Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:32 pm**

NBC recently decided to call the sectarian violence in Iraq a civil war.
Although it does fit the true definition of civil war, it sounds too strong for me.
I understand that around 200 people died in Iraq on Thanksgiving but in my opinion it's still a little too early to call it a civil war.
After watching NBC call it a civil war, it began to put doubt in my mind that we should stay in Iraq. But after a little while, I regained my senses and found what a strong influence the media has on everybody with just the choice of a few words. It's scary.

Posted: **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:47 pm**

$346,334,797,454.00 and climbing at three thousand dollars per second.

Thats over TEN MILLION, eight hundred thousand dollars EACH HOUR.

Food for thought.

http://www.CostOfWar.com

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:01 am**

I understand your viewpoint, Caleb, though I dont necessarily agree with it.

When I think of civil war, I generally (like most Americans) think of the American Civil War, in which a huge percentage of the nation's population was wiped out. This was a war in a more classical sense; two clearly defined sides duking it out.

The "wars" of the middle east are far different, as I'm sure we all know. The sides are far more hazy. The tactics are no longer two armies facing off.

But if there's a "War" in Iraq (which no one denies), it's definitely a civil war. i don't know what the president is doing in his denial. There is a war in that country, and it's Iraqi on Iraqi for a good bit of it. Iraqi on Iraqi = civil, war = war.

Civil + War = Civil War.

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:11 am**

good call, I think iraq leads to ww3. we neen to lick your wooonds and scat. Isreal on the other hand will get wiped out and who's gonna stop it U.S.A. thats all.. WW3 here we come!!!!!!!! we can't fight on all fronts, we need to pull back regroup and conquer another day

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:36 pm**

OnlyAmbrose wrote:But if there's a "War" in Iraq (which no one denies), it's definitely a civil war. i don't know what the president is doing in his denial. There is a war in that country, and it's Iraqi on Iraqi for a good bit of it. Iraqi on Iraqi = civil, war = war.

Civil + War = Civil War.

Best definition I ever saw! Now someone tell Mr Bush! (I'd say tell Mr Blair too, but that won't be necessary; he will fall in line behind Bush whatever he says...)

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:49 pm**

OnlyAmbrose wrote:i don't know what the president is doing in his denial.

He is in denial because calling it a civil war = admitting he f*cked up.

Which he did by the way.

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:23 pm**

You are all followers of the controlling liberal media!
Of course you will probably say that I'm a follower of the stupid monkey that we like to call President Bush. :lol:

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:24 pm**

shultz wrote:good call, I think iraq leads to ww3. we neen to lick your wooonds and scat. Isreal on the other hand will get wiped out and who's gonna stop it U.S.A. thats all.. WW3 here we come!!!!!!!! we can't fight on all fronts, we need to pull back regroup and conquer another day

I think that either North Korea or the destruction of The Dome of The Rock leadsto WW3.

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:25 pm**

Caleb the Cruel wrote:You are all followers of the controlling liberal media!
Of course you will probably say that I'm a follower of the stupid monkey that we like to call President Bush.

well most media, almost all of it that i've seen, has been conservative leaning. Fox news hardly counts as an unbiased source of information, considering its definition of hearing oppposing viewpoints is inviting them onto the O'Reilly factor and jsut calling them names for half an hour. Name ONE "liberal leaning" news organization that is so blatantly biased.

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:32 pm**

Caleb the Cruel wrote:You are all followers of the controlling liberal media!
Of course you will probably say that I'm a follower of the stupid monkey that we like to call President Bush.

I don't like to call him the President. Saying that means that over 50% of Americans who vote... voted for an fucking retard. Which they did... I just don't like to think about it.

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:33 pm**

cowshrptrn wrote:
Caleb the Cruel wrote:You are all followers of the controlling liberal media!
Of course you will probably say that I'm a follower of the stupid monkey that we like to call President Bush.

well most media, almost all of it that i've seen, has been conservative leaning. Fox news hardly counts as an unbiased source of information, considering its definition of hearing oppposing viewpoints is inviting them onto the O'Reilly factor and jsut calling them names for half an hour. Name ONE "liberal leaning" news organization that is so blatantly biased.

