Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[misskitty]

To be fair, the Spanish-American war was based more on false pretense than it was on the Spanish mistreating Cubans. At a time when most of the important western European nations had large empires, the US had no colonial holdings. Taking Spain's possessions in the Caribbean and South Pacific was a good start and the falsified USS Maine incident provided the excuse (not human rights abuses).

Yes alright. The final cause was and excuse in the end ended up being the USS Maine. However, when we orginally went to "war", I don't even think we can call it that, the reason was humanitarian rights. It wasn't the final reason, because your right. However, humananitarian rights was the original excuse cited by Former President McKinley. I was merely trying to parallel that this isn't the first time the United States has acted on an issue while citing human rights. In the end, both you and klusener are right, the main drive was the desire to become a world power.

 

[misskitty]

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

Just because it was pemeditated doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Look up the definition: b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of

If you don't believe me, here's the site's url:

http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionarybook=Dictionary&va=mistake&x=16&y=13

 

[SOS2008]

Oh, I forgot to mention Christian Radio (about all you can get when you drive through "red" states). Talk about sad, all the liberals have is NPR -- Like a comedian recently remarked, can't they at least play some Rock music every now and then? LOL

 

[misskitty]

Oh, I forgot to mention Christian Radio (about all you can get when you drive through "red" states). Talk about sad, all the liberals have is NPR -- Like a comedian recently remarked, can't they at least play some Rock music every now and then? LOL

You might want to consider subscribing to XM. Its a satilight radio station...you might be able to get some rock on one of their station.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's not forget the same was said of the PLO, but though it became more moderate over time, the U.S. refused to recognize it as a legitimate government or Lebanon as a sovereign state. Who knows what direction Hezbollah would take.

We should recognize a country (government) before they become legitimate? That's backwards.

Not to mention Iraq, which even if it does not become an Islamic republic, isn't it really whether or not they become an U.S. ally?

You don't have to be an ally - you just have to not be terrorists and not be a rogue nation.

It is relevant because Bush has been claiming that U.S. foreign policy is to end terror by spreading democracy.

Ending terror (against the US) is more important than spreading democracy. That should be self-evident.

The root of terrorism is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the U.S. taking sides, continued U.S. intervention, etc.

Everyone takes sides. The US happens to like the side that isn't terrorists. And intervention? One of Bin Laden's prime complaints was the US's presence in Saudia Arabia - and they begged us to come and save them from Saddam. The ME is a chaotic place because it has oil and the US is there because it is chaotic and has oil. You've got the cause-effect relationship screwed up.

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

How does one person expressing support, no matter how zealous, constitute suppression of dissent? And I think you underestimate how dangerous, subversive, and destructive the tree-hugging whale watcher type is. Don't get me started on tree-huggers and nuclear power.

Anyway, I find talk of right-wing censorship tiring, considering the liberals are supposed to be the champions of freedom, yet ideological censorship in this country is typically liberal. One word for you: Berkeley.

What news agencies are to the left? CNN? MSNBC? I see balanced reporting in these U.S. news agencies, even PBS most of the time, but never with FOX News. The old stereotypes of the press being liberal never fades...

CNN is fairly close to center, PBS is as well. MSNBC is heavily left, as is CBS. It'll be interesting to see if Dan Rather is the cause or effect of CBS's left leaning (now that he's diminished). Dan Rather is lucky he's not in jail for attempting to tamper with the election. In any case, he, more than any other high-end reporter was open and unapologetic about his stance and his adjenda.

That the media in general leans left is not open for debate. It is well established. Its just one of those things: certain fields lean in certain directions because of the type of people they draw. It should be no surprise that engineers (for example) lean to the right.

For Russ: this is where I got off the "moral high ground" and started looking for more rational bases for "moral" human behavior standards.

