Loretta Chen, Beatrice Chia and that gay lawyer.
Jelat already.
solo bear, sorry to say you are dead wrong on the iran issue.
-------------
"Why is Iran a danger? It has not invaded its neighbours for hundreds of years. US on the hand has invaded many lands. Who is the oppressor?"
Most accept that iran sponsors terrorist groups such as Hizbollah that go around killing and oppressing people who just want to get on with their lives in the ME.
The style of warfare in modern times is to sponsor terrorism against your opponent, not attack her openly, especially in the case of israel, that has strong conventional and nuclear forces.
The US invaded many lands? The only place they should not have invaded was vietnam, which they did under Kennedy and Johnson(democrats). Other times one could argue that there was justification to invade, like in the first Iraq war(to throw off saddam), etc. nobody is strong enough to invade the US, so they blow up US embassies and so on. Then the US bombs them and invades them, if the admin then has the guts to do it, like GWB.
The people in Lebanon would probably call Hizbollah an oppressor and iran an oppressor also, as hizbollah is their puppet.
"To the US, Iran has been "the devil" after the Shah was overthrown. Before that, they were "best friends".
GWB was not around then."
Not so. During the second iraq invasion and during the iraq-iran war, I saw little in the US media condemning iran. It was only after iran started pushing its nuclear weapons program and threatening israel with mass murder that the western media picked its cue from the GWB admin and started to criticise iran.
"What has Israel got to do with this? As if Israel is so important, all other countries in the ME is unimportant?"
You forget israel is a democracy and iran is a religious dictatorship. Israel tolerates and welcomes other religions and arabs in it, but iran does not. Israel did not invade the other arab countries in recent history, but it has been invaded by the arabs twice already in major conventional warfare. The arab countries basically want to wipe israel of the face of the earth, if they can, but they have tried and they can't. Israel is the victim, and the arabs are the oppressors. Now the arabs cannot invade israel because it is too strong, so they sponsor terrorism against israel.
Do you deny this?
"Iran has no nukes. Israel has 200+ nukes at least. It is also the only country in the ME that has nukes. Let's place our priorities right if we want to talk about peace in the Middle East."
Iran is going to have nukes very soon, and they will have no qualms about using them on israel. Israel is a western-style DEMOCRACY. Iran is a DICTATORSHIP controlled by RELIGIOUS FANATICS.
"What is extremism to you, is their culture. Are you not the foreigner interfering with their domestic issues? Imagine foreigner workers and expats telling us how to lead our lives. Would you take that kindly?"
Disagree completely. Most people in iran would like to live differently from how the theocracy runs the country. Like I would like to walk around without veil and have more access to western media and learning and also would like to vote for my leaders and have more women's rights, freedom to worship in other religions, etc. Your argument is totally wrong because many iranians that I have met agree with me.
The religious extremism there is a temporary abberation and not their culture, which in the past was tolerant and open.
Freedom to worship the religion of your choice is also a universal human right. To say it is "their culture" to deny this right and thus justify it, is illogical.
"As for their "threats" against
Israel, please note that Israel has also threatened them. Foreign MSM played up Iran's threats, downplayed Israel's threats."
If a murderous bully threatens you and you threaten him back, does this make you the same as him?
"But that happens about anywhere, doesn't it? You mean you don't have perverts in MRT trains pretending to bump into women and girls?"
You do not understand. The whole societal culture there is different.
I've never been molested in singapore, but I was touched up maybe a half a dozen times in iran in a couple of weeks. Back here, I would have broken the faces of anyone who dared do that, but over there, I kept my hands to myself, and merely scolded. The difference is significant. Suggest you go there yourself to understand how it is.
The religious theocracy there is a heavy oppressive burden on the iranian people and the sooner it is overthrown, the better.
I would be very happy if another GWB were to appear, invade iran and kill the entire govt there, then set up a true democracy and peaceful society there, as he has done so well in iraq.
That is the only way to overthrow a murderous and oppressive dictatorship, sadly.
That is why I say the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to GWB.
OK, now don't scold moi too much when you reply.
sigmundringeck.