63% of top media executives consider themselves left wing
27% in the middle
10% on the right
Straight out of college Political Science class
CNN is pretty liberal but i don't think you could find one as blatant as Fox

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:55 pm**

cowshrptrn wrote: Name ONE "liberal leaning" news organization that is so blatantly biased.

Well I'll try stopping at one, lets see how I do: The New York Times, PBS, NBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, the BBC, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, the AP, UPI, and Air America.

Damn, you win.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:11 am**

Joe McCarthy wrote:
cowshrptrn wrote: Name ONE "liberal leaning" news organization that is so blatantly biased.

Well I'll try stopping at one, lets see how I do:Air America.

Damn, you win.

Don't they have to exist?

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:38 am**

Joe McCarthy wrote:
cowshrptrn wrote: Name ONE "liberal leaning" news organization that is so blatantly biased.

Well I'll try stopping at one, lets see how I do: The New York Times, PBS, NBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, the BBC, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, the AP, UPI, and Air America.

Damn, you win.

The BBC isn't even an American news agency. Air America is a radio station with commentators, not news agencies. NPR isn't a news organization, nor is PBS.

And if the AP, UPI, CNN, CBS, NBC, and the other things mentioned here are sooooo Liberal, how do they get White House press credentials?

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:46 am**

vtmarik wrote:
The BBC isn't even an American news agency. Air America is a radio station with commentators, not news agencies. NPR isn't a news organization, nor is PBS.

And if the AP, UPI, CNN, CBS, NBC, and the other things mentioned here are sooooo Liberal, how do they get White House press credentials?

You ever listen to NPR? The majority of their programming is news. PBS has a news division as well.

And imagine the political fallout of denying whoever you didn't like press credentials. You have never seen the shitstorm that the ACLU and or the conservative equivalent (I forget their acronym) would fling if they were cut out.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 am**

take there oil,, blow up the rest then pave it all

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 am**

Nappy Bone Apart wrote:You ever listen to NPR? The majority of their programming is news. PBS has a news division as well.

Yes, but the organizations themselves are not news organizations. If you want to go after PBS/NPR, stop people from giving money to them. I'd blame Viewers Like You, not some faceless liberal agenda.

And imagine the political fallout of denying whoever you didn't like press credentials. You have never seen the shitstorm that the ACLU and or the conservative equivalent (I forget their acronym) would fling if they were cut out.

Yeah, but I can imagine it. Like the absence of the shitstorm when it was revealed that a male escort was hired to lob softball questions in the press room.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:55 am**

Stopping donations is how you stop anything. Good luck with that.

Yup, the male escort is part of the game. As is taking interview quotes out of context. They all do it/

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:44 am**

vtmarik I'm having a hard time responding because I can't understand what point you are trying to make. My point is that all of those organizations I listed are news vendors with a lefty slant, so there is no need to get all worked up about one organization, Fox, that has a righty one. Nor is there any reason for whoever it was that brought this up with his question about Fox for him to pretend that the left doesnt have an equivalent for Fox. They damned sure do, its called the entire rest of the news media.

So anyways there is my point. Go ahead and lay yours on me if you like and I'll try to respond, but Im not going to understand what you're saying if you try to claim they don't dispence news to their audience. Of course they do.

And oh yeah:

vtmarik wrote:And if the AP, UPI, CNN, CBS, NBC, and the other things mentioned here are sooooo Liberal, how do they get White House press credentials?

lol.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:21 am**

Joe McCarthy wrote:vtmarik I'm having a hard time responding because I can't understand what point you are trying to make. My point is that all of those organizations I listed are news vendors with a lefty slant, so there is no need to get all worked up about one organization, Fox, that has a righty one. Nor is there any reason for whoever it was that brought this up with his question about Fox for him to pretend that the left doesnt have an equivalent for Fox. They damned sure do, its called the entire rest of the news media.

So anyways there is my point. Go ahead and lay yours on me if you like and I'll try to respond, but Im not going to understand what you're saying if you try to claim they don't dispence news to their audience. Of course they do.

And oh yeah:

vtmarik wrote:And if the AP, UPI, CNN, CBS, NBC, and the other things mentioned here are sooooo Liberal, how do they get White House press credentials?

lol.