[shrug] Some people are so zealous that their ideology clouds their judgement. Ask a tree-hugger if cutting a guy's face off with a chainsaw is ok and they'll certainly say no. Ask if its ok to spike a tree so that a logger's chainsaw snaps back and cuts his face off, they say yes. I don't find such hypocrisy particularly surprising or difficult to reconcile with the concept of morality.

 

[russ_watters]

Dan Rather quotes: http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp

I'd also just like to point out that Dan Rather's bias is particularly distressing because he's in a position where he is supposed to be (or at least act) unbiased. Its not like he's doing an opinion column (such as the subject of this thread). He even claims he's unbiased while at the same sticking to a fabricated story designed and timed to effect the election.

 

[Bartholomew]

Um, where is there any bias there? Looks to me like the man's just stating facts.

 

[SOS2008]

We should recognize a country (government) before they become legitimate? That's backwards.

What if these people want a government that, though associated with Hezbollah, may prove to be moderate over time? No matter what direction the PLO went, the U.S. would not accept it--because it was not an ally.

You don't have to be an ally - you just have to not be terrorists and not be a rogue nation...Ending terror (against the US) is more important than spreading democracy. That should be self-evident.

Terrorism is a worldwide guerilla war. The traditional approach of going to war against nation states will not end terror, and in fact fuels it.

Everyone takes sides. The US happens to like the side that isn't terrorists.

The argument here is that many view the U.S. and Israel as "rogue nations" doing things just as bad as terrorists with regard to creating conflict, etc.

And intervention? One of Bin Laden's prime complaints was the US's presence in Saudia Arabia - and they begged us to come and save them from Saddam. The ME is a chaotic place because it has oil and the US is there because it is chaotic and has oil. You've got the cause-effect relationship screwed up.

The U.S. is there for oil, and keeping a status quo for the safekeeping of it. Oil is not the cause of terrorism. Long-standing disputes over land, which have become religious disputes as well (Bush hasn't helped this with his use of the word "crusade"), and U.S. intervention has been the reason for terrorism.

MSNBC is heavily left...

My picture is next to the word "liberal" in the dictionary (why I don't need to post it ) and I find MSNBC to be to the right more than the left. -- Oh wait a minute, I'm fiscally conservative...

Dan Rather is lucky he's not in jail for attempting to tamper with the election.

Please. He did leave his career prematurely, which is more than can be said about the so-called "Swiftie" claims regarding Kerry, not to mention the effect this had on the election--I haven't seen anyone losing their jobs over that.

That the media in general leans left is not open for debate. It is well established.

So well established this couldn't possibly change, and the media couldn't possibly be leaning more and more to the right?

 

[russ_watters]

Um, where is there any bias there? Looks to me like the man's just stating facts.

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias. One example:

“The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.”

Re-arranging it to look purely factual and unbiased, it may look something like:

'The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative adjenda to [cut funding to/ eliminate/ restructure/ etc.] government aid programs.' [insert most appropriate factual substitution for the rhetoric]

I'm sure you can identify the rhetoric in the rest.

 

[Moonbear]

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias.

It's interesting that I've never really noticed that before about Dan Rather, but I think it's because he's well-known for use of hyperbole, so I guess I just take most of his statements as over-exaggerated to keep people listening.

That's a problem with any media source nowadays. Unfortunately, with more variety of sources, there is more competition for viewers, which means newscasters go to greater and greater lengths to tantalize the viewers into listening. It's hard to find any unbiased source for news. It is good to have a liberal and conservative source and compare the story as presented by both to find the facts somewhere in between.

 

[Bartholomew]

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias. One example: Re-arranging it to look purely factual and unbiased, it may look something like:

'The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative adjenda to [cut funding to/ eliminate/ restructure/ etc.] government aid programs.' [insert most appropriate factual substitution for the rhetoric]

I'm sure you can identify the rhetoric in the rest.

"The Republican majority took a big step today"?? Oh, yeah, that would have been real unbiased.

 

[russ_watters]

What if these people want a government that, though associated with Hezbollah, may prove to be moderate over time? No matter what direction the PLO went, the U.S. would not accept it--because it was not an ally.

That is quite simply not true. The US never recognized the PLO because the PLO embraced terrorism and a policy of annihilating Israel. Sorry, you're just being unrealistic. Don't apply that to real life or you may get hurt: If someone is pointing a gun at you, for example, don't attempt to shake his hand.

Terrorism is a worldwide guerilla war.

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not synonomous. The Arab enemies of the west have made their choice and are being treated appropriately in response.

The argument here is that many view the U.S. and Israel as "rogue nations" doing things just as bad as terrorists with regard to creating conflict, etc.

That is simply not a valid argument. As I said before, the UN was near unanamous in its characterizations of Afghanistan and Iraq. And how criminal dictatorships view the US simply isn't relevant. Their opinions simply don't count.

The U.S. is there for oil, and keeping a status quo for the safekeeping of it. Oil is not the cause of terrorism. Long-standing disputes over land, which have become religious disputes as well (Bush hasn't helped this with his use of the word "crusade"),

Oil is the reason that autocratic nations can sustain themselves. Iraq and Iran would not be the problem-children they are if there was no oil. Religious/cultural conflicts are also part of the problem.

and U.S. intervention has been the reason for terrorism.

While technically true, it simply isn't a valid reason. I have already pointed out why: OBL and others have stated explicitly that all it takes is for us to have any presence at all in the region, regardless of the reason. Even when we are invited.

My picture is next to the word "liberal" in the dictionary (why I don't need to post it ) and I find MSNBC to be to the right more than the left. -- Oh wait a minute, I'm fiscally conservative...

My boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He laments that Bush is too liberal. So to someone far from center on either side, the center is so far away, it looks like the opposite side.

Please. He did leave his career prematurely, which is more than can be said about the so-called "Swiftie" claims regarding Kerrie, not to mention the effect this had on the election--I haven't seen anyone losing their jobs over that.

Check again. The producer of the story (who wrote in a memo about the possibility the story could affect the election) was fired outright and forced 4 others out (including the top 2 executive producers of 60 Minutes Wednesday).

So well established this couldn't possibly change, and the media couldn't possibly be leaning more and more to the right?

With the inception of Fox news, it is certainly leaning less left than it used to (on average). But the pervasiveness of the bias far outweighs the influence of one right-leaning network.

edit: just realized you misread: by "well established" I didn't mean that it was entrenched, I meant the media's liberal bias is well documented and not a subject for debate.

 

[russ_watters]

"The Republican majority took a big step today"?? Oh, yeah, that would have been real unbiased.

That's in the quote. Did you not notice that all I did was cut out the rhetoric? "a big step", while not completely emotionless, is not anywhere near as emotionally charged a phrase as "demolish or damage" is. So it isn't really that objectionable. Did I assume too much about your ability to detect rhetoric...?

 

[Bartholomew]

The studies I've read about--in Al Franken's book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them_--indicate that the media is right-leaning. Polls were taken of media figures and they answered with a Republican bias compared to the answers of average Americans.

Big reporters make big money, so they tend to be Republican. It's in their best interests.

 

[Moonbear]

That's in the quote. Did you not notice that all I did was cut out the rhetoric? "a big step", while not completely emotionless, is not anywhere near as emotionally charged a phrase as "demolish or damage" is. So it isn't really that objectionable. Did I assume too much about your ability to detect rhetoric...?

Actually, "big step" was in the original quote. And in the context, it isn't particularly biased because it's referring to the Republicans following their own agenda, not to the cuts being made. Though, this brings up an interesting point, that if someone is reading or listening to a statement with their own biases in mind, it's easy to read too much into a statement and take even a fairly neutral statement as being biased.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, Dan Rather originally used "a big step" ironically. By quoting him and removing the end of his sentence as he worded it, you take it out of context.

You may think that aggression against a party is more biased than being in favor of it, but I disagree. "A big step" is just about on the same level as "destroyed," especially when you consider that destroying is exactly what they were doing.

"Restructuring" and "eliminating" also are two words highly favorable to the Republican point of view--"restructure" doesn't sound so bad and "eliminate" sounds like they're getting rid of something evil, instead of an actual social program. An unbiased way to say it is, "The new Republican majority in Congress cut funding today for social programs."

 

[russ_watters]

The studies I've read about--in Al Franken's book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them_--indicate that the media is right-leaning. Polls were taken of media figures and they answered with a Republican bias compared to the answers of average Americans.

Al Frankin is right up there with Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. If you're looking for unbiased assessments from political zealots, you're looking in the wrong place.

Big reporters make big money, so they tend to be Republican. It's in their best interests.

That quite simply isn't true. If it were, the logic would apply to celebrities as well.

Businessmen tend to be conservative. Reporters tend to be liberal.

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear, whenever anyone says a "big step" they are either positive about the step, or using the phrase ironically (as Dan Rather did). It's not a neutral phrase.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, Al Franken was not the one whose opinion I read. I read about the opinions of media figures as determined by polling, which Al Franken was (as far as I know) not a part of, and was simply reporting.

 

[Bartholomew]

Yeah, celebrities are unusual in that respect. Perhaps it's that they make SO much money that they just don't care.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, Dan Rather originally used "a big step" ironically. By quoting him and removing the end of his sentence as he worded it, you take it out of context.

Taking it out of its rhetorical context was the entire point of editing it. Are you just being argumentative here? In any case, I didn't detect any sarcasm in his "a big step" But apparently, you didn't either:

You may think that aggression against a party is more biased than being in favor of it, but I disagree. "A big step" is just about on the same level as "destroyed," especially when you consider that destroying is exactly what they were doing.

So you're saying "a big step" was supposed to be ironically in favor of the Republicans? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In any case, you could probably substitute "made progress" for that. Its not a major issue to me though.

"Restructuring" and "eliminating" also are two words highly favorable to the Republican point of view--"restructure" doesn't sound so bad and "eliminate" sounds like they're getting rid of something evil, instead of an actual social program. An unbiased way to say it is, "The new Republican majority in Congress cut funding today for social programs."

I put the other choices in there largely because I don't know precisely what that bill did. If it canceled a program, then "eliminate" might be the appropriate word.

In any case, I don't consider this a productive line of discussion. I've made my point.

 

[russ_watters]

Moonbear, whenever anyone says a "big step" they are either positive about the step, or using the phrase ironically (as Dan Rather did). It's not a neutral phrase.

You're just not understanding the issue (the grammar!) here at all. If someone has a goal and makes a lot of progress toward that goal, it is not showing bias to say they made a lot of progress toward that goal. What constitutes "a big step" may be subjective, but its not really emotionally charged.

'Auschwitz was a big step for Hitler's Final Solution' isn't saying anything ironic: it is probably true that Hitler considered Auschwitz "a big step".

 

[Bartholomew]

It's a matter of usage, not simple grammar. "Big step" is not used in a neutral sense. It always is positive (except in the case of irony). The fact that you didn't realize the positive connotation of "eliminate" tends to tell me you're no judge of what connotes what.

 

[Bartholomew]

And no, you haven't made any particular point. You should also notice that those quotes from Dan Rather are neither outrageous nor interesting. He happens to favor one point of view over the other (and ALL on the same broad topic of cutting taxes and funding to social programs). If that's the best that your Republican site could come up with, they don't have a case.

 

[russ_watters]

Arright, we're done here, Bart. Grow up. When you want to have an intelligent conversation, please do.

 

[Bartholomew]

Resorting to insults when rhetoric fails?

 

[SOS2008]

That is quite simply not true. The US never recognized the PLO because the PLO embraced terrorism and a policy of annihilating Israel...

There are two sides to the story regarding annihilation, but back to the topic... The PLO became more moderate over time, and Arafat was participating in peace talks. As I've said in another thread, Jimmy Carter has stated that the last agreement was not a fair one, and as we know, if Arafat had accepted it he would have been assassinated. Likewise, in another thread I posted a list of dictators the U.S. has supported. The point remains that the U.S. supports pro-American countries, and this is the primary variable--not the type of government or even atrocities committed. There are theories on this (stability via status quo, etc.).

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not synonomous. The Arab enemies of the west have made their choice and are being treated appropriately in response.

Terrorists USE guerilla warfare tactics. Recently this topic was being debated via a panel and audience, and only one of the panel members shared your school of thought, while the others shared my school of thought (that traditional war against nation states is not effective against terrorism). There are many books, etc. on the topic if anyone wants to delve more into this.

...And how criminal dictatorships view the US simply isn't relevant.

I was referring to world opinion, not what dictators think.

My boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He laments that Bush is too liberal. So to someone far from center on either side, the center is so far away, it looks like the opposite side.

Agreed. One could go on forever about which extremisms are worse (e.g., tree-huggers versus white supremest rednecks, or bombing abortion clinics, etc.)--both are bad.

Check again. The producer of the story (who wrote in a memo about the possibility the story could affect the election) was fired outright and forced 4 others out (including the top 2 executive producers of 60 Minutes Wednesday.

I don't want to continue digressing into this aspect of this thread, but my question was what happened to those who smeared Kerry's military service? The "Swiftie" stories were just as damaging to his campaign if not more. Also, that Bush did not serve his full time in the Guard was fully documented by other news agencies. The decapitation of Dan sucessfully over-shadowed what otherwise was a true story.

edit: just realized you misread: by "well established" I didn't mean that it was entrenched, I meant the media's liberal bias is well documented and not a subject for debate.

Everything subjective is subject to debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorists USE guerilla warfare tactics.

While that's generally true, that's irrelevant. The point is that terrorists use terrorist tactics. If terrorists only used guerilla tactics, they'd be called guerillas and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Recently this topic was being debated via a panel and audience, and only one of the panel members shared your school of thought, while the others shared my school of thought (that traditional war against nation states is not effective against terrorism). There are many books, etc. on the topic if anyone wants to delve more into this.

Source? I'm not even sure what your "school of thought" is and I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine.

In any case, while terrorism is carried out as a matter of policy by nation states, then war against nation states will be useful in fighting it. Do I need to point out that this thread is about nation-states who practice terrorism, not terrorism in general?

I was referring to world opinion, not what dictators think.

Be specific. Who, precisely, considers the US a "rogue nation"? If you are talking about public opinion, you're mixing apples and oranges.

I know Il has made such statements, as have some Iranian leaders. Saddam did as well. France hasn't. Germany hasn't. The UN has made no such determination. In fact, France, Germany, and the UN in general (as I said before) agreed with our characterization.

...but my question was what happened to those who smeared Kerry's military service? The "Swiftie" stories were just as damaging to his campaign if not more.

So what? The swifties weren't reporters. There is no charade of impartiality there. They are a completely different animal. And besides - if you want to swing that stick, remember that the Democrats did several times more of that kind of 3rd party attack than the Republicans did. It just happens that the swifties struck a chord and the democrat's groups (MoveOn.org, for example) did not. It wasn't for lack of trying.

Also, that Bush did not serve his full time in the Guard was fully documented by other news agencies. The decapitation of Dan sucessfully over-shadowed what otherwise was a true story.Everything subjective is subject to debate.

That's how Rather justified it as well: if the general spirit was true, it doesn't matter if the evidence is fabricated. You really believe that? How does that work out in a court of law? How does that jive with the concept of "ethics"? Its pretty sick that Rather would claim to be ethical while holding that position.

Its ironic that it backfired, but it is quite right that it did. You cannot base a point on lies. Heck, if it takes a lie to prove a point, what does that say about the point? Perhaps its not that strong of a point. The democratic party still doesn't understand that you can't convince people you're right by lying to them. Seems self-evident to me.

 

[russ_watters]

More on what it means to be a "rogue nation":

Afghanistan is, to my knowledge, the only country ever taken down because of its support of terrorism, so it is of particular relevance to this thread. Below are exceprts from UN resolution 1267-1999 (about two years before 9/11).

http://www.un.int/usa/sres1267.htm

Determining that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to the demands in paragraph 13 of resolution 1214 (1998) constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

1. Insists that the Afghan faction known as the Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, comply promptly with its previous resolutions and in particular cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice;

2. Demands that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice;

[emphasis added]

This is what it means to be a "rogue state", SOS. Its not just some arbitrary, flippant remark made by an overzealous President to sound good in a speech as people like to claim. Its real and its recognized by the international community of nations.

So I ask you: who and on what basis would someone make the claim that the US is a "rogue nation"? In what UN resolution can I read such damning words about the US?

 

[Bystander]

I asked for sources re. "general agreement" a couple pages back, in reference to suppression of free speech, and SOS has provided sources. (This thread is growing too rapidly and wandering a bit --- hence the note to the casual browser)

This may belong under earlier threads on dissent from popular opinion, but aside from FOX News, and earlier threads about paid pundits, here’s more on the topic of suppression, most notably the umbrella company Sinclair Broadcasting Group (with around 62 stations):

http://www.never-be-silent.com/

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year [2003], Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

There is an entire list of litany regarding Sinclair, which continues…

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/gop_web_sites_s.php

“The owners of influential Republican Web sites, most notably freerepublic.com, lucianne.com, and townhall.com, have largely made discussions of immigration reform taboo, by banning any material from prominent Web sites and writers who call for the enforcement of America’s immigration laws.

…Although a large plurality of FReepers support immigration enforcement, Jim Robinson has little tolerance for that position. His computer software automatically blocks any posts linking to the premier anti-illegal immigration Web site, VDARE.com, and his moderators delete any posts of articles by prominent restrictionist writer Steve Sailer. When I once sought to post one of Sailer’s articles, Robinson threatened to ban me from the site."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you an audience. The first amendment does NOT guarantee you that anyone is going to pay you for exercising your free speech right. The first amendment places NO constraints on coroporate policies. The first amendment HAS been interpreted judicially to strike various FCC regulations regarding language and other content matters in the broadcast industry.

Corporate decisions to edit/censor otherwise control content are NOT forbidden under the first amendment, NOR do such decisions count as "suppression of dissent."

It's a free country --- you don't like the content on Fox and want to change it, it's traded on Wall St. --- buy it and run the company the way you wish.

And while there may have been 48% who did not vote for Bush, there are how many "red" states compared to "blue" states? Sorry, but I can't boo-hoo about mistreatment of conservatives in this country.

Where'd this come from? Face it, you can't "boo-hoo" about treatment of libs.

Businessmen tend to be conservative. Reporters tend to be liberal.

You've mentioned that you're not a Fox watcher; it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

Getting back to Burnsys' original "yank bashing," it is worth noting that "imitation has been described as the sincerest form of flattery;" I'll submit that "yank-bashing is the most sincere expression of envy."

 

[SOS2008]

While that's generally true, that's irrelevant. The point is that terrorists use terrorist tactics. If terrorists only used guerilla tactics, they'd be called guerillas and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Various terms are used, freedom fighters, insurgents, etc., depending on who is using it.

Source? I'm not even sure what your "school of thought" is and I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine.

Aside from the many publications on how U.S. military strikes against Iraq do not meet the criteria of “just war theory” as commonly understood – e.g.:

Preemption and Just War:
Considering the Case of Iraq
by FRANKLIN ERIC WESTER
From Parameters, Winter 2004-05, pp. 20-39. –

“This article demonstrates that the use of military force by the Bush Administration against the regime of Saddam Hussein does not meet the ethical criteria for “preemptive war” set forth in the classical Just War tradition.”