I also suggest we don't argue too much about MidEast matters, but concentrate on local ones.
I'm only concerned as to when israel will bomb iran's nuke factories as my job requires me to understand where the price of oil may go to.
I'm more concerned about Darth Siewdious getting in for a second term as the impact on me personally is more relevant.
sigmundringeck
sigmund
>>Most accept that iran sponsors terrorist groups such as Hizbollah that go around killing and oppressing people who just want to get on with their lives in the ME.
>>
Who is the "most" who accept? The Western media, hyping up for the Western govts, no? So isn't that one-sided reporting that I have been talking about the foreign MSM?
>>The US invaded many lands? The only place they should not have invaded was vietnam, which they did under Kennedy and Johnson(democrats).
>>
2001 - Afghanistan. Purportedly, to get Osama. But Taliban was willing to hand over him to US through third party. So why invade then?
After invasion, when there is no Osama, they still keep their oppressive forces there. The real intention is to build a 600km oil pipeline across Afghanistan. The intention was to overthrow Taliban, so that a more US-friendly govt can be installed. I have discussed that in the following link.
Click hereRead from the subtitle "Greed for Oil" onwards.
2003 - Invasion of Iraq based on lies. He had no WMD.
2003 to 2008 - Skirmishes at the Turkish and Kurdish border by Kurds and allied troops. Provoking Turkey into war?
2008/9 - Striking the border of Pakistan - provoking the Paks into war?
2008 - Proxy war by US - Georgia invades South Ossetia. Provoking the Russians into war?
>>Other times one could argue that there was justification to invade, like in the first Iraq war(to throw off saddam)
>>
The excuse to invade Iraq was WMDs. Blix, the then chief inspector, under UN, said that Saddam did not have any. Bush, bent on war, invaded. When US could not find any WMDs, it said Saddam had disposed them and as such, none could be found. But that's what Blix said! Duh!
>>The people in Lebanon would probably call Hizbollah an oppressor and iran an oppressor also, as hizbollah is their puppet.
>>
Again, it is because of foreign MSM, you have been fed with trash. It was the unscrupulous invasion by Israel on Saba and Shatila, endorsed by the US, that destroyed Lebanon. After the vacuum, a vigilante group, Hizbollah formed to maintain order. The Lebanese see Israel as the oppressors and Hizbollah as the order maintainers. Of course today, we have a Lebanese govt, which is a puppet of the US. But then again, this tussle between Hizbollah and Lebanese US puppet govt wouldn't have happened, if US and Israel did not work in cahoots to invade Lebanon.
>>Not so. During the second iraq invasion and during the iraq-iran war, I saw little in the US media condemning iran.
>>
Were you sleeping? It was US who supplied chems to Saddam, who used it against the Iranians. When the Iranians brought this up to UN, nothing was done. Ironically, notice that US then had the gall to say Saddam had WMDs?
US was condemning Iran all the way. They used Iraq as an excuse to be armed because of that.
>>You forget israel is a democracy and iran is a religious dictatorship.
>>
More crap from foreign MSM. Iran has a democratically elected govt. Ahmadinejad was elected, remember? FYI, Israel treats Arabs and Druze as second class citizens. Even non-white Jews are not treated on par as "Euro Jews". Ask the Jews of Ethiopian descent.
>>Israel tolerates and welcomes other religions and arabs in it, but iran does not.
>>
More MSM crap. Israel makes it difficult for Muslims to pray at the Al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest site. Of late, they even make it difficult for Christians to pray in Bethleham and Jerusalem.
>>Israel did not invade the other arab countries in recent history, but it has been invaded by the arabs twice already in major conventional warfare.
>>
Memory loss so soon? The last invasion into Israel was in 1967. The last invasion by invasion was this year - Gaza. Before that it was Lebanon. Not to mention the many other instances in the West Bank where they cut up Palestinian lands and gave it to Jews in Israel.
>>The arab countries basically want to wipe israel of the face of the earth, if they can, but they have tried and they can't.
>>
More crap from foreign MSM. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties that recognise Israel. PLO under Arafat had the same. Syria is willing to talk. If Syria is won, Lebanon will follow. That is all the neighbours that have borders with Israel.
