One more nail in the coffin of diplomacy regarding Iran.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

 

It seems that nobody really gives a s*** in the world whether the islamo-fascist regime of Iran acquires nukes. That's the sentiment I got after reading that Germany is now refusing to go along with even economic sanctions against the criminal regime of Iran. Russia and China are only concerned about their own selfish economic interests so now it looks more and more likely that we're going to have to drop the hammer on Tehran. I say go for it. Better to rid ourselves of this problem now than in 5 years when they have the bomb and the means to deliver it.

[Texsox]

We should have done that with every country that is close to developing the bomb.

[sox4lifeinPA]

We should have done that with every country that is close to developing the bomb.

 

they should consider economic sanctions against me then....cos I'm about to drop a bomb

[NorthSideSox72]

Greeeeeeeat.

 

By the way, gotta love Fox News. Not a single sourced quote in the entire article, all unnamed sources, and nothing the slightest bit verifiable. I'd take this with a BIG grain of salt.

 

That said, what doesn't need a grain of salt is that Iran is I am sure still trying to acquire nukes. Question is, if they are on the verge of producing a weapon, and you know where that is happening... do you take military action? One person already answered in here. I've theorized before that Israel will probably do it before anyone else gets the chance anyway, and I still think that's a possbility.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Didn't Russia suspend shipments to Iran of nuclear producing equipment and material under the guise of "nonpayment?"

[southsider2k5]

If you expected Germany to step to the forefront on this issue, you are kidding yourselves. They have way too many business interests in Iran to step away from this regime.

[kapkomet]

If you expected Germany to step to the forefront on this issue, you are kidding yourselves. They have way too many business interests in Iran to step away from this regime.

As does almost all of Western Europe - and that's the same situation that we found ourselves with 4 years ago with Iraq, too... only we didn't realize they were actually on the take from the oil for food program.

[Texsox]

We have to factor in that the rest of the world does not see Iran as villainous as we do. Same with Iraq. We can say they are wrong all we want, but we have to realize that and factor that into our strategy, even if it means just ignoring it.

[whitesoxfan101]

Obviously I know this isn't EXACTLY how it works, but maybe we wouldn't be so intent on having a lot of help in Iran if we didn't have so many sources tied up in a war that should have never happened and has thusly caused terrorism to blossom like a petunia in spring in Iraq.

[Cknolls]

Didn't Russia suspend shipments to Iran of nuclear producing equipment and material under the guise of "nonpayment?"

 

 

I believe that was worked out.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, Faux News states that, supposedly, on unnamed sources with no direct quotes, that the Germans had opted out on sanctions for Iran by the UN. The article then jumped to the conclusion that they must be wimping out, and that the world had apparently decided not to care.

 

Funny, because now that an actual news source has gotten the real story, it appears that Germany and other European nations backed out of the UN negotiations because they felt the UN was not strong enough. They are instead of the mind that stronger sanctions are needed, and France is even saying that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and that war might be imminent if that happened. It now appears that Germany and France are (*gasp*) going stronger on Iran than the U.S. is.

 

In case anyone wondered why Faux News isn't taken seriously as a news source, there is yet another example.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So, Faux News states that, supposedly, on unnamed sources with no direct quotes, that the Germans had opted out on sanctions for Iran by the UN. The article then jumped to the conclusion that they must be wimping out, and that the world had apparently decided not to care.

 

Funny, because now that an actual news source has gotten the real story, it appears that Germany and other European nations backed out of the UN negotiations because they felt the UN was not strong enough. They are instead of the mind that stronger sanctions are needed, and France is even saying that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and that war might be imminent if that happened. It now appears that Germany and France are (*gasp*) going stronger on Iran than the U.S. is.

 

In case anyone wondered why Faux News isn't taken seriously as a news source, there is yet another example.

You mean that FOX Noise wasn't fair and balanced?!

 

SHOCKED. SHOCKED I TELLS YA.

 

No wonder that Fox News watchers are some of the worst informed people in the world.(source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press)

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

In case anyone wondered why Faux News isn't taken seriously as a news source, there is yet another example.

 

I know, the only real news sources are the New York Times (Jason Blair) and CBS (Dan Rather). Woo hoo, goooooo news!

 

Seriously though, if someone thinks that the O'reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes is news, they are fooling themselves. Those are opinion shows, nothing more or less. As far as the other FOX news shows or outlets, they are no worse than most of the news you consider accurate.

Edited September 18, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

I know, the only real news sources are the New York Times (Jason Blair) and CBS (Dan Rather). Woo hoo, goooooo news!

 

Seriously though, if someone thinks that the O'reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes is news, they are fooling themselves. Those are opinion shows, nothing more or less. As far as the other FOX news shows or outlets, they are no worse than most of the news you consider accurate.

Have you ever seen my quote NYT opinion writers (Blair) or CBS/NBC/ABC as a news source? Possible, but unlikely. I usually use CNN or a reputable newspaper (NYT included, but not the edged writers) or something that is actually news.

 

It amazes me people still think Fox News is even remotely on par with the major news outlets. I mean, you just don't see the main outlets do stuff like this article I was pointing out - not in the news section. Fox doesn't know the difference.

 

ABC--CBS--NBC------CNN--MIDDLE-----------------------------------------------------------------FOX

 

Is that easier to understand?