Here are excerpts under the title “War on terrorism” from Wikipedia: First, in regard to the use of the term “axis of evil” -- not only is "evil" offensive but "axis" is inconsistent as “the three countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea had no political links” and is more indicative of a “unilateralist war waged against certain foreign states." And to my point that the U.S. supports or is against states for other reasons, i.e., whether these states are pro-American. Second, and more specifically -

…Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in war on drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war.”

With regard to "source," it is not my job to provide this for your school of thought.

...Do I need to point out that this thread is about nation-states who practice terrorism, not terrorism in general? Be specific. Who, precisely, considers the US a "rogue nation"?

Also under the title “War on terrorism” by Wikipedia -

Noam Chomsky has brought to light that the "terrorism" this war claims to combat does not obey the official definitions of terrorism, such as the one outlined in the US Code: "[An] Act of terrorism means any activity that [a] involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if commited within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerse a civilian population, [ii] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coersion, or [iii] to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, Vol. 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707. Indeed, by following this definition, many of the actions undertaken in the name of "the war on terror" could be seen as terrorism themselves. Instead, Chomsky concludes, this war combats only "terrorism by others aimed at ourselves and our allies".

And in this section it goes on to say:

The CIA, as a clandestine state actor, has occasionally been engaged in actions directly targetting non-combatants outside of war, e.g. Operation Ajax; under most definitions, this would constitute an organization that carries out acts of terror. Needless to say, declaring a "War on Terror" while supporting terrorism at the same time is hypocrisy, and this seriously undermines the "War on Terrorism" as seen by an ethical standpoint. See List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

If you are talking about public opinion, you're mixing apples and oranges.

Because I address more than one source of view, it does not make it unrelated, or more to the point irrelevant.

So what? The swifties weren't reporters.

I referred to those who reported this, and that no one lost their job for reporting something that was not true.

Its ironic that it backfired, but it is quite right that it did. You cannot base a point on lies. Heck, if it takes a lie to prove a point, what does that say about the point? Perhaps its not that strong of a point. ?

The documents presented by Rather could not be proven invalid any more than valid. That Bush's failure to fulfill his entire term of service in the Guard was documented by other agencies is a very legitimate point, in that at least Rather's story was based on truth.

The democratic party still doesn't understand that you can't convince people you're right by lying to them. Seems self-evident to me.

Really? It seem to work really well for Bush.

 

[SOS2008]

So I ask you: who and on what basis would someone make the claim that the US is a "rogue nation"?

Reply above.

And once again as stated in an earlier thread, the idea of "reverse" domino theory (spreading democracy as opposed to containing communism), based on history of over-extension of super powers, the U.S. cannot sustain such a foreign policy. For example, let's start listing the "rogue nations" beginning with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and then Syria, Lebanon, and add to this Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia, Libya... Is our foreign policy to preemptively attack all these countries that we perceive as a threat to our interests (harboring terrorists)? And add to that the new twist, to then attempt to instill democracy and engage in nation-building all around the world?

Even if this could stop terrorism, it would cause the U.S. to collapse. And even if this isn't just a guise (which I believe it is), it is unrealistic.

 

[SOS2008]

In my earlier comment on complaints to the FCC about FOX New's tag-line, it was about false advertisement, not any amendment...

...it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

In regard to cause and effect, I'm not sure what that indicates. Maybe these individuals have become disgusted with FOX. Or maybe their migration to other agencies is creating another cause and effect of a media leaning more and more to the right?

 

[russ_watters]

You've mentioned that you're not a Fox watcher; it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

I tend to assume that the bias at Fox is institutional. Thats really the only way to have a bias that goes against the grain of typical media. And it makes sense that reporters sharing the ideology would gravitate toward it.

 

[russ_watters]

Various terms are used, freedom fighters, insurgents, etc., depending on who is using it.

Different words with different definitions, and only one is relevant here. Its the word used in the quote in the OP. I'm not going to play word games.