>>Iran is going to have nukes very soon, and they will have no qualms about using them on israel.
>>
More MSM crap. Iran has the right to build nuclear power plant, being a signatory under the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. US, incidentally is a signatory too. Hence, US is hypocritical in not honouring the treaty to allow Iran build that plant. Israel, the possessor of 200+ nuclear warheads REFUSES to sign that treaty - and the US dares not say anything about it.
>>Israel is a western-style DEMOCRACY.
>>
I agree. Torture, no right to trial for POWs, captivity, killing of innocents indiscriminately, use of chemical weapons on civvy areas.
>>Iran is a DICTATORSHIP controlled by RELIGIOUS FANATICS.
>>
More MSM crap. Iran's govt has been elected by the people. Who is anyone to tell Iranians who they should elect?
>>Most people in iran would like to live differently from how the theocracy runs the country.
>>
That is YOUR opinion. How would you like if a foreigner interferes with our internal affairs?
>>Like I would like to walk around without veil and have more access to western media and learning and also would like to vote for my leaders and have more women's rights,
>>
The women in Iran wish to veil themselves. Who is anyone to interfere with that right those women have?
>>Your argument is totally wrong because many iranians that I have met agree with me.
>>
There are 50 million Iranians. You met only a small group. Of course, you will meet people of your thinking. No different from the Westerner who goes to Holland Road and say Singaporeans like to drink, make a lot of noise and walk naked in public.
>>Freedom to worship the religion of your choice is also a universal human right. To say it is "their culture" to deny this right and thus justify it, is illogical.
>>
Do you know that Orthodox Jews live harmony in Iran? Do you know that these orthodox Jews prefer to live in Iran than Israel, because in Iran they are allowed to practise their religion - while in Israel, if you criticize Zionism, you are considered anti-Semetic?
>>If a murderous bully threatens you and you threaten him back, does this make you the same as him?
>>
Iran has invaded no country. Israel has been killing civilians since 1949.
>>I've never been molested in singapore, but I was touched up maybe a half a dozen times in iran in a couple of weeks. Back here, I would have broken the faces of anyone who dared do that, but over there, I kept my hands to myself, and merely scolded. The difference is significant. Suggest you go there yourself to understand how it is.
>>
Try the streets of NY after night then. Is America worse?
Yes, we should concentrate on the gay invasion in Singapore instead.
Dear solo bear
I'm sorry to say that you come across as very strident, and I can see that it is no further use arguing with you over this matter. I think one should not just cherry pick the facts one wants to pay attention to, and ignore others.
I'm happy to talk about other things, but over this issue, I think we are both wasting our time.
Have a nice weekend.
sigmundringeck
As an interesting sidenote, if you read about the afghanistan pipeline from a singapore source, it may have been from a posting from me. I was probably the first to mention this on a singapore financial forum, years ago.
Also, I am very probably the first writer to discuss the US housing and subprime crisis in any singapore financial forum that I know of, which I did in early 2007.
I'm not unaware of what you have brought up, but sad to say, from my viewpoint, it is you who have been unduly influenced by the leftwing MSM into the views you now hold.
See you later in the other discussions,
sigmundringeck aka young padawan siggy
sigmund
>>As an interesting sidenote, if you read about the afghanistan pipeline from a singapore source, it may have been from a posting from me. I was probably the first to mention this on a singapore financial forum, years ago.
>>
My source is directly from the US govt. It was from the 105th Congress.
>>Also, I am very probably the first writer to discuss the US housing and subprime crisis in any singapore financial forum that I know of, which I did in early 2007.
>>
Before last year, I was more in tune with world news than with local news. That was because I was preparing to migrate with my family to Canada. As things turn out, my children decided to return to Singapore after getting our PRs - hence, here we are.
Note that I started this blog only at about end 2007, and even that too I was not very active - because I was more interested in adapting to world issues then.
Being more in tune with world affairs during that period, I remembered that the prediction of the US economic collapse was in the news even before 2007. One of the factors was the amount of money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was unsustainable. The financial crisis only hastened US's deterioration.
