Mobile Exploration Team Alpha

[milefile]

Anyone read or hear about this yet? Seems they have some scientists who are singing like little birdies, telling them where to go and find "unconventional" weapons. Apparently, even as the inspectors were there Saddam was hiding the stuff and sending it to Syria, especially right before the war started.

For some reason I can't link to Yahoo headlines. I'll try to find another link to more details.

Okay hopefully this will work.

 

[Duke]

It worked. Is anybody here besides keeno_UK surprised at this news?

 

[rjensen11]

Hate to sound like a skeptic or an ass, but I just don't really like American news... Now the BBC, there's a reputable source! If I find it on there, I'll link it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Hate to sound like a skeptic or an ass, but I just don't really like American news... Now the BBC, there's a reputable source!

Why? How so? What do you have to base it on? Compare the two.

 

[1X83Z]

I, of course, prefer 'Mobile Exploration Alpha Team' because of the acronym.

 

[ledhed]

If you believe that the government tries to manipulate public opinion thrue the media, then anyone hoping to find any womd is going to be somewhat disapointed. On the ABC news show" niteline " last nite they were attempting to put a new spin on things already, saying that the war was not fought to find weapons but because of Saddam, the location of his country and his connection to terrorism. Now that by itself is not a bad thing...BUT WTF the dudes tell everyone in the frickin world that we gotta go in now to find and remove these things before Saddam uses them..we gotta go NOW ! Then I hear some gov spinmeister try to softpedal the whole idea of womd..dont now about you guys but I hate being lied to or otherwise manipulated. the most important thing the US needs to do is find the guys with the brains . The fella's that can make and design the weapons. Second they need to find the weapons they told the world are there. I donot want to hear anymore bull**** about us using Iraq as an example to other terrorist states etc etc etc as the rational for the war.
Time to show me the money.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Hate to sound like a skeptic or an ass, but I just don't really like American news... Now the BBC, there's a reputable source! If I find it on there, I'll link it.

Is there any particular reason you won't answer my questions?

Why? How so? What do you have to base it on? Compare the two.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by milefile
Why? How so? What do you have to base it on? Compare the two.

Sorry man, I just didn't get the time.

American news mostly has to do with what nationalist, ignorant people care for. It only concerns the US, unless it has to do with a major suicide bombing in Israel, the Olympics, or something that has a major effect on us economically. What is a real kicker is the fact that the news show that got the award for best international news wasn't one from the major networks, but on from the internet, known by it's title, the Naked News. Not that I watch it, mostly because I'd be beaten by my parents since I'm not yet 16 until a few months. But also because the BBC has so much more information and I don't have to put up with propogandic crap! I'm not pro-government, never have been, never will be. But I'm not pro-anarchy, never have been, never will be. I just don't want to have to put up with all of this garbage that is out there. If I want to put up with governmental propoganda, I play America's Army; why? Not because I want to join the army, but because it's something to do.

The thing is, the BBC has so much information on it, you hear stuff that happens in the States and in Canada that you would never hear on any American news source. You even hear stuff about Mexico, Central America, and South America more often. You also hear quite often about stuff that happens in Africa and Asia, and occasionally in Australia. It also has better sports coverage because it covers worldwide sports like rugby, football, and cricket. Try to find the last match score for any European football team.

As most of you people know, I don't really care for where I am presently. I don't side myself with the country I reside in, mostly because I feel like I'm better than being tied to something as basic and damaging as the state(not the States, but in general, the state.) Look at all of the wars fought between one nation and another, because one wanted more power than the other. That's why I don't side myself with the state, because it doesn't represent me, or countless other people. All it represents (at least, in America, probably elsewhere as well) is wealthy corporations that have too much power and prevent healthy action from being done, such as harsher punishments for drinking & driving, as well as things like tobacco. It's just staggering and mind-blowing if you think about how much of our legislation is tainted because of these huge enterprises. This is why I'm for true democracies, where EVERYONE says their say, and people can become informed and make decisions that would please most of the people in the long run.

The reason why I trust the BBC more than any American news source is because of the same reasons why millions, if not billions, of people do world-wide. Other than the fact that it is free of American Governmental tainting and corperate tainting, it's also quicker to get the information, more precise, and has a much broader range of coverage.


MileFile, does this answer your question?

*Sorry, but by saying football, I meant soccer, to you people that didn't understand originally, and no offense ment to you guys by this comment.

 

[milefile]

The BBC you see is intended for international consumption. So is CNN. I understand your perspective, and agree all of it to the best of my memory, but your criticisms of American news sources are pretty ambiguous and biased. The UK has pathetic news sources, too. America has no monopoly on ignorance.

