Hi john,

>>Absolutely not. To be clear. My opinion was drawn far before Micheal Moore released his books and movie. Mine is 90% based in what I see on the news here in holland. And we have a tradition here in holland (unlike in the US) that the news on the TV are unbiased. The newspapers might have a political background but the news on the TV does not. However, there are not much differences to find in the perception of american politics in our parties.

>There is no such thing as an "unbiased" report. As humans we all have our biases, the more professional reporters and news outlets work hard to limit theirs though.

I think you're wrong here. The news (TV) up here does not draw any opinion about issues at all. It just lists the facts. There is no analysis done on the TV news, just facts. However, it could say something like "The palistinian accuse the isreali from breaking the roadmap to peace" or "the isreali accuse the palestinian from having no control over Hamas". It is not an opinion, but a fact.

Even if there is analysis done in other (info-tainment) programs. It tends to look at both sides of the stories as much as possible. Those programs are usually of very high quality, providing the highest possible objectivity, whether it is politics, scientifical, social etc. It almost always will highlight both sides of the story: No pre-cooked conclusions. Even at 911, surely a terrible attack, those programs did go far beyond the inital anger. They provided us with the history of al-qaida, their motivations and believes. They let them tell their story, but did still did not point out one as the good or bad: Just facts. The final conclusions are up the the viewer, not the TV program.

>I assume since you're beating the "fact" drum that you have scientific data to prove that your country's reporting is unbiased and ours is not.

No, I'm not. I have scientific data about how safe people 'feel' up here. I don't have any scientific data about how safe people feel in the US. Unless I see scientific data, I cannot take anyones word about this issue without scientific numbers and their source.

>Well, you have fallen into the trap of assumption. I am an independent, but very conservative on most issues, liberal on others. I thought I was a libertarian at one time, but they are a little off the mark in my estimation. Then I thought I might want to be a member of the anarchist party, but they kept burning the meeting notices!<g> I have voted both sides of the issue. Two years ago, I did all the computer work for a local campaign for Sheriff for the Democratic nominee. He was a black man, who also happened to be a lifelong friend. I also worked for a white female democratic state rep years ago. These people believed in a lot of the same conservative values. So, I guess you be more correct labeling me a conservative than republican.

Thanks for the explaination.

>>Well lets see. You remember what happened in somalia? The US stepped in (I don't remember whether or not under the flag of the UN) to stop the genocide in Somalia. All it resulted in was that the war lords united against the US. The US eventually decided it was not worth the lives of american soldiers: There was no economical interest there.

>Your memory fails you then, try researching it. Two words - Bill Clinton.

Yes, and ... ?? Whether it was done under clinton or under Bush sr. It does not matter. The example shows that it is not always wise to step in between. This example was not a stab for any president, but just an example why you cannot/should not accuse anyone from stepping aside when two sides want to go to war.

>>See somalia. The problem is that you cannot control war all over the world. It is a myth you can. From a humaninity aspect it is absolutely terrible happening there (though recent indications it is a bit better now), but the alternative is somalia, or on a larger scale iraq or vietnam. Worth the cost?

>Problem is, you're doing no research into these issues. They were UN issues, not necessarily US issues. Personally, I believe we should intervene when a country is killing it's own by the hundreds of thousands. Remember that Hitler guy?

Again, you miss the point. You acuse the UN of not interfering in a conflict. So they did in somalia. You know the outcome. So what is my lesson ???

>>Hmmm reminds me of a high number of american priests.

>That's it deflect to a separate issue.

As far as that sexual abuse occurs in all layers of society. It is not exclusive to the military, the UN, politicians etc. So using this as an argument against the UN might be a bit too far fetched if you ask me.

>>The UN has good sides and bad sides. Now ask your politicians what to say about the UN and listen to their answer and draw your conclusion. Give me a reason why the US does not break with the UN ?

>I don't know why we don't break with the UN, other than the politicians on the left somehow think one world government is a good thing. I don't! How would you like it if all of a sudden the UN stepped in and told your country that you were going to follow the laws that were written in the US and so is the rest of the world? There would be people in the streets, wouldn't there? And there should be. Each country should have the ability to rule themselves and when the UN doesn't agree, that should be the UN's problem.
>The UN should be a group that mediates, not dictates.

I don't think the UN is a particular forestander of globalisation. It is an organisation that wants to address (global)matters on a global scale that. Human rights for example, Beeing present in war zones, Hunger threads, Nuclear weapon inspections, polution etc. It does not determine laws for countries. It does not force religion, etc. IOW, I don't think your example matches reality.

>>Sure you can attack to defend, but then you have to have the hard evidence the other side is a thread to you. In this case it was not the case. It was not proven. There are other countries beeing a bigger potiential thread.

>Ok, so what is "HARD" evidence? You mean like all the world intelligence community saying something is true. How about satellite phots of weapons stockpiles to go along with it?

Well at least HARD evidence is something entirely different from what US have shown us, because now the war technically has ended for about 1.5 years there still is no rock solid proof of this 'HARD' evidence. Did you ever hear about Hans Blix, and what he did have to say about the evidence. He was down there, leading the inspections.

Walter,