The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Loyalty may hurt sometimes, but not as much as betrayal > Comments

Loyalty may hurt sometimes, but not as much as betrayal : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 15/12/2006

How Downer nailed the response to Iraq - it’s (nearly) all about loyalty, stupid.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Uh... is Bagaric actually arguing that loyalty exists beyond self interest when it comes to international relations?

Hmm... I seem to recall our loyal partner Britain wasn't too keen on assisting our troops to come home to combat the japanese. Sure they said they could leave, though they wouldn't give them transport.
And let's never mind the slaughter at Gallipoli.

So the Americans came to assist in the wake of Pearl Harbor. Joy. Note that phrase 'in the wake of pearl harbor' it was less about the rest of us than it was about them.

The US will remain friendly toward Australia as long as it does not place too great a demand on them. They need all the friends they can get right now. If however, it became inconvenient to keep Australia as a friend, then by all means we would be dropped.

There would also be repercussions if we adopted protectionist economic policies.

Make no mistake - the US is our friend... as long as it works for them, loyalty be damned.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 15 December 2006 9:13:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sincerity is the highest moral value, if you have that then the rest fall in line.
Loyalty can also mean saying to your mate "hey we have stuffed up here lets rethink this" if you don't do that its just toadyism.
Howard has a different line he is going to stay the course, we must assume that means staying even if the Yanks leave.Who is he being loyal to?
Posted by alanpoi, Friday, 15 December 2006 9:58:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loyalty also means when your mate is doing something stupid that is harming themselves or others, you kick them up the butt and tell them to get their act together. You don't bail on them, you get them back on track.
The problem with Oz and big tough older brother Yankyland is that we wouldn't have the guts to pull them in to line. We are more of a Merino than a Labrador.
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 15 December 2006 10:12:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
loy·al·ty:

A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.

be·tray:

To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance

* *

Mirko, in the events of the last few years, who pray is the betrayer and who the betrayed? When does loyalty become an act of betrayal - and to whom?

What is the point of sailing your little paper boat of truth on an ocean of lies?

The reasons for invading Iraq - all lies. The betrayed were loyal to the betrayers. Is loyalty to lunacy a virtue? Is it OK to be loyal to liars? Are we just messing with words?

Loyalty and betrayal are ideological concepts which can so easily smother one's basic instincts of right and wrong. If we ever get Downer, Howard and Rudduck before the ICC, loyalty won't butter any fish with the judges.

- any more than it did at Nuremberg.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 15 December 2006 10:20:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In his last article, the author claimed that he thinks Australia should become the '51st State' of the USA. Gee, he sure is loyal alright. He's got a bloody hide to lecture Australians about loyalty.

And again, a nice tidy black and white picture: 'loyalty' on one side of the neat line, and 'betrayal' on the other. The most simple formula in the world. With us or against us. Is that what it was like in Croatia, Mr. Loyalty?
Posted by rice4t, Friday, 15 December 2006 11:07:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko

Your article is touching on a familial level (bordering on Lala Land) but has little relevance to dry realpolitik or economics.

Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq Australia's main interest in that country was the wheat trade. Australia, like other Western nations, also saw Iraq as being a long term source of oil. Australia's participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq therefore has much to do with our interests in maintaing market share for wheat and having a future "say" in how Iraq's oil resources are divided up.

We couldn't have done it by ourselves. The US was the key to open the door.

Loyalty is too soppy a word "quid pro quo" (something for someting) is more accurate. As well as wheat and oil we were in Iraq to service our defence alliance with the US - ANZUS - something very few Americans have heard about.

Put simply - for our boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan the US provides Australia with political and military support in our own region, particularly regarding Indonesia.

Few peoplle are aware that Australia could not have intervened in East Timor in 1999 (INTERFET) without concerted US political efforts to twist the arms of the Indonesians and a large US marine force sitting, waiting, in Dili Harbour, to take-on the Indonesians if necessary.

The some mutual support dynamic (help in Iraq for help over East Timor) applies today. Note that East Timor is also partly an oil issue for Australia.