If I have a point, it's simply that there isn't this massive left-wing conspiracy any more than there's a right-wing conspiracy. These are excuses used by conservatives and liberals respectively to deflect attention from the fact that neither side is actually trying to get anything constructive done. Don't like that? Too bad, it's the fucking truth.

Back to the topic for a moment: If we're going to do anything to quell this civil war in Iraq, perhaps we shouldn't use our country as the best model. The only reason we aren't fighting a conflict on the streets with the lines drawn across our political affiliations is because A) We can't be bothered and B) We'd much rather complain and whine about the liberal media and the vast right-wing conspiracy.

f*ck your imagined conflict between the boogeyman liberals and the poor beleaguered conservatives. That's my point I suppose.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:58 am**

vtmarik wrote:
Joe McCarthy wrote:vtmarik I'm having a hard time responding because I can't understand what point you are trying to make. My point is that all of those organizations I listed are news vendors with a lefty slant, so there is no need to get all worked up about one organization, Fox, that has a righty one. Nor is there any reason for whoever it was that brought this up with his question about Fox for him to pretend that the left doesnt have an equivalent for Fox. They damned sure do, its called the entire rest of the news media.

So anyways there is my point. Go ahead and lay yours on me if you like and I'll try to respond, but Im not going to understand what you're saying if you try to claim they don't dispence news to their audience. Of course they do.

And oh yeah:

vtmarik wrote:And if the AP, UPI, CNN, CBS, NBC, and the other things mentioned here are sooooo Liberal, how do they get White House press credentials?

lol.

If I have a point, it's simply that there isn't this massive left-wing conspiracy any more than there's a right-wing conspiracy. These are excuses used by conservatives and liberals respectively to deflect attention from the fact that neither side is actually trying to get anything constructive done. Don't like that? Too bad, it's the fucking truth.

Back to the topic for a moment: If we're going to do anything to quell this civil war in Iraq, perhaps we shouldn't use our country as the best model. The only reason we aren't fighting a conflict on the streets with the lines drawn across our political affiliations is because A) We can't be bothered and B) We'd much rather complain and whine about the liberal media and the vast right-wing conspiracy.

f*ck your imagined conflict between the boogeyman liberals and the poor beleaguered conservatives. That's my point I suppose.

I'll start out with f*ck you too, just to keep on the same high debate plane.

While Im at it, f*ck your pretending that I called anybody or think anybody is a boogeyman or that anybody is beleagerued. Thats you and your buddy in this thread that are foaming at the mouth about Fox running the entire media to the right. There is one major news outlet thats right-leaning, thats it. And Im fine with that, I can pick what I want to watch. So f*ck you and your buddy that arent satisfied with having every damn news outlet but one and hate the idea that people can get news from a source you dont approve of.

Also, your middle paragraph there once again is so stupid I cant even figure out what the hell you are thinking. Am I understanding that right: That we'd be fighting in the streets if it werent for people whining about liberal media, or if we could be bothered? What the hell is wrong with you?

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:51 am**

OnlyAmbrose wrote: i don't know what the president is doing in his denial.

the reason he says its not a war is because if it was a war, we would have to follow the geneva convention...as of right now, because we never offically declared war (technically, we haven't declared war since WWII) we don't have to follow all their rules, because they only apply during war time...thats why he won't call it a war..cause it would mean him going up in front of a war tribunal, and risk getting hung for what he may or may not be doing in his prisons... :roll:

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:25 pm**

Yeah, because thats what happens at the end of a declared war, you have to go up to a war tribunal. Unlike just fighting it without declaring it, you can do that without worry. :roll:

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:27 pm**

Joe McCarthy wrote:Yeah, because thats what happens at the end of a declared war, you have to go up to a war tribunal. Unlike just fighting it without declaring it, you can do that without worry.

well, if its a declared war, and they think you're breaking the rules, they'll haul you up there...but if they don't think so, then they won't...

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:09 pm**

vtmarik wrote:there's a right-wing conspiracy

vtmarik wrote: We'd much rather complain and whine about right-wing conspiracy.

Conquer Club

Civil War or Just Sectarian Violence

Civil War or Just Sectarian Violence

tt