Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/10/03 11:59 AM, misterx2000 wrote: Stuff like this is not covered enough by teh media...which covers celebs and a minor US car accident more often.

News is subjective.

Consider this. Today, what is the main news story across England?

Would it be the Congo Civil War? Nah, just the bloody darkies acting up again.

The Euro "decision"? Nah, just the bloody Krauts pissed off at us for winning two World Wars/Nah, just the bloody Frogs pissed off at us for no reason, but whaddya expect, they're fahkin' Frogs?

Would it be something as mundane as David fucking Beckham leaving Manchester United PLC to play for Barcelona/Real Madrid/Milan? BINGO!!!

What the fuck? There are important events going on in the world (and, in the case of Option #2, glossed over *ahem*), and we're supposed to be waiting with baited breath over the rumoured transfer of an overrated two-trick wonder footballer, that's ridiculously overly celebritised for no reason, apart from he's married to one of the Spice Girls? Is it any wonder I didn't follow up on any journalism jobs if this is what passes itself off as Important Current Events, not only in the tabloids, but across the board (and doesn't Rupert "I'm Sure He's A Nice Bloke Really" Murdoch own 11% of Man Utd? He's got plenty invested in covering the story, suuch as a windfall from the £30m transfer fee, and plnety of papers to sell, and stories for Sky News, Sky Sports...). Let's see, I personally don't care, considering that if he moves abroad, he's going to be cruelly exposed. His bare talent will be exposed and he'll be back in the Premiership for a cut price within two years and, besides, if he hasn't learned English as a first language aged 27, he might as well just emigrate and hope for a miracle.

What? I've needed to get cathartic on this crap all week...

This has been going on for years and it was on the news yesterday. I'm surprised that the U.S. isn't liberating Congo, it's mostly French and Canadian troops that are trying to keep the peace.

At 6/10/03 03:33 PM, nailbomb wrote: This has been going on for years and it was on the news yesterday. I'm surprised that the U.S. isn't liberating Congo, it's mostly French and Canadian troops that are trying to keep the peace.

If the U.S. did, it would undoubtedly be criticized for doing so.

We could try, but the rest of the world would all want to dictate to us exactly how and what to do and then call us "dangerously unilateral" if we didn't cave to their demands. Then, once we went in, we would be flamed for any little slip-up or mistake. Afterwards, we'd be criticized for "not doing enough" and then our methods and results would be condemned, no matter how it turned out.

And punk-teen leftists would balem it all on "that dumb texan" and Fox News.

At 6/10/03 03:33 PM, nailbomb wrote: This has been going on for years and it was on the news yesterday. I'm surprised that the U.S. isn't liberating Congo, it's mostly French and Canadian troops that are trying to keep the peace.

the US has a reputation for being imperialist. perhaps not directly but by means of establishing US friendly governments. to intervene in Congo is to further feed that reputation.

also who is the US to side with if they were to enter central Africa? and exactly who would they be liberating from what?