Save your loyalty stuff for the sociologists Mirko. Australia gets a return for its investment in Iraq. But if Australians start dying in Iraq are role in its occupation may be too expensive for us.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 December 2006 11:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko, a nice essay on loyalty, but what does loyalty have to do with Australia-US relations and Iraq, apart from the retro-fitted speech of Alexander Downer's?

The Australian Government's justification for partnering with the US in Iraq has changed more often than I've had hot breakfasts.

Now you expect me to believe that "loyalty" had anything to do with it?

What about perceived self-interest in maintaining the good favour of a great and powerful ally? Don't you think that had rather more to do with the decision, and rather cheapens Downer's posturing on the topic of "loyalty"?

Surpised that one got past you, Mirko.

Best not to talk about loyalty, and labradors, in international politics - it leads to connotations of world leaders as dogs, and you know the sort of images that conjures up in the fevered imaginations of the world's newspaper cartoonists....
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 15 December 2006 11:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One could exsert from an article a very simple reality: a non-native-to-UK background stipulates Mirco to demonstrate more loyalty to Australia then overseas-foreign-crown-obsessed local PM.

There is no such thing like “loyalty” in politics but a calculation of options where “mateship” (mafia style factually annihilating any local competitiveness relations grounding foreign affairs, as more comprehensible outside Australia) rules.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 15 December 2006 11:47:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Pete pretty much nailed it on the head with ANZUS (or AUS as it is now). The ANZUS Treaty has for as long as I can remember been Australia's long-term insurance policy. The yanks will help us should Indonesia again acquire naval vessels sufficient for an invasion.

The Government, by sending our troops to Iraq, is simply paying the premiums on the insurance policy.

And Pete, I think with East Timor the American's only publicly offered about 2 battalions of marines. It was the aircraft-carrier tasks forces and logistical support that propably told Indonesia they weren't mucking around.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 15 December 2006 12:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We would all to well to remember that loyalty is like respect. Both can be demanded but in reality have to be earned. They are reciprocal relationships, whether government to government; people to people or government to people. Politicians of all stripe, along with those whose IQ is higher than their collar size should ponder on the truth of what amounts to an iron law.

Of all the sins, betrayal is rarely mentioned, as it doesn't figure in the Deadly 7. However, betrayal of your country, friends and your own principles prove that it is by far the most deadly of all. Howver, as sins are largely considered irrelevant in this secular society, it follows that there is plenty about.
Posted by perikles, Friday, 15 December 2006 12:29:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think our part in the Iraq adventure had a lot more to do with a pending Free Trade Agreement and a bit of political sycophancy than sticking by our mates.

Remember when we asked the US to help us with troops on the ground during the East Timor period? They declined because it was not in their own interests.

Who rushed in to take all the wheat contracts when AWB got caught out?

Which country has all the Iraq rebuilding contracts to itself?

No hint of loyalty there.

After frequent discussions with a contact in the USA, I can confirm that almost all the Howard/Bush mutual backslapping we see on TV is for our own domestic consumption - it hardly rates a mention in the US media.

Politics works on pragmatism, not loyalty.
Posted by rache, Friday, 15 December 2006 1:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about loyalty to your principles.

The US has bent the definition of "torture" to suit its own purposes, for everyone else in the civilized world it is a crime against humanity.

It has not acknowledged the rule of law in the international arena by refusing to submit to the ICC and initiating an illegal war of aggression not sanctioned by the UN.

It has thrown out any notion of judicial fairness with the Guantanamo camp and trial process.

In the world of international relations realpolitik and self interest rule the day. There is precious little loyalty - country to country or to principles.

To think otherwise is very naive. It makes for nice warm pronouncements and mutual love-ins by the respective foreign ministers and other senior politicians from all sides but, when national self interest is concerned, loyalty will be quickly brushed aside.