Do you know that today many states in US are now seeking sovereignty? The talk of the collapse of the US was not only limited to economics but extended to its political scenario as well. This collapse again was talked about many times, but the MSM is hiding them.
>>I'm not unaware of what you have brought up, but sad to say, from my viewpoint, it is you who have been unduly influenced by the leftwing MSM into the views you now hold.
>>
For someone who claims that to be in the know of world news, how is it you are not aware of all the issues I mentioned?
>>See you later in the other discussions,
>>
Yes, we should return to local scene. After all, both of us have decided to leave the international scene and return to Singapore.
strident he definitely is, sigmund. solo bear leaves no room for dissenting opinions. even in such grey areas.
>>strident he definitely is, sigmund. solo bear leaves no room for dissenting opinions. even in such grey areas.
>>
I leave hundreds of uncomplimentary comments unmoderated, and you say I leave no room for dissenting opinions?
????
The iraq and afghan wars are really not very connected to the US housing crisis in terms of their effect in this financial crisis. This crisis started from overloaning in housing market, and overinvestment and overleveraging in derivatives connected to that market.
As I said, I was the first person to introduce the word "subprime" into singapore financial forums, in early 2007.
My introduction of these matters was timely, just before the start of the breakdown. I am not one of those perennially calling for a collapse of the US empire for the same hash of various reasons as some people do.
And I also cut and pasted that report to the US congress on the afghan pipeline in singapore financial forums around the time the chinese tried to buy that oil company.
There are many reasons for going into iraq, from defending the US dollar, to strategically denying terrorists a santuary and stae-sponsored funding, to freeing up iraq's oil to the markets, and also the long term goal of promoting democracy and human rights in the ME.
It's sad that some are so unduly influenced by the leftwing western media that they cannot see this.
Anyway, have a good week.
sigmundringeck
sigmund
>>The iraq and afghan wars are really not very connected to the US housing crisis in terms of their effect in this financial crisis.
>>
The crises were not connected. But it was the sum total aggregate of all crises that causes America's economy to fall. The subprime crisis was the final straw. The 2 wars themselves took a toll on the US even without the subprime crisis.
>>This crisis started from overloaning in housing market, and overinvestment and overleveraging in derivatives connected to that market.
>>
From the start, even without the current subprime crisis, there already was an overload. The subprime crisis accelerated the process.
>>As I said, I was the first person to introduce the word "subprime" into singapore financial forums, in early 2007.
>>
During that period, I really was not reading from Singapore sources. So I can't comment on your article. Most of my sources were from the US itself.
The term "subprime" was used in the US liberally, long before I heard from any Singapore sources.
>>My introduction of these matters was timely, just before the start of the breakdown. I am not one of those perennially calling for a collapse of the US empire for the same hash of various reasons as some people do.
>>
Not that I am taking away credit from you, but everyone (except the MSM) in the US was talking about it way, way before the collapse itself. Singapore, being a stooge of the US, will of course shield Singaporeans from such news, when those news have been flying around all over the place for quite some years.
>>And I also cut and pasted that report to the US congress on the afghan pipeline in singapore financial forums around the time the chinese tried to buy that oil company.
>>
That report was around a long time before the Afghan invasion took place.
>>There are many reasons for going into iraq, from defending the US dollar, to strategically denying terrorists a santuary and stae-sponsored funding, to freeing up iraq's oil to the markets, and also the long term goal of promoting democracy and human rights in the ME.
>>
That is the MSM's version. By the time US invaded, there was consensus among political and economic analysts in America that it was for OIL. Terror and WMDs were just excuses to justify the war.
>>It's sad that some are so unduly influenced by the leftwing western media that they cannot see this.
>>
You, being a Singapore writer, will understandably see it from US MSM. This talk of US collapse has been around for a long time. The biggie now is the political breakup of the US. Why is MSM not reporting it?
Try googling "states seeking sovereignty". Look at how many states have already asked for independence and how many more are going to ask for it.
Reminds me of the Soviet breakup nearly 20 years ago. Why is no MSM reporting such a big event?