I tend to get my news from the radio as I do not watch much TV. The only radio station I've listened to for at least six years now is NPR, which is American. Some people make fun of me for it. I think the root reason is that it's non-commercial, and that makes all the difference in the world. Not even the BBC can say that.

When I do watch TV news I flip through all the cable news programs until I find one that looks like it can give me the information I want in a reasonable amount of time. Yeah... the anchors, sound effects, screen graphics, and other gimmics give me something to make fun of and mildly offend me. But it's not worth taking too seriously. I just dismiss it as typical mob fodder.

PBS has some good news programs like Jim Lehrer. And it's American, too.

I won't even get started on local nightly news...

I think every society has it's garbage and it's gold. It's up to individuals to sort it out. Very few news programs are able to offer any kind of perpsective other than populist drivel because that is what's most popular, everywhere, in every country.

So I see your point, rjensen11, but you haven't shown any good reason to single out American news as inferior to any other, especially British.

But more importantly, it's nice to see someone your age who is as critical as you are. Just don't let it make you cynical... resist "the dark side."

 

[1X83Z]

Try to find the last match score for any European football team.

I'm fairly sure I know the reason American TV channels don't carry this - BECAUSE NO AMERICAN CARES ABOUT SOCCER.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by milefile
The BBC you see is intended for international consumption. So is CNN. I understand your perspective, and agree all of it to the best of my memory, but your criticisms of American news sources are pretty ambiguous and biased. The UK has pathetic news sources, too. America has no monopoly on ignorance.

I tend to get my news from the radio as I do not watch much TV. The only radio station I've listened to for at least six years now is NPR, which is American. Some people make fun of me for it. I think the root reason is that it's non-commercial, and that makes all the difference in the world. Not even the BBC can say that.

When I do watch TV news I flip through all the cable news programs until I find one that looks like it can give me the information I want in a reasonable amount of time. Yeah... the anchors, sound effects, screen graphics, and other gimmics give me something to make fun of and mildly offend me. But it's not worth taking too seriously. I just dismiss it as typical mob fodder.

PBS has some good news programs like Jim Lehrer. And it's American, too.

I won't even get started on local nightly news...

I think every society has it's garbage and it's gold. It's up to individuals to sort it out. Very few news programs are able to offer any kind of perpsective other than populist drivel because that is what's most popular, everywhere, in every country.

So I see your point, rjensen11, but you haven't shown any good reason to single out American news as inferior to any other, especially British.

But more importantly, it's nice to see someone your age who is as critical as you are. Just don't let it make you cynical... resist "the dark side."

Here's one reason, although, I suppose it cannot be the only reason; Look at the World News with Peter Jennings- look at the title, WORLD. That means global. When you watch it, however there are perhaps two or three stories that have to do with things outside of the United States, and most of the time, it has to do with US forces or how something going on there is raising oil prices. I did watch some PBS-type news program a few days ago, and it was a news broadcast of BBC America or something along the lines of that, it might've just been BBC, I don't remember. I know that PBS traditionally has good news information, but I rarely see any news programs on it, perhaps it's just my timing, however.
But you can probably agree with me that 99% of local news is usually rehash of the primetime, nation-wide news broadcasts or some sort of fillerspace about "New advances in health!" that are merely commonsense or has been known for the past 20 years.

I don't seem to recall saying that all British or international news was the best source out there, but I don't think that's what you're implying either. I know that there are sources out there that are of even less credibility or stature than of most American news sources, as one of our newer members that has stirred up much tention has shown us.

All I was trying to say earlier was, I just find the BBC a more credible source of information than CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, or any other major American news source. Why? Because the BBC has proven its credibility for a-many decades and has so much more information. Plus- if you want to try to see, you can find most stories that show on most American nation-wide news broadcasts are on the BBC, and even when partaining to something in America, even appear earlier.

 

[ledhed]

World news with Peter Jennings is one of the better ones. Try to remember that its only a half hour with commercials..how can they give you more ? If I wan't international news I go to CNN international report , they give you a broad spectrum of anchors from all over the world and a large difference in perspective. When I want to get to the heart of the matter I use the Internet and access Reuters , BBC .Arabic times etc..If you want to see what the North Korean perspective is you can read it from the NK minister of information. The thing is is up to you to take the time to delve deeper into the subjects that interest you and then try to seperate the bulldroppings from whats real. I have already been captured by the dark side..even my cynacism is cynicle. But I want to know. So I put the effort into finding out as much as I can. Maybe I'm suffering from withdrawl sympyoms from leaving school..

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Here's one reason, although, I suppose it cannot be the only reason; Look at the World News with Peter Jennings- look at the title, WORLD. That means global. When you watch it, however there are perhaps two or three stories that have to do with things outside of the United States, and most of the time, it has to do with US forces or how something going on there is raising oil prices. I did watch some PBS-type news program a few days ago, and it was a news broadcast of BBC America or something along the lines of that, it might've just been BBC, I don't remember. I know that PBS traditionally has good news information, but I rarely see any news programs on it, perhaps it's just my timing, however.
But you can probably agree with me that 99% of local news is usually rehash of the primetime, nation-wide news broadcasts or some sort of fillerspace about "New advances in health!" that are merely commonsense or has been known for the past 20 years.

I don't seem to recall saying that all British or international news was the best source out there, but I don't think that's what you're implying either. I know that there are sources out there that are of even less credibility or stature than of most American news sources, as one of our newer members that has stirred up much tention has shown us.

All I was trying to say earlier was, I just find the BBC a more credible source of information than CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, or any other major American news source. Why? Because the BBC has proven its credibility for a-many decades and has so much more information. Plus- if you want to try to see, you can find most stories that show on most American nation-wide news broadcasts are on the BBC, and even when partaining to something in America, even appear earlier.

Fine. Network news sucks. In fact, nearly all network programming sucks. This is no surprise, nor is it specific to America.

Everywhere in the world the vast majority of the people are dense, ignorant, xenophobic, ethnocentric buffoons. I don't care if they wear loincloths and practice ritualized war in the jungle or drink Gatorade at Bally's.

Americans who think they are smart seem to, as one of the first baby steps of their intellectual journey, vent their inevitable frustration first on what is nearest, and then gradually expand it in circular motions. First it is mom and dad, then school, then the media, and then America that is always wrong and stupid. There is overlap in the process. For instance, American media.

What seems to be ignored is that if you are looking for critical thinkers with a conscience you'll find mer here than anywhere else (in no small part because it is allowed and encouraged). Likewise, if you are looking for stupid hicks, you'll find proportianately as many in France or Germany as anywhere else. They just call them something different. And these euro-hicks don't hate American news because it is bad (whether it is or not)... they hate it because it is American, just like ignorant Americans hate the French.

The inexperienced intellect is all-too-prone to draw all of it's conclusions from the limited exposure it has gleaned from it's locality; it's conclusions (which are always only consolations) regarding the rest of the world are derived from TV... oh, I'm sorry, British TV. In this context rjensen11's cynicism and smug self righteousness at the tender age of 15 are excusable, even expected.

But someday you will be grateful you live in America, I promise.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by milefile
....The inexperienced intellect is all-too-prone to draw all of it's conclusions from the limited exposure it has gleaned from it's locality; it's conclusions (which are always only consolations) regarding the rest of the world are derived from TV... oh, I'm sorry, British TV. In this context rjensen11's cynicism and smug self righteousness at the tender age of 15 are excusable, even expected.

But someday you will be grateful you live in America, I promise.

Hey, he got my age right! Even my brother can't do that! Wait, maybe I should be freaked, I dunno, I guess I don't care, it's probably in my profile.

Perhaps it's not the fact that I live in the US that's getting me upset, but more of the fact that I live in Minnesota.... Nothing but crappy weather in the winter, misqueto-infested everything in the summer... And it also doesn't help that I live in Lutheran land when I'm Catholic.... Who knows....(No offense)

Like you said, it could all just be a phase, and I agree that if you're willing enough, you can find just about all the information you want, so I won't try to press in your mind that I'm just a very selective reader for what words I read and which ones I skip over.

Perhaps some day I will be glad that I live in America, then again, perhaps maybe not, it's all in the context, really. Am I glad that I live in America rather than China, where people cannot freely practice their own religions? Yes. Am I glad that wherever I go, there will always be self-centred, ignorant people that go behind some flag even though they don't understand jack **** about it? Yes, and I know what you'll say: "You can find that anywhere and everywhere." Yes, that's true, I suppose, but nowhere have I seen it to this extremity. During wars such as WW2, 30 Years War, 100 Years War, etc, people gathered behind their flags because of nationalism. I can see how that could be positive in most cases, but back in those days, people stood behind it for every reason and constantly. Now, today, look at the US, and you have some diehard supporters, louder diehard disgruntled people who do not support it, then about 2% don't care about it at all, they stay out of it, and about 95% of the total population is a bunch of bandwagon jumpers.
Am I glad that I live in the US in retrospect of places like Columbia, where there is constant drug-related wars, or China, where the people are forced to practice religion in hiding? Yes. Would I rather be in Austria, Germany, Italy, or that area right now? You bet I do- long term or short term, I don't know, all I know is that I think it would be wonderful to be there for a while and not it being a vacation, but part of life.
Am I saying I'd never wish to go back to America? No, of course not, I just can't say that I will think I'd rather be a resident for the rest of my life one place or the other.