Why does the media seem to want a war between the U.S. and Russia?

PeachyKeane

M.I.A.
Mar 11, 2006
5,853
3,580
✟91,102.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
From one of the paragraphs I quoted:

"Saddam borrowed tens of billions of dollars from other Arab states and a few billions from elsewhere during the 1980s to fight Iran, mainly to prevent the expansion of Shi'a radicalism. However, this had proven to completely backfire both on Iraq and on the part of the Arab states, for Khomeini was widely perceived as a hero for managing to defend Iran and maintain the war with little foreign support against the heavily backed Iraq and only managed to boost Islamic radicalism not only within the Arab states, but within Iraq itself, creating new tensions between the Sunni Ba'ath Party and the majority Shi'a population. Faced with rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and internal resistance, Saddam desperately re-sought cash, this time for postwar reconstruction." source

I did not state WHICH Islamic terrorists in the post you refer to, nor do I need to.

Yes. You do. You make a claim, you provide evidence.

I find your disagreement here rather amazing to be honest, and cannot help but wonder from where it springs and why.

Because that was in the 80's, and not what we're talking about. Iraq had stabilized by the turn of the millenium. Which terrorist organization do you believe destabilized Iraq so that we had to clean it up, and how did they do it? Those are the questions I asked you to answer to support your claim.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because that was in the 80's, and not what we're talking about. Iraq had stabilized by the turn of the millenium. Which terrorist organization do you believe destabilized Iraq so that we had to clean it up, and how did they do it? Those are the questions I asked you to answer to support your claim.

Stop asking ridiculous questions, and now it is your turn to support your assertion: "Iraq had stabilized by the turn of the millenium." I remember watching the news coverage and nothing like "stability" crossed my mind concerning Iraq. So prove your empty assertion, otherwise I'll have to chalk it up to fragments of your imagination.
 
Upvote 0

Traveling teacher

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2017
993
499
64
Belton
✟31,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟68,426.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Don't they know that it's crazy to want a war between the two nuclear superpowers?

And if they don't want a war, why are they acting like they want one?

I think nowadays media is fully 'sensation based' because of the fact journalism can't keep up with the speed of social media. That's why fact checking has become an issue in this profession because there just isn't time. Social media is always first to bring news, be it fact based or total nonsense! It doesn't matter if it's fact based or total nonsense. What matters is views, likes, subcribes, followers, etc. That is what the to types of media do have in common.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Slatts

Active Member
Jul 5, 2018
311
210
62
Vancouver
✟20,817.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think nowadays media is fully 'sensation based' because of the fact journalism can't keep up with the speed of social media.

I would disagree that the media is fully sensation based, unless you can provide some evidence for this assertion?

It is a very difficult time for the media, and social media certainly makes it much more difficult, easily spreading lies that the gullible eat up because it fits in with what dear leader is telling them.

But when we watch President Trump side with Putin over American secret service, or insult American soldiers by saying there is an equivalence between what Putin does and has done, and what American soldiers have done, that has nothing to do with social media. That is just the facts.
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
Hillary was desperate for a war as well. It made no sense.

Can you substantiate that claim with actual evidence (like, y’know, maybe something Hillary actually said), or is it just nonsense..?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allandavid
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟68,426.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I would disagree that the media is fully sensation based, unless you can provide some evidence for this assertion?

It is a very difficult time for the media, and social media certainly makes it much more difficult, easily spreading lies that the gullible eat up because it fits in with what dear leader is telling them.

But when we watch President Trump side with Putin over American secret service, or insult American soldiers by saying there is an equivalence between what Putin does and has done, and what American soldiers have done, that has nothing to do with social media. That is just the facts.

OK, I agree it's not fully sensations based, that was to bold. I think it is extremely sensation based not fully.
It is merely my opinion. Had to say it up front, sorry for that. I've seen a steady decay in the quality of the media in last decades. Agree?

Research journalism is the kind of journalism we had and need much more, don't you think?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Slatts

Active Member
Jul 5, 2018
311
210
62
Vancouver
✟20,817.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
OK, I agree it's not fully sensations based, that was to bold. I think it is extremely sensation based not fully.
It is merely my opinion. Had to say it up front, sorry for that. I've seen a steady decay in the quality of the media in last decades. Agree?
I would disagree. There is good and bad journalism, just like there has always been. With multiple 24 hour news services, there is more journalism period, both good and bad.

Research journalism is the kind of journalism we had and need much more, don't you think?
We can always use more good journalism. But there has been a lot of good journalism, that is how we are finding out so much about President Trump's malfeasance. Of course President Trump derides it, and his supporters gleefully join in, but the journalists keep on digging, and bringing us new information on a daily basis.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: riesie
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,429.00
Faith
Atheist
Do you even read what you posted as your evidence?


Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations
"Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by the U.S. government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda between 1992 and 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]

When Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, how is it reasonable to invade Iraq as a response, since there was no ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?
 
Upvote 0

jardiniere

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2006
739
549
✟152,266.00
Faith
Pantheist
Don't they know that it's crazy to want a war between the two nuclear superpowers?

And if they don't want a war, why are they acting like they want one?


So the media wants war, does it? Do we have MSM clamoring for war with Russia? Or do we have social media claiming the MSM is rooting for war? Or is it just another ploy to destabilize a democracy?

The specter of Western democracies plunging humanity into world war, though, claims a pedigree much older than the most recent American presidential election. Or the present-day U.S.-Russia dynamic. From the onset of the Cold War, it was a staple of Soviet propaganda meant to cast the United States as the aggressor and the Soviet Union as the bulwark of global “peace.”
 
Upvote 0

Traveling teacher

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2017
993
499
64
Belton
✟31,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
World War II and the Korean war were not even started by America.
ok
the veitnam and civil war

the 2 most destructive wars in our nation

divided america for 100++ years

then let me add the DRUG WAR that came from Mexico the last 10 years....
promoted by democrats...
policy of open borders,
gun running by the Holder bunch to mexican drug dealers
government handouts , and little support for law enforcement
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeachyKeane

M.I.A.
Mar 11, 2006
5,853
3,580
✟91,102.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
ok
the veitnam and civil war

the 2 most destructive wars in our nation

divided america for 100++ years

Technically, the civil war was started just as much by a Republican as a Democrat. There were 2 sides.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,716
9,443
the Great Basin
✟329,770.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
democrats start most of Americas wars anyway
as listed
- civil war
- WW2
- Korean war
- vietnam war

The Civil War is a stretch, since it was Lincoln who decided to go to war over the South succeeding. With WW2, you don't believe a Republican president would have declared war; I could just as easily claim, based on statements in this thread, that Republicans "egged Roosevelt into the war." The Korean War, fine. But the Vietnamese war most people attribute to Eisenhower -- who first sent miltary advisers and hardware to South Vietnam, as well as promising support to ensure the government survived.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

PeachyKeane

M.I.A.
Mar 11, 2006
5,853
3,580
✟91,102.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
ok
the veitnam and civil war

the 2 most destructive wars in our nation

divided america for 100++ years

then let me add the DRUG WAR that came from Mexico the last 10 years....
promoted by democrats...
policy of open borders,
gun running by the Holder bunch to mexican drug dealers
government handouts , and little support for law enforcement

And didn't Eisenhower at least start US policy that contributed to the Vietnam War. Which, if we ignore that, was ongoing for a decade before the US sent troops?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Traveling teacher

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2017
993
499
64
Belton
✟31,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Civil War is a stretch, since it was Lincoln who decided to go to war over the South succeeding. With WW2, you don't believe a Republican president would have declared war; I could just as easily claim, based on statements in this thread, that Republicans "egged Roosevelt into the war." The Korean War, fine. But the Vietnamese war most people attribute to Eisenhower -- who first sent miltary advisers and hardware to South Vietnam, as well as promising support to ensure the government survived.
EVERYONE KNOWS
JOHNSON started the vietnam war at least for americas involvement

amazing people blame the south for the civil war but not the democrats......
Democrats were slave owners of africans...
and have enslaved the african americans to welfare and the democrat party ever since Lyndon Johnson said
that he entended to enslave them to the party for 200 years
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,343
13,085
Seattle
✟906,458.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
ok
the veitnam and civil war

the 2 most destructive wars in our nation

divided america for 100++ years

then let me add the DRUG WAR that came from Mexico the last 10 years....
promoted by democrats...
policy of open borders,
gun running by the Holder bunch to mexican drug dealers
government handouts , and little support for law enforcement

I didn't know goal posts could travel at that velocity.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0