Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


A year later

By Oz_Media ·
Well, hopefully with a year behind it, we can attempt to discuss the progress of the Iraqi invasion without too much hostility, we should be looking beyond the reasons for now and lookig toward the end of this conflict.

CBC aired the documentary again "Deadline Baghdad" they say it was banned by censors in the US and several other countries and the CRTC in Canada has tried stopping its airing but unsuccessfully as it breaches fredom of expression rights.

In a nutshell, 50 reporters that hav ebeen in Iraq from many different countriesd showed unedited footage and photos of what was really going on. Not a very pretty picture and i won't go into any details, lets just say it is NO WHERE NEAR as pretty and successful as we are generally shown it to be, even the soldiers are disgusted with the guerilla warfare style it is being fought in.

Besides that though, what has bene accomplished?

I notice the latest tout from the Bush Administration is that Lybia has stopped building neuclear arms, first I've heard of that goal as an objective, even though this has been a long term goal of all the worlds nations.

They also say that they hae uncovered parts for building nuclear arms and they are being shipped out of the country now, we should see more in the future.

Some say Iraq has enough money in it's own oil resources to pay for thier own reconstruction now, but from what I understand, they have only turned out 6 billion in oil this year and repairs are slated at over 100 billion to restore Baghdad (not the 180 billion as originally proposed).

So what are the stories from other parts of the globe?

Please try to keep this to just reporting the latest news as shown in your media and not personal opinions, as they usually get nasty. Nobody can flame YOU for delivering the news.

If we do this like big kids, we may be able to actually share news reports without it becoming self opinionated war.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Actually last night

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to From two US online media ...

We had a report here from Texas about the return of some of the troops and what was involved at a local school.

It was interesting the way that the problems where portrayed that both the school and kids suffered, but I for one can't help but wonder if the counselor proved to be responsible for more harm than good as she appeared to be emotionally involved which is never a good sign.


Collapse -

Last night news

by Oz_Media In reply to Actually last night

While rebuilding a clunker PC (I'll send you an email with somewuestions you can probably help me with) I was listening to a local Washington news hour. Not really paying attention as it was in thye background but after the hour I felt so bummed at the world for some reason.

I then started to remember what I had been listsening to, it was the most morbid news reporting I had ever heard. Amber alerts for some freak on the loose. All these reports one after another of nut bags and rapists they were looking for and mulitple accounts of kids and women being shot or stabbed for various reasons.

It was one of the most depressing news reports I had heard. Now that was in the background and must have simply been consumed subconciously as I was working.

I am starting to wonder if this is the tye of reporting that creates such a negative attitude towards others. How people stop trusting each other, how some people have a smaller comfort zone and can't open up to others etc. What a detrimental way of reportnig news to our society, over dinner of all things.

It is truly disgusting that firstly, these horrible people exist and kill this way and secondly that that is the focus of our news. Now I am not saying we should turn our backs and not hear such tales but it just seemed that with an hour newscast, there was NO positive news whatsoever, it wasn't mixed up with good stories or 'people feats' it was all just morbid and dark.

I know that I say we need to see the reality in order to act accordingly in future, but this was all just local yahoos killing people, we already know we don't approve of that.

I only watched a half hour of local news mmmmm Tamata Taggart and the weather was my only interest, so I can't say it was any better.

What a dreary world we now live in, I thought it was all supposed to get better with time, yet we still can't fill an hour of news with anything but the morbidity we face each day in our society.

Many thousands of men and women already gave thier lives to make this a more peaceful place to live, I wonder how they feel when they see our world today ?

I'll have to ask some WWII vet friends.

No wonder I love Sesame Street!

Collapse -

OZ Haven't you heard "Bad News" is the only

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Last night news

Good News?

What I find frustration is the way things are portrayed on what passes for "News" over here the so called "Current Affairs" programs are even worse as they have a small amount of real content and the rest is no better than free "Maybe" advertising that is wrapped up to look like current affairs with no real substance.