There is nothing wrong with this, of course, this is the way it has always been and, as Mirko has argued elsewhere, the US is the "best show in town". Just be careful how much you actually believe in the warm pronouncements.
Posted by travellingnorth, Friday, 15 December 2006 1:37:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Narcissist

To educate Mirko further about the difference between naive loyalty and the AUS alliance here's more on US-Australian cooperation in 1999 INTERFET http://www.etan.org/et2000a/january/22-31/31howcos.htm :

"In his bunker at Darwin's RAAF base, US Brigadier General John Castellaw told the Herald that US involvement in the Timor crisis began early in 1999, long before Interfet went in: "We had been involved in contingency planning with the Australians for some time prior to the event."

The US general attached to Interfet arrived in Darwin well before September 20 and flew into East Timor "on D-Day" with General Cosgrove. "I would say we've been here since the beginning, and we're still here," he said.

While US ground forces were limited, the aim was to provide "a force multiplier", the general explained. This included logistical support for the heavy lifting of troops and equipment and bolstering intelligence collection.

As he put it: "We have intelligence capabilities, technical elements, that are unique and that add an element that is hard to obtain."

EP3 intelligence aircraft gathered collected signals off the Timor coast while US warships with intelligence capability and military back-up anchored offshore. [there's much more precise overt material on those sigint aspects - but I won't reproduce that in Australia... :) ]

Two weeks after Interfet arrived, the US moved one of its most powerful warships into Dili Harbour. The 40,000-tonne assault vessel Belleau Wood served the practical purpose of providing heavy lift helicopters for Interfet troops, but it was also, according to General Castellaw, a demonstration of American resolve in the crisis. "We meant for it to send a signal."

The Belleau Wood arrived just four days after the US Defence Secretary, Mr William Cohen, met General Wiranto, then still defence minister and military commander, in Jakarta.

Mr Cohen put immense pressure on General Wiranto and the TNI, warning that international economic aid and any resumption of military aid would depend on Jakarta reining in the militia.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 December 2006 1:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of you are missing the point.

The mateship speech was nothing more than a convenient out for Downer who did not want to publically ridicule the US, yet did not want to spruik them either.

Hes betting on both red and black here. If he appears to support the US and downplay the problems, he knows he will further divide himself from the growing sector of people unhappy with the war. If he has a negative comment on the US it may damage relations and create a wedge with them.

It was a very succinct and clever piece of politics. Well done Downer, perfect answer.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 15 December 2006 3:38:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't get this writer. Loyalty? If anything, we should be "loyal" to the UK, not the USA. And loyalty on the international stage means jack s**t when you are subject to the whim of the more powerful partner. This Bagrick writer was an ass to even bring it up.

The complexity of the situation for Australia, comes down to this: The symbolism of Australian involvement in the minds of the enemy/terrorists exceeds our contribution by many times. We have an insignificant impact on the war, yet we have distinguished ourselves as a target for terrorism and sewn mistrust in our region with our close partnership with the USA. The icing is that it has been a needless wasted expense.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 15 December 2006 4:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it loyalty to countries above all else or loyalty to democracy that includes all democratic countries whether we are in constant agreement in every day political and business machinations. There are 243 entities considered to be countries. 202 of these are considered sovereign states. Of the 243, 192 are member states of the U.N.
Prior to WWII there were 6 countries considered to be democracies. post WWII, 26. after the fall of communism, 55. Since Iraq (2004) the number of democratic countries has grown to 66. If you look on a map of the world the largest portion by land mass is represented by democratic governments.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/democrat.html
The following link grades each democracy.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
President G.W. Bush at his 2nd term inauguration stated that under his leadership advancing democracy would be the driving force behind American foreign policy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/inaugural/
"We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 15 December 2006 9:20:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the USA has now decided that it wants to support the spread of democracy?

It's a shame they don't think that way when they actively participated in the overthrow of several democratically elected governments in Chile, Nicaragua and so on.

It's also a bit late considering their practice of installing and supporting so many of the world's worst dictators over the last 50 years.

Meanwhile their infamous Patriot Act and the subsequent erosion of individual freedoms is a significant move away from their own democratic values.

Let's see how far our loyalty goes if another war front is opened up in Iran or North Korea.
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 16 December 2006 1:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When my friend is committing a crime, I need not be loyal.

