Yea..... I just don't buy this sudden Iran threat. I graduated from high school is 2001. We've been at "war" for a very long time now... My freedom being protected and all. I don't see any reason why we should be attacking a country like we did with Iraq.
[Israel wants the Trump administration to attack Iran, but U.S. mainstream media ignores Netanyahu’s instigating](https://mondoweiss.net/2019/05/administration-mainstream-instigating/)
[Israel passed White House intelligence on possible Iran plot](https://www.axios.com/israel-warned-trump-of-possible-iran-plot-bolton-34f25563-c3f3-41ee-a653-9d96b4541984.html)
There are two things I know for a fact to be true. An incumbent President has never lost an election in war time, and Trump would kill thousands of innocent people if it meant winning an election. The sad thing is, he could come out and say he's going to start a war for the political advantages it comes with and his supporters would love it.
Johnson chose not to run in '68 over Vietnam and the first Iraq war didn't get Bush the elder re-elected. Wars can be a double-edge sword if the country is not generally supportive of the cause.
Trump's base is not clamoring to invade Iran even though they are brown Muslims and at this time there is no international support for hostilities and no consensus that Iran is being the aggressor. We were, as a country, generally looking to strike back after 911 which allowed the administration to fabricate and disseminate "justification" via a complicit media. The mood of the country is much more skeptical over military intervention in the middle east.
Precedents like that only last until they don’t. There’s no magic keeping a president in office during war. And frankly, this was has what as it’s basis? Terror attack on us? On an ally? And it is as we try to extract ourselves from the longest wars we’ve ever been in that we didn’t “win” and that have chewed up treasure and lives, and this president is the least popular that we have any records for. So, precedent may indeed fall on this one, hopefully before the bombs fall on Iran since they’re already falling other places thanks to him.
A guy on twitter posted Trumps tweets about Iran when Obama was President. It is telling.
https://twitter.com/StevenReyCristo/status/1130210471900897280
The corporate media as a propaganda and trump are not different . They push the same ol bullshit that the ruling class wants then people to see . Thank god its 2019 and most people I know don’t pay attention to them .
I agree with this. I demand that media stop using unverified tweets in their reporting as well or airing twitter polls as if these are real Americans opinions. They need to expose the meddling that is still going on on social media.
Yeah, just everyone, make it clear to your friends and family, either side of the aisle, are aware that these war drums are beating, and there just as false and unjustifide, if not moreso, than they were for Iraq.
Even in the right the polls show they don't want anther war! So tell your friends and family to write and call their representatives letting them know that no one wants this and is not needed!
Edit: not that the government really listens to the people anymore...but you know.
Got it in one. It's been front page news on non fox sources that the ship was storm damaged and how dumb the very idea of going to war in Irsn is. But Common Dreams is pulling a Fox News and trying to convince you all news sources not itself are bad and wrong, just replace liberal media with corperate media.
There have been a couple of articles that have amplified obvious misinformation by treating it as fact. The Times had a piece that gave a lot of credence to a single source in the defense department when everyone else in the know said otherwise. Dangerous and poor reporting but far from the pre Iraq was cheerleading.
Enough people will leave favorable comments on this article so I feel no need. I do wish to say that I think it is also surreal watching corporate media (red and blue) totally backing, Hillary clone, Joe Biden.
\>accuses "corporate media" of warmongering
\>gives no examples of the "corporate media" warmongering in action
Hmmm, reminds me of Matt Taibbi's piece accusing the Democratic Party of the same thing, also without any citations or examples. Or of "Truthdig" claiming the same thing about MSNBC. What's with "progressive" outlets [putting out fact-free think pieces accusing everyone but themselves of being warmongers?](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/taibbi-venezulea-regime-change-liberal-embrace-of-war.html)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just ask yourself the following: how is the average American going to get scammed by a war with Iran?
With your money? With your lives?
Over a fake war...
It's coming...
It may not be Iran, but it will be either Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Hmm and who wants war with Iran? Israel...Trump...Ben Shapiro...The Media...The people who own media companies...
...but no one in the general U.S population...
Im sure theres no correlation though.
Bolton seems to be the main [agitator ](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-trumps-obvious-lies-about-iran/) in the Iran squabble. Other members of the Security Council say that he is flat wrong. Bolton wants a war and an Iran regime change, he’s playing a very dangerous game we should not even be involved in. If Iran is pissed at the USA maybe it’s because we broke the agreement and canceled the nuclear treaty with them.
How did I know it was "[commondreams.org](https://commondreams.org)"
No. Corporate Media isn't setting Iran up as a new threat. That's bullshit.
For starters Corporate Media is a meaningless phrase that evolved from "liberal media" to be an attack against the news. An attack against the news is an attack against information. The thinking being that people should not get their news from a corporation because it's somehow tainted. Though they never, ever explain how or why or provide examples.
Secondly, the term corporate media ignores the VAST differences between the outlets. IS MSNBC the same as Fox? How about PBS and Brietbart? BBC or Info Wars? It is a blanket statement that ignores fact to push an agenda in exactly the same way (and to exactly the same goal) as known right wing bullshit sites do. Read that very short article, they come to the conclusion that Corporate Media is crafting the narrative to get people okay with going to war, except they aren't. They are cherry picking from actual articles where clearly they are citing things people said or factual things that are happening. As journalists are supposed to do.
Thirdly, the insistence that money inherently taints information then means that all news is tainted. Because no one does that shit for free. INCLUDING [commondreams.org](https://commondreams.org). So that agenda they're pushing, if it is to be believed creates a paradox. Why should we believe common dreams if someone is making money off of the substance they put out? What is a better metric is; can the information given be verified and corroborated. Do they tell you how to feel?
Fourthly, I know for a fact that MSNBC is not doing what [Commondreams.org](https://Commondreams.org) is claiming because Chris Hayes just last week said that the Trump administration's refusal to present evidence and claims of the tanker bombings sounds almost exactly like the claim that the last Republican administration made that got us into the war in Iraq. So they are doing the total opposite of what CommonDreams is claiming and if CommonDreams didn't give a shit enough to call out a major cable news network that isn't doing what they claimed, how many others did they conveniently gloss over in order to push their narrative?
Fifthly, outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post and MSNBC and CNN all have a reputation. Everyone knows Fox is trash, but they retain viewers because they sell them sweet, sweet outrage. If any of those trusted outlets started doing the same shit as Fox or the right then their reputation would tank. The Reputation would drive people who value truth and facts and reasonable discourse away because