But the one story that I do really remember from the same news show was how a pedestrian was killed by a car on one of the main roads at the Gold Coast and how the drivers seemed upset that the roadway was partially blocked. Seems that no one was prepared to stop and actually went out of their way to drive around the corpse on the roadway. I really don't know what this world is coming to in this at all and I feel that I'm either far too old for the current times or that society in general has lost the plot as now it all seems what can I get rather than what do I have to offer.

I can remember seeing a pedestrian {who was plastered out of his mind} attempt to cross a main road and ran into the side of a car that was traveling at 70 KPH. I stopped blocking the left hand lane as that was to protect the guy unconscious on the roadway and put on my hazard lights and got out of the car and directed other drivers around the scene. The two main lanes where blocked and other than those of us who actually saw what happened no one stopped at al but it got even worse as a passing Police Car stopped and insisted that the roadway was cleared even though there was this guy on the road and when they saw just how bad things where left claiming that as a call had already been put in they weren't needed and someone would be out soon. Talk about passing the buck but I guess they didn't want all the paperwork that goes along with things like that.


Collapse -

Well Colin

by Oz_Media In reply to OZ Haven't you heard "Bad ...

You recently shared a story about a guy who was left dead under his car for 12 hours while motorists drove by.

All I can say, you guys are the kindest bunch of guys, you really kow how to party and enjoy life, but you seem to do it with blinders on. It seems that if someone dies or is in need, peolpe just go avout thier business. This really undermines the attitude I got from Australians that showed them as very compassionate and caring people.

Has this changed in the last coulpe of years or something, or did I just meet some oddballs?

Collapse -

Well speaking from my limited experience

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Well Colin

It is something that would never happen in the "bush" as there everyone stops to see if you need any help {except for the"City" people.}

When the Social Worker ran me down on the Ducati there seemed to be a lot that stooped and helped but then again that could only have been because I was blocking the road and they really wanted to get past.

A few years ago everyone would just stop no matter what but these days particularly in the City regions everyone only seems interested in themselves and to hell with everyone else. It is not something that I personally look forward to but it is the way things are going. I can't say what is going on out in the country now as I haven't left Brisbane for well over 15 years now. But then again when my wife ran out of fuel in a new car on a toll bridge someone was sent to see if they could help and arrived there just after I arrived with a can of fuel but as a lot of people jump off the bridge they could have been sent just to prevent that from happening.

I really don't know for sure about how most people are behaving today but when I see stories like this I begin to wonder. As the people don't seem to be acting like the Aussies that I expect to see on our roads.


Collapse -

key consequence

by john_wills In reply to A year later

One result of the occupation of Iraq is that there is far less reporting of the Free Palestine movement, although there is plenty of material of use to that movement in the SF Chronicle. When there is a Free Palestine march it is nowadays part of a more general march, focusing mainly on Iraq, and so unlikely to get much sympathy for Free Palestine. It seems that the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and possibly that of Afghanistan, have distracted the demonstrating classes from the Holy Land Question Set, rather as U.S. side-taking in the Vietnam War minimized concern for Palestine. From a Zionist perspective, therefore the Iraq occupation is a good thing of the same kind as the Vietnam War: it doesn't matter which side U.S. people take as long as their government can continue funding and arming Zionism.

Collapse -

Boys back home March 20th

by Oz_Media In reply to A year later

today i saw posters all over the Victoria area stating Boys Back Home March 20th along with Pictures of the soldiers on them.

Curious, I stopped to read on. Boys Back Home is an art echibit for the Vandouver Art Gallery on March 20 through ?

It depicts the cencored war photographs submitted by reporters to thier editors that were refused. Apparently it will be a VERY graphic and morbid photogrographic portrayal of the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel etc. Mainly Canadian troops that are still stuck in these countries but also some pictrues from Iraq.

These posteres are EVERYWHERE in our provinces Capitol, almost every lightpost, telephone pole, store bulletin board, EVEN the Parliment Buildings have it plastered on thier public message boards outside. Victoria harbour (one of my fav places when tourists are away)is literally plastered with the slogan.

So in our communities, we are seeing such a horribe protrayal of the war, not that I expected a pretty one. Perhaps THIs is the type of advertising that sets so many Canadians on the humanitarian or 'leftie' path. We are allowed to see these things, the realization of war is promoted to us, we are shjown graphic depictions of what really happens. No media slant can adjust a photograph, video diary etc. Certainly we MAY see some bias in what is left out of the picture but for the most part, a picture's worth a thousand words right?

Why is this type of material censored by so many?

Why would this not be pubically aired everywhere else so people get an understanding of what's really going on?

CNN and FOX are complete smoke and mirrors networks. Many of the US news networks I watch will show similar accounts as CNN or FOX. Canadian news just reports people stories and the odd nasty interviews with a pissed off protester. But much Canadian news is still focused on the Canadian troops still in Afghanistan etc. Not too much focus on Iraq anymore as we have had our say and didn't want ot be part of the invasion at this time for whatever reasons.

Is this all part of target marketing or is it an indicator of how some countries censor information heavily and we are given the whole story, which I doubt?

As some have said, unless you go there, you do not really know. Then again, pictures from the front line depicting both happy and sad soldiers, wounded and successful soldiers are very imilar to seeing it first hand. Nothing is hidden this way, it is a photo, not a report. It is a video not a speculative or colored interview.

Is this form of marketing seen elsewhere? Is it ignored as extreme left?

Collapse -

Echoes from the past ...

by jardinier In reply to A year later

For some reason this discussion has evoked in me memories of the American anti-war folk songs of the 1960s. Many of you weren?t even born then, and thus are possibly unaware of how profoundly and permanently the hippie movement, following on from the beatnik era, changed society. Bob Dylan was the chief spokesman who articulated the feelings of a generation of young people ? young people who, I believe, had good cause to feel restrained by the conservative social values which had taken root after the trauma of two world wars, the Great Depression, and the beginning of the cold war. For at least two decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki people lived under what was seen as a real threat of all-out nuclear war between the two super powers.

I will just give the lyrics of one or two verses from each of these songs. I am sure that, whatever age you are, you will readily recognise the lyrics and composers/performers of these songs:

Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky
Yes ?n? how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry
Yes ?n? how many deaths will it takes till he knows
That too many people have died
The answer, my friend, is blowin? in the wind
The answer is blowin? in the wind

Come gather ?round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you?ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimmin? or you?ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a ? changin?

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be last
As the present now will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin?
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a ? changin?

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never shared
No-one dared, disturb the sound of silence

?Fools!? said I ?you do not know
?Silence like a cancer grows
?Hear my words that I might teach you
?Take my arms that I might reach you?
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

Well how?s that for an off-topic post to an off-topic discussion?

Here are a few websites for those interested in getting a different slant on the news: [the radical, leftie, independent American radio station's website] [The Christian Science Monitor has always been, and contines to be, a relatively impartial source of news] [This is the website of my secondary ISP. They collect stories from publications and news services around the world] [A UN website which always has many interesting stories from around the world.

Collapse -

The 1960s "peace movement"

by maxwell edison In reply to Echoes from the past ...

The peace movement (folk music, et al) of the 1960s had its focus, generally speaking, on two primary issues: the war in Vietnam and the civil rights movement.

Since the word "conservative" was used to describe what the movement was against, even though it "may not" have been used in a political context, but since it is now, most generally, associated with the Republican party, some historical perspective may be in order.