Quite the opposite! I should try to stir him from his resolve. Joining him in the crime I become guilty, too.

All is relative.
Posted by Enrico, Saturday, 16 December 2006 8:04:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's one thing not to support a crime, it's another to be in on it from the get go, and to then duck out when the going gets tough, and still expect a share in the pay off. Australians can act naive and protest that their just victims of American strong arming and what ever is anti-American in a rush to be politically correct but the world isn't listening. Their watching our local behavior and how we're playing with our neighbours. Just like we're not buying the anti-American rants from elsewhere but observing more local relationships. You can't talk about Afghanistan without including Pakistan. You can't talk about Kashmir with out talking about Pakistan and India. You can't talk about India with out talking about Pakistan. And it goes on around the world.
If the United States was uninvoled in world affairs and were practising isolationist the same whingers would be out in full force.
Wasn't another poster saying that America didn't come into WWII to assist Australia until after Japans attack on Pearl Harbour?
We don't need to point at America to underline bungled foreign policy or well meaning intervention. Australia has her own history.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 16 December 2006 8:48:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If something controversial in the US activities it’s steadily allowing a former colonial master, which is the UK, still benefiting on country’s resources and projects.

Upon her history, Australia, a back-yard of England in Southern Hemisphere, just practically executes colonial master’s orders alike sending own people if even sexually overactive STD highly effected lusters of Cairo contingent on slaughtering the Gallipoly the top most perfect example is.
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 16 December 2006 9:14:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Loyalty is the same as patriotism. Blind obediance or fear of peer pressure. The result is what is happening world wide today. Be loyal to your religion, your country, your Political Party and accept you have given up thinking and making decisions. As such you must also accept responsibility for the state of the Union etc.

As to the US being our best mate. When was the last time they actually helped us in war? Don't say WW2 as they only entered due to Pearl Harbour. Did they charge up to PNG to help the blokes at Kokoda? The answer is NO. The biggest asset the US has militarily is the fear of the US forces. If you use them that fear goes away as they are just people, not Supermen. That's what invading Iraq has exposed, they are not afraid of war or the US at all.

As an aside can anyone tell me when the US last "won" a war? When was the last succesful invasion of another country? Again, apart from use of excessive force in WW2 they haven't "won" anything. They have always retreated in shame or left before the war was actually over.

I can only think of their own Civil War when they fought each other. They won that one!

As to Iraq, please give this line of "they were better off under Saddam" a miss. They were not. A percentage were but there were one or two people (sarcasm) who were not better off under Saddam as that is where they are now. Underground, under Saddam. Ridiculous argument.

If Saddam had been the target a sniper would have been sufficient so think again. It was never about removing Saddam and everyone knows that, it's just the last excuse on the list.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 16 December 2006 10:56:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobbyH, how exactly are wars fought these days? Groups of insurgents hiding amongst civillians, or better still veiled women? Is this your idea of warfare? And you actually wonder why it is virtually impossible to 'win' a war in these circumstances, especially when the bleeding hearts back home call 'retreat' every time another exloding car kills police recruits, actually justifying the cause for being there in the first place.
Seems you are nostalgic for the days when there actually was a hint of honour or dignity in war (if such a thing is possible).
Posted by trueaussie, Saturday, 16 December 2006 3:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"RobbyH, how exactly are wars fought these days? Groups of insurgents hiding amongst civillians, or better still veiled women? Is this your idea of warfare?"
Yes! It's called asymmetric warfare and is the ONLY way for resistance to fight a classic army.

Secondly, it is a mischaracterisation to say they are hiding amongst civilians and also extremely ludicrous. The civilians live in the cities ffs.

Lastly the war wasn't a failure because of rational objections. It was a failure from the very beginning stages of planning when all the strategists believed in a utopian fantasy of Joyful Liberation.
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 17 December 2006 12:40:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loyalty? Recently some politician said: 'I'm loyal'. Who cares? If that is all a person has to offer, they have nothing.
The alternative spelling for loyalty is 'stupidity' --- as in joining an illegal invasion!
Posted by petere, Sunday, 17 December 2006 1:34:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Trueaussie,

Sorry you missed my sarcasm mate. Obviously wars are never won. Regardless of the result everybody loses. I have no nostalgia for war, only repugnance and horror.