Also note that there was a Russian economist who predicted this breakup of US years ago. Everyone was laughing at him. Who's laughing now?
>>Anyway, have a good week.
>>
Same to you.
sig:
"It's sad that some are so unduly influenced by the leftwing western media that they cannot see this."
I think the problem for most people is that Mr Bear cannot be neatly pigeonholed in any category. He is:
1. Not right-wing. He appears to be critical of US international policy, in particular with regards to their various military (mis?)adventures, highly sympathetic to Muslims and various other countries that have so far been targeted by the US.
2. Not left-wing. Clearly Mr Bear is not a liberal as well. He is not sympathetic towards perceived social libertinism in some "western" societies, nor towards some gays attempts at influencing social policy.
So therefore, I disagree with you that Mr Bear has been influenced by "left-wing MSM". The truth is, what you perceive as "left-wing bias", appears to be just "bias" to Mr Bear. Do remember, the one blog that his blog "subscribes" to is Cindy Sheehan's blog, whom you should know is clearly anti-war. Whether that suggests that Mr Bear holds the same views as Cindy Sheehan or not, we can't know for sure, but we do know that he himself is highly critical of the US.
Here's what I perceive to be the greatest irony: those gays attacking Mr Bear here in his blog are mostly likely left-wing liberals who would agree with him on his views regarding US international policy!
To put it simply, Mr Bear is not "left-wing" nor "right-wing". He has his own views, and he is his own man.
Sig and Han,
I am not anti-American. I am anti-war. Hence all policies US have on war, I object.
"Anti-war" just like the people who were anti-war in the 1930s.
You miss certain things. Of course the pipeline report was on the net before I put it up on SG forums.
My point is that I am the first to post it and discuss it on SG financial forums, just like I am very probably the first one to write of the US subprime housing problem ON singapore financial forums.
People have been writing abt the collapse of the US for every possible reason every year for the last few decades. What matters is whether their predictions and their timings are correct.
From the events that transpired, it's clear that I have been roughly accurate on many things(eg:the subprime crisis), while you have no such record. You may call for the collapse and breakup of the US every year, but so far you have not been right, and I doubt that you ever will, with respect.
-------------------------------
Han,
What you say is true, bear is a ultra leftwing liberal over US policy, but a rightwing conservative over the gay issue.
Whereas I am a rightwing conservative over ME policy and US policy, and "terrorism", but I am a leftwing liberal over the gay issue, except I take exception to militant gays pushing their propaganda in our schools and trying to criminalise those who disagree with them.
Down with the evil gay empire!!!
As I said, I support gay marriage in principle, but do not think it is good for children to be raised by gay parents.
I also think George Bush should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
Anyway, methinks there is more to discuss here over the evil Darth Siewdious than the latest US ME policy.
sigmundringeck.
Some last comments:
---------------------
One issue lefties always have over Iraq is "oil".
I really can't understand this, because oil is important and its free flow into the markets is vital for many western economies.
When Iraq's oil is sold, the money goes to iraq. It does not go to the americans.
The difference is now that the oil money does not go to saddam who can throw it on nuclear/chemical weapons, build up massive tank fleets, threaten his neighbours and finance terrorism against the west.
Saddam also wanted to take euros instead of US dollars, and the US dollar is largely supported by OPEC.
To protect this power structure is a valid reason to invade Iraq, especially coupled with the fact that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism, besides being a base for it.
From a humanitarian viewpoint, saddam had murdered and oppressed maybe millions of his own people, poison-gassed his kurds and started a war with iran that killed maybe a million people.
Leftwing liberals have called for US military action when much less has been done by dictators and their regimes.
To break the present power structure of US dominance would probably result in many wars and genocide all over the place, which is something that unrealistic liberals cannot see as they have no perspective of history.
The history of man is a history of war and genocide, and wars and genocide are usually only prevented by force or threat of force.
I have no problems with US military policy except for the time that the democrats started the vietnam war.
OK, back to Siewdious.
sigmundringeck
sig:
Sounds like you are a libertarian like myself.