Civil rights:

The Civil Rights Act of 1957: This law, the first civil rights legislation passed in 80 years, was introduced by the Republican Eisenhower administration in 1956. It created a Civil Rights Commission and a civil rights division in the Department of Justice. It prohibited interference in the exercise of voting rights, and was an important first step which helped pave the way for additional legislation related to civil rights.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Passed with the very strong support of Republicans and moderate support of northern Democrats, in both the House and the Senate, despite very strong opposition from House of Representatives southern Democrats who voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11, and a filibuster in the Senate led by southern Democrats. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill, while 18 Democrats led the charge against the civil rights act. Twenty-one Democrat Senators voted against the Civil rights Act of 1964, while only six Senate Republicans opposed the bill.

Republicans, in general, were in favor of strong civil rights legislation, while Democrats, in general, especially southern Democrats, were strongly opposed. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes from 1933 to 1964, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96% of the votes.

Some of the Democrat Senators who voted AGAINST the Civil rights Act of 1964: Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee (Yes, his father), Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas (one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors), and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (also a Ku Klux Klan member, and who has voted against all Supreme Court justice nominees who happened to be black, including the very liberal Thurgood Marshall). And let's not forget about Democrat Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama, synonymous with racists and segregationists.

The Republicans don't always get the credit they deserve when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights activist Andrew Young (a Democrat mayor of Atlanta), wrote in his autobiography, An Easy Burden, that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South." Mr. Young admitted that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and were "among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement." By Andrew Young's own account, the elder Al Gore was a segregationist and not a champion for civil rights.


In the late 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, after consulting with U.S. advisors he had sent to Vietnam to assess the situation, advises that the French that they are involved in a hopelessly losing war in Indochina. He declines any significant involvement.

In 1961, President Kennedy, a Democrat, sent the first wave of 100 special forces troops to Vietnam.

Vice President Johnson, another Democrat, while personally touring South Vietnam in 1961, assures the South Vietnamese government that it is crucial to US objectives in Vietnam, and vows American support. In 1964, President Johnson turned down an offer for peace talks proposed by North Vietnam, and in 1965 he (Johnson) authorized the use of American combat troops. President Johnson oversaw the huge military buildup in Vietnam, going from 100 in 1961 to a peak of 550,000 in 1969.

In 1968, LBJ decided to not seek a second term. In 1969, President Nixon, a Republican, seeking an end to Johnson's Vietnam debacle, began to withdraw troops and initiated peace talks. In 1969 President Nixon signed a bill repealing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a resolution signed into policy by President Johnson 5 years prior.


The protestors of the "peace movement" of the 1960s weren't protesting any "conservative" position in the political sense. To the contrary, they were a very vocal movement against the policies of the current day Democrat party.

Very interesting, if you think about it.

Collapse -

Very interesting, if you think about it.

by Oz_Media In reply to The 1960s "peace movement ...

Yes it is Max, and believe it or not, I actually read the whole post ad found it somewhat educational. Personally I have never taken te time or the interest in this matter but your post was very informative and without bias. A little off the beaten path but relevant all the same.

One question, when you say "It prohibited interference in the exercise of voting rights",
couldn't this also be a way to stop future protesting? I would think that protesters of a specific government would be sen as interfereing with the voting process. It's a wierd take and perhaps it wasn't such a blanket law, or else this is where the freedom of speech protests also stem from? My point being, if you're not allowed to interfere with teh voting process (unless this is further detailed) you would not be able to protest a government or political position. THis would raise massive free speech issues as they are restricting people's right to express thier beliefes??

I'm obviously not too sure or even close to guessing, just something I read into it.

I just wish I was around in the 60's. Perhaps as a teenager, not so I could protest but just look at all the fantastic music that came from it? Joan Biaz, Janis Joplin, FREE, Jimi Hendrix, Mamas and Papas etc. (Yes, I am a Woodtock junkie) what an era. As I type this I am thinking:

"All the leaves are brown and the sky is gray.
I?ve been for a walk on a winter?s day.
I?d be safe and warm if I was in L.A.
California dreamin? on such a winter?s day."

then I would have actually enjoyed the 70's instead of watching my brother go clubbing in those big lapel shirts with brown polyester bell bottoms. Boy was I jealous!! All I had was cords.

Related Discussions

Related Forums