The point is that invading another country is always a failure. Look at Afghanistan's history for example. Over thousands of years they have been invaded, attacked, crushed so many times you wonder how there are still Afghani's. What they have done historically is simply retreat into the mountains and wait until the invaders leave or relax and they are back in their own country. It just doesn't work, never has, never will unless the invaders actually stay permanently and populate that country.

What's your proposal re Iraq? Stay forever? Kill everybody and repopulate it with non Iraqi's? When will "the job" be done? What will be your measure of an end to that situation? Tell us please as the reality is there can be no other result but the US, and us as followers, leaving Iraq and the people to whatever their fate holds.

You know as well as I that regardless of when the US etc leave the whole region will descend in turmoil and someone similar to Saddam will appear. It's looking like El Sadyr to me.

Which makes the whole exercise pointless don't you think? So why stay? Of course going should never have happened but it did. The problem now is how to get out at all, let alone with anything resembling peace.
Posted by RobbyH, Sunday, 17 December 2006 7:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How “get out”?

Simply. Would Australian contingent stay in Iraq as US and Britons march out?
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 18 December 2006 1:02:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Bagaric's 'loyalty' obviously only applies to the US. Where is Australia's loyalty to the West Papuans, who paid a very high price for helping diggers fight the Japanese in WWII? Where is the loyalty to the Vietnamese unfortunate enough to support the series of puppet governments fronting for the French and Americans up to when we 'cut and run'?

The US needs Australia as a usefully placed and nicely endowed 52 state, essential to the Full Spectrum Dominance that is official US Defence Dept policy. Australia needs the US like a fish needs a six-ship factory fishing fleet. Better we learn to get on with our neighbours (suggestion: stop collaborating with corrupt officals in stripping of natural resources) and quit sucking up to the planetary thug.
Posted by Liam, Monday, 18 December 2006 9:53:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aquarivs - yes, I was mentioning that America didn't enter world war two until after pearl harbor.

There's a few things you're conveniently ignoring here.

You're saying that the US would be jus as criticised for adopting isolationist policy as it is for interventionist. There's something to that, but take note of these points:

WW2 was a little different to the middle eastern wars. You can say 'coalition of the willing' all you like, but essentially it was the US that sparked and waged this war. WW2 embroiled all of Europe and most of Asia, then North America as well.

Secondly - compared to the current administration, the Clinton regime could be called isolationist. Why is at that anti-American sentiment is running at an all time high when they adopt an interventionist stance?

If it was really about spreading democracy, why is it always the middle east and close south american neighbours that get the interventionist treatment? Why is Africa ignored?

Make no mistake aquarivs - the anti american sentiment is about hypocrisy and failure, not a cut and dry interventionist approach.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 18 December 2006 1:03:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft
Make no mistake my personal understanding of politics goes beyond popular opinion. Every nut job with an axe to grind is out in full force the day after the election and it does not matter who or which party is elected. No honest leader is going to pass him or herself off as capable of being all things to all interest. They declare themselves prior to election and if elected go about their plans and policies. But no one today actually gets elected by the general public, I doubt they ever did. They get elected by special interest groups and lobbyist and old guard politicos. And whether you or I like it or not they are not lobbying for the individual politician. They are lobbying for reward and further influence. Government is give and take and our leaders have to give a lot to the takers in order to afford to do one good thing for the common voter and the general good of the public.
But since the average citizen gets the political spin of the haters and the attackers more so than an unbiased reporting on the issue I personally understand their lack of interest and any enthusaism, patriotic spirit or loyalty. Attack, belittle, tear down, smear, ridicule, undermine, and tell half the story and go for emotional punch rather than tell the real story. Grab the headline. It's not your politicians that think the general population is stupid. It's the news media. Sadly their view is readily accepted.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 18 December 2006 8:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy