RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Peter Arnett is a disgrace and is giving aid and comfort ...(41 posts)

Peter Arnett is a disgrace and is giving aid and comfort ...Live Steam
Mar 30, 2003 7:19 PM
to the enemy! He pays hommage to Iraq and their murderous henchmen. I am disgusted with his alleged reporting and will let NBC now how I feel.

This is just disgusting. The Iraqi ministery will use this as propaganda to further their cause, and don't think Arnett doesn't know it. If he were to now get caught in the crossfire, I would feel no remorse.

Maybe the special forces should tail him. He obviously has access to all of the top Iraqi military. He could lead the coalition forces right to SH himself. A few well placed missles could end this all very quickly.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
Geez, why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel:)-Jon Billheimer
Mar 30, 2003 8:29 PM
Regardless of his fawning over his Iraqi hosts, he is right about the U.S. miscalculating Iraqi resistance. Common sense would suggest that most people don't like having their country invaded. Why would the Iraqi people be any different in that respect from the rest of us? The fact probably is that they hate American invaders worse than they hate Saddam.
Geez, why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel:)-Live Steam
Mar 31, 2003 5:09 AM
I don't think he was accurate in any way with what he stated. First of all his words do not reflect "what the Iraqi people" feel toward the coalition invasion. It represents how desperate the Iraqi regime is to hold on to power. Secondly, I don't believe that the coalition leaders gave the game plane to Arnett for him to decipher whether or not things are going as planned.

His left leaning bias is showing just as it is for many of the so called journalist that are covering this war. They are trying to play gotcha with their questioning during military briefings. The Iraqi people are not free to speak their mind about what is happening, especially in Baghdad, so he should not assume that the Iraqi military are speaking for the whole of the population. He should have asked the thug he was with why they hung that woman from a pole because she was waving a white flag at coaltion forces.
Geez, I guess I should have put the news onLive Steam
Mar 31, 2003 5:31 AM
before replying to both of you. NBC and NG must have had a problem with what Arnett said too because they both terminated him this morning! I guess I wasn't off base with my assessment of what he was saying.
Well, THIS ex-Special Forces guy is on his side.cory
Mar 30, 2003 9:45 PM
You're hysterical, man--get a grip on yourself. There's a long gap between what he said and what you heard.
Well, THIS ex-Special Forces guy is on his side.Live Steam
Mar 31, 2003 5:18 AM
Please tell me Mr. ex special forces (OK) where the gap is. His words will play on TV throughout the region. This will just incite more resentment against this effort. He is providing propaganda to the enemy. I would think an ex-special forces guy could recognize that. Every single ex-military I know, wants to be over there helping out. They may not all have the firm conviction for the timing or reasons for this conflict, but they see the criminality of what is going on now and feel a need to help their brothers in arms. I guess it's a good thing you are EX if you don't feel that same sense of duty!
Steady, cory .... nmOldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 5:48 AM
Talk about career suicideAlpedhuez55
Mar 31, 2003 6:20 AM
I think that was a job interview for al Jeezera. THat is borderline treason. He must have been trying to line up another interview with one of Saddams doubles. I still think there is a good chance Saddam already been bombed to Hades. The latest evidence is his personal bodyguard who showed up on camera with his VP.

Baghdad obviously will have the most opposition to the US since that is where the Bath Party is the strongest. Peter Arnett obviously works closely whith some of them as sources. To make those statements is just absurd. It is borderline treason.

I can not imagine the emails and calls NBC & National Geographic must have got.

Mike Y.
Borderline treasnous...ClydeTri
Mar 31, 2003 6:22 AM
is treasnous a word? anyway, he borders on treason....one could argue he gave comfort and aided the enemy....just as "Hanoi" Jane did years ago....
Treason? Sigh ...OldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 7:33 AM
I understand and have even accepted the new Cheney/Rumsfeld definition of 'treason,' which is to disagree with them on any matter whatsoever (soon to be expanded to asking them QUESTIONS on any matter whatsoever). But I doubt that even Cheney/Rumsfeld could legitimately apply that definition to a native New Zealander, as Peter Arnett is.

Wait a minute. Maybe they COULD, in the New American Empire ...
Treason? Sigh ...ClydeTri
Mar 31, 2003 7:40 AM
according to the tv..and I know..everything on tv is not correct..Peter is a naturalized US citizen...
Oh. Well, if so, it clearly IS treason then. ThatOldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 7:47 AM
SOB better not ever set foot in this country again. We have ways of dealing with people who point out flaws with The Government.
Oh. Well, if so, it clearly IS treason then. ThatClydeTri
Mar 31, 2003 7:51 AM
my point was one could make a legal argument that by being on their tv and being used for propaganda, one could argue he was aiding and abetting the enemy....
That's treason, isn't it? Plain and simple.OldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 7:58 AM
Just ask Dick or Don.
it isn't treason, and 1st Amendment trumps anyway nmDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 7:51 AM
Oh, that First Amndment is just a technicality. You lawyersOldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 8:01 AM
are such sticklers. Just ask John Ashcroft. These are DANGEROUS TIMES. The average American who's doing nothing wrong has absolutely nothing to fear if we suspend civil liberties. Lighten up.
I'm on your side (I think)DougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 8:18 AM
No one would support 1st Amendment rights any more strongly than I would. It's a big part of what I do nearly every day -- civil rights, primarily 1st and 14th Amendment stuff.

Who are you telling to lighten up?

Dogu
Anyone who thinks the Bill of RightsOldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 8:29 AM
trumps The Government in prosecuting its various wars and grudges (on terrorism, Iraq, anyone who treasonously questions or disagrees with them) needs to lighten up. The Bill of Rights in just a CONVENIENCE. Us good Americans have nothing to fear from Big Dick and the boys. They LOVE us. We made them rich.

That treasonous bastard Peter Arnett needs to be sent to live with his Al Qaeda buddies in Git-mo. HAW! We'll see how he likes being crossways with America then!

(I'm practicing my jingoism here. I don't want to be on the Wrong Side of History when the hammer comes down).
sorry, I missed the cueDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 8:34 AM
I didn't realize we were doing the role reversal thing today. It's Monday morning, and I'm a little slow...

Doug
Understandable.OldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 8:50 AM
In the Cheney Administration, things get confusing.

When you're on their side, as I assume you more-or-less are despite your libertarianism, you're put in the unaccustomed position of supporting Big Government, Government secrecy, Government arrogance, a 'We in Government Know Better than You' mentality ... all the stuff you surely find wrong with Government.

I, on the other hand, as a proponent of Big Government, am in the unaccustomed position of saying, "Huh? Wha -? WAIT a minute, I like Government and all, but Jesus CHRIST, you guys have just taken the ball and run with it and HIDDEN it."

So now I'm railing against the arrogance of Big Government. The anti-government crowd here doesn't seem perturbed at all.

Confusing times, eh?
Sad53T
Mar 31, 2003 12:15 PM
Your liberal house of cards is crumbling like Baghdad itself.

In a last gasp from the left, you strike out at all factions, the small government crowd, the hawks, the non-consiracy theorists, the Clinton haters, and those of us that had to spend all day on 9/11 calling our family members to make sure everyone was accounted for.

Kind of reminds me of the Iraqi foriegn minister calling for the immediate surrender of all coalition forces. Let it go, it's over.
...and those of us that had to spend all day on 9/11 calling...Kristin
Mar 31, 2003 1:45 PM
"And those of us that had to spend all day on 9/11 calling our family members to make sure everyone was accounted for."

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Confusing times?Kristin
Mar 31, 2003 1:43 PM
Damn right. I'm very nearly a demacrat now. My mother and grandparents are wearing black and plan to hold a funeral for me as soon as I make the "change". My father, on the other hand, is preparing me a lavish ball. And I never thought I'd cross over to the dark side. Confusing times indeed.
pssst...DougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 1:44 PM
I think they prefer "demOcrat." :-)

Doug
Sigh. They don't have spelling tests do they?Kristin
Mar 31, 2003 1:46 PM
Do you think bad spelling is the birthmark of a true-blooded Republican? Just sound it out...
you could always go Liberian ;-) nmDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 2:11 PM
No. Librarians need to spell even better than demacrats. nmKristin
Mar 31, 2003 2:15 PM
you may have missed itDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 2:18 PM
A few weeks ago I spelled Libertarian that way...

Doug
Maybe she pulled a switch-a-roo on you. (nm)czardonic
Mar 31, 2003 2:23 PM
my head is spinning; make the world stop so it can catch up(nm)DougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 2:57 PM
All true53T
Mar 31, 2003 3:54 PM
First off, I had no idea China was involved in all of this.

Secondly, you know we're living a diferent world when the best rapper is white, the best golfer is black, and Germany doesn't want to go to war.
LOL. That was funny. Thanks. nmKristin
Mar 31, 2003 4:05 PM
Doug...question...ClydeTri
Mar 31, 2003 8:05 AM
First amendment does have limits....one can be tried for treason for comments can they not? One of the women who was Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason merely for talking:
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/rose.html and the woman who was Axis Annie,Mildred E. Gillars, was convicted of treason http://www.eleggua.com/History/1949.html and served 12 years in prison.....
issuesDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 8:21 AM
Things have changed since then, too. Free speech rights are much, much stronger. If you are engaged in public dialogue, and unless you are threatening imminent violence (with other exceptions, too), chances are 1st Amendment prevails. No matter how wrong he might have been, that was pure protected speech, as far as I know.

Doug
Arnett said is an AmericanAlpedhuez55
Mar 31, 2003 8:12 AM
He think he stated in his interview on the Today Show that when he has been an American for the past 25 years. I so not think he said citizen directly, but he certainly implied it.

He should have known bettter than to make those statements. It could be considered borderline treason, but they would never go after him. It is not like he gave troop locations or anything. He obviously picked his side and showed his true colors. At least NBC & NG acted quickly.

He falsely accused the US of using Sarin Gas in Laos which was why he got canned from CNN. And who can forget his propaganda work at the infamous "Baby Milk Factory" for CNN in GW1. Maybe he bill lucky to do the farm reports back home in Aukland, NZ. NPR or PBS would probably hire him though ;)

Mike Y.
stupid, if nothing elseDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 7:44 AM
I can't imagine he really belived what he was saying. If he's supposed to be a reporter of the facts, then he should have been fired, regardless of his obvious anti-American (yes, it was), wrong, personally editorialized statements.

It seems reporters these days are attempting more and more to shape opinion and influence events, rather than merely report them. It's almost impossible to read or watch a news story without an implied or express editorial thrown in. It makes me distrust them all. Is there anyone who routinely provides objective reporting?

Doug
Lots of them! They're all on Fox! nmOldEdScott
Mar 31, 2003 7:48 AM
funnyDougSloan
Mar 31, 2003 7:51 AM
I think its (Fox) reason for being is to balance other networks, and as such, isn't any more objective than any others. I watch them all and average them. :-)

Doug
re: Peter Arnett is a disgrace and is giving aid and comfort ...cycleaddict
Mar 31, 2003 7:52 AM
Live Steam,

Grow up and get a real job!

you come across as nothing but an ignorant coward.
True, but still true.53T
Mar 31, 2003 12:19 PM
Live steam may come across as ignorant, I fail to see the cowardice. His position is that Arnett is a disgrace, and that is undeniable. He is a disgrace to Americans, even those that oppose the war and the administration. He is an embarasment to both sides of the isle, thus his empoyers had nothing to loose when sacking him.
re: Peter Arnett is a disgrace and is giving aid and comfort ...Live Steam
Mar 31, 2003 7:33 PM
I guess I was correct in my assessment. I wrote my editorial last night and this morning I find that he is fired from both his positions and is apologizing on National TV. Hmmm? I imagine I wasn't too far off base considering the comments NBC made regarding his statements.

As for your idiotic comments about "get a real job", and "go for a ride" and what ever other drivel comes from your brain, why don't you grow up instead of posting schoolyard banter. I have a great stream of income that affords me the time to post here, which obviously annoys you. It appears that you have a problem with me. Why don't we get together sometime so you can do something about it? That is if you think you are man enough you adolescent jerk! We can find out who and who is not a coward then.