Not sure where along the spectrum you are though, I am somewhere between "minarchist" and "anarcho-libertarian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Keep in mind that the way the labels "left-wing" and "right-wing" are used in the USA are highly inaccurate. As you described, people can believe in 1 set of things and another set of things which appear to be contradictary, but if you are clear about the underlying values and premises then you'll know why you believe what you believe.
Just for the record, I started out supporting the War on Terror in Iraq. I changed my mind after no weapons of mass destruction were found. Despite agreeing with you that on moral grounds, it was right to remove Saddamn, the consequence of regional instability was not worth it. Further, the justification provided by the Bush administration proved to be false, and the transitional authority in Iraq also proved to be highly incompetent. The sum total cost benefit analysis shows the Iraq war to be a bad decision and badly conducted.
To Mr Bear:
On the issue of the secession of the states, only Texas had ever threatened it, and even then its merely a political ploy to get its way with the Federal government. Honestly a break up of the US is not likely in our lifetimes.
Here's the reason why: the Southern states are a net recipient of Federal money, and yet the Northern states are never the ones to threaten secession. If you look at the threats through the lens of the Civil War, you'll realise that the South needs the Union more than the Union needs the South.
If anything, the North has everything to gain if the South secedes. Why should the rich north pay for the unproductive south?
Barring any catastrophic changes in the US, secession or breakup of the union is unlikely for the foreseeable future. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they added Puerto Rico as an official state, rather than its semi-colony status right now.
Also just to clarify, "North" generally means the northeastern states and the east and west coast e.g. CA, Oregon and Washington on the west.
"South" generally means the Confederate states during the Civil War.
sig
>>My point is that I am the first to post it and discuss it on SG financial forums, just like I am very probably the first one to write of the US subprime housing problem ON singapore financial forums.
>>
I am not questioning your journalistic capabilities and/or achievements. All I am saying is that during that period of time, I was more in tune with foreign affairs, than with local affairs. That's because I had intention to move my family to Canada then. Hence, I am unaware of what Singapore journalists wrote, let alone what you wrote.
>>People have been writing abt the collapse of the US for every possible reason every year for the last few decades. What matters is whether their predictions and their timings are correct.
>>
People have been writing about all sorts of things. From Loch Ness to aliens as well. The trick is to weed out the real news from the rubbish.
>>From the events that transpired, it's clear that I have been roughly accurate on many things(eg:the subprime crisis), while you have no such record. You may call for the collapse and breakup of the US every year, but so far you have not been right, and I doubt that you ever will, with respect.
>>
Pleeeaase......when have I ever claimed that I predicted the collapse of the US? Unlike you, I am NOT a writer. I am a BLOGGER. I surf round the internet for news, pick up the ones I find newsworthy which the MSM hides, then comment on them.
I don't predict like an analyst nor report like a journalist. I simply blog what I feel. In this case, the news about America's impending collapse MSM hides from the public.
>>What you say is true, bear is a ultra leftwing liberal over US policy, but a rightwing conservative over the gay issue.
>>
I don't labelling people right, left or centre. As if people can be compartmentalized. On one hand we are trying not to stereotype people - yet on the other hand we do.
We should be judged by our beliefs and our actions. Not by our labels.
>>I also think George Bush should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
>>
That is an ironic statement. Under Saddam, there were schools, hospitals, churches and even a number 2 man who was Christian - Tariq Aziz.
After Bush, no schools, no hospitals, no proper utilities, sewage and no Christian Tariq Aziz. Only Sunni and Shia Muslims fighting for power - with the Kurds standing by.
>>Anyway, methinks there is more to discuss here over the evil Darth Siewdious than the latest US ME policy.
>>
That's what you have been saying the last few posts.
Han
>>I started out supporting the War on Terror in Iraq. I changed my mind after no weapons of mass destruction were found. Despite agreeing with you that on moral grounds, it was right to remove Saddamn, the consequence of regional instability was not worth it.
>>
The notion that Saddam was evil is a concocted one. Not that I am saying he was good. But he was evil simply because US said so and the MSM reported it so. That is what I am trying to say about the foreign media.