 

And that is just the political bias. Nevermind that the spectrum of journalistic skill and performance looks something like this:

 

Good Journalism-------CNN---------CBS--NBC--ABC--------------------------FOX

 

None of them are where they should be, mind you.

 

[mr_genius]

I mean, you just don't see the main outlets do stuff like this article I was pointing out - not in the news section.

 

Kinda like a news program going on air with forged documents to attempt to sway an election... ooops

 

Is that easier to understand?

 

Yes, I understand and have made improvements.

 

 

NY Times--ABC/CBS/NBC/------------------------------CNN------------------------MIDDLE--------------------------------------------------------------------------FOX

 

Getting news from a Democrat point of view and Republican point of view doesn't hurt IMO. It would be great if all the major news rooms were totally unbiased but I don't think that is really possible. It is up to the viewer/reader to distinguish what is important and recognize agendas when they are being pursued in the name of news.

Edited September 18, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Kinda like a news program going on air with forged documents to attempt to sway an election... ooops

Yes, I understand and have made improvements.

NY Times--ABC/CBS/NBC/------------------------------CNN------------------------MIDDLE--------------------------------------------------------------------------FOX

 

Getting news from a Democrat point of view and Republican point of view doesn't hurt IMO. It would be great if all the major news rooms were totally unbiased but I don't think that is really possible. It is up to the viewer/reader to distinguish what is important and recognize agendas when they are being pursued in the name of news.

I would agree that the forged documents thing was almost as bad. But the frequency with which such things happen, even among the clumsy MSM networks, is still much lower than it is with Fox.

 

Thing is, I don't think its unreasonable to expect news sources to be... news sources. Not editorials. It just seems like journalism, particularly with major network television, has become too subjective and punchy. Seems like most of the solid journalism left is in the newspapers. And its not just about political bias - its all kinds of bias, and further, its just low quality.

 

[Cknolls]

You mean that FOX Noise wasn't fair and balanced?!

 

SHOCKED. SHOCKED I TELLS YA.

 

No wonder that Fox News watchers are some of the worst informed people in the world.(source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press)

 

 

O.k Olbermann junior. FOX NOISE. They are the target because they are in front. Just like CNN was when they were in front.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Cknolls

[NorthSideSox72]

O.k Olbermann junior. FOX NOISE. They are the target because they are in front. Just like CNN was when they were in front.

In front of what, exactly? They certainly aren't in front of any ratings chases. They are a target because they are really bad at news.

 

[southsider2k5]

In front of what, exactly? They certainly aren't in front of any ratings chases. They are a target because they are really bad at news.

 

The target of the left, as the only network on the right?

[Cknolls]

In front of what, exactly? They certainly aren't in front of any ratings chases. They are a target because they are really bad at news.

 

 

Then why does Olbermann bother with Fox Noise as he calls it? IS it because O' Reilly's 3:00 A.M repeat still beats his 8:00 P.M. first showing? He is just as bad as the guys on FOX. I agree Hannity is a big boob and a lot of times I turn that show off because I am embarassed for him.

[NorthSideSox72]

The target of the left, as the only network on the right?

That too.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

O.k Olbermann junior. FOX NOISE. They are the target because they are in front. Just like CNN was when they were in front.

They're also a target for making their station slogan "Fair and Balanced" but are anything but -- as we all know, they have a huge slant to the political right wing of the nation. That's not even mentioning the oodles of times that they have been caught in lies, distorting reporting on issues, etc.

[Rex Kickass]

Then why does Olbermann bother with Fox Noise as he calls it? IS it because O' Reilly's 3:00 A.M repeat still beats his 8:00 P.M. first showing? He is just as bad as the guys on FOX. I agree Hannity is a big boob and a lot of times I turn that show off because I am embarassed for him.

 

Actually, that's not been true for a year. In the last couple weeks, Olbermann has been climbing to within 50,000 viewers of O'Reilly in the 25-54 demo, and actually beating the Fox juggernaut in the key advertising demos for the first time on September 7. Although, O'Reilly is still showing total viewership more than double that of Olbermann, Countdown is averaging nearly a million viewers a night at 8PM, about two years ago - Olbermann was lucky to see 400,000 viewers a night.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, that's not been true for a year. In the last couple weeks, Olbermann has been climbing to within 50,000 viewers of O'Reilly in the 25-54 demo, and actually beating the Fox juggernaut in the key advertising demos for the first time on September 7. Although, O'Reilly is still showing total viewership more than double that of Olbermann, Countdown is averaging nearly a million viewers a night at 8PM, about two years ago - Olbermann was lucky to see 400,000 viewers a night.

You can put me solidly in the "I'd rather watch neither" camp.

 

[Texsox]

I know, the only real news sources are the New York Times (Jason Blair) and CBS (Dan Rather). Woo hoo, goooooo news!

 

Seriously though, if someone thinks that the O'reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes is news, they are fooling themselves. Those are opinion shows, nothing more or less. As far as the other FOX news shows or outlets, they are no worse than most of the news you consider accurate.

 

But step two, after reading/hearing/watching news, people form opinions. The beauty of the GOP's position is they cut out the first step, why pay any attention to the biased media, when you can find out what to think by listening and watching the GOP broadcast network? Brilliant strategy.

 

So the Dems have a hold on the media's reporting of the news and the GOP has a stranglehold on telling people what to believe. One is infinitely more important. But it is more fun to find an unflattering article of a GOP and start whining media bias