It must be noted that during the Iran-Iraq War, the very same Saddam who used the very same chemicals supplied by US, was the good guy. US was using Saddam to stem the "Iranian influence" in the region. I clearly remembered that Iran was making headway, capturing the very tactical Fao Peninsula, when the US decided to intervene.
With the presence of US warships, within a short time, one of its frigate was hit by an Exocet missile from a friendly jet (Iraq). A little later, a panicky captain from another US ship shot down an Iranian airbus.
When US was supposed to defend itself, it didn't. Then when it was not suppose to fire, it did. US gave loads of excuses - except why it shot down civilian plane.
For years, Iran and Iraq fought the war. They have shot own goals, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER a giant airbus, even a schoolboy is able to differentiate from a fighter jet on the radar.
The spinoff of that incident was that arrogant US was humbled by its atrocious and ineptness of its crew and finally a ceasefire was in place.
After the war, Saddam was of no use to US and hence, the demonisation of Saddam slowly took shape.
>>Further, the justification provided by the Bush administration proved to be false, and the transitional authority in Iraq also proved to be highly incompetent. The sum total cost benefit analysis shows the Iraq war to be a bad decision and badly conducted.
>>
The War in Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing but about OIL, OIL, OIL.
>>On the issue of the secession of the states, only Texas had ever threatened it, and even then its merely a political ploy to get its way with the Federal government. Honestly a break up of the US is not likely in our lifetimes.
>>
Please re-google. It is more than just Texas.
>>Barring any catastrophic changes in the US, secession or breakup of the union is unlikely for the foreseeable future.
>>
They said the same thing about the financial crisis before the current economic crisis took place.
Nothing is certain in this world today.
OK, lah, let's leave it here.
Anyway, I am no writer or journalist by profession. I am a fund manager. I wrote about iraq and oil and afghanistan because I was trying to think out how it would affect the markets and currencies.
You look like you have some legal education or at least an interest in law.
My best wishes to your family and children.
sig
sig
>>Anyway, I am no writer or journalist by profession. I am a fund manager.
>>
Oh. I thought you are a financial journalist. Anyway, the next biggie news that has yet to happen is the collapse of the US Dollar. This talk has been going on for some time too.
It is believed that sooner or later, OPEC would shift to Euro from the USD. As it is, Iran and I believe Venezuela have already moved away from the USD. Oil, being one of the most important commodities has a big effect, if OPEC moves away from the dollar.
>>My best wishes to your family and children.
>>
Same to you.
MP Sin Boon Ann's speech (second half of video) highlighted the lack of professionalism in the ST's reporting of the Aware saga.
http://video2.channelnewsasia.com/cnavideos/multiplevideos_244x266.asp?skin=playerskin244x266.swf&bgskin=playerbackground_244x266.swf&filename=_Parl%20Floor_20090527_speechthanks_sinboonann_lo.flv
Is it true that a motion was passed to allow foreign women to vote? What have foreigners got to do with our domestic affairs? Why was it covered up by the ST?
I was puzzled as to why ST was still harping on MP Sin's and NMP Thio's comments on Saturday 6 June 09 with a lengthy article "Why such high standards for MP's conduct?", roping in Mah Bow Tan to explain why high standards must be maintained in Parliament blah, blah, blah.
Now, I found the answer - ST has gotten more fire from REACH readers after his lame explanation.
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/SnapshotsofHotIssues/tabid/233/ctl/Details/mid/917/ItemID/114/Default.aspx
Many of the points raised about ST's bias and questions posed, Han Fook Kwang has yet to answer satisfactorily but instead run to MBT for cover.
Looks like ST has twisted facts to mislead the public again.
"news
Straits Times Recent Report
There is a case reported in Straits Times recently about an elder of Lighthouse Evangelism being convicted in court. We wish to clarify that the report was inaccurate. The person concerned was never an elder of Lighthouse Evangelism. We have contacted the Straits Times to rectify the error.
We learned from him that he was an ex-elder of his former church. We have and are still providing counseling to him and his family to help restore him back to faith. He has repented and is sorry for what he has done. Do remember this family in prayers."
http://www.lighthouse.org.sg/
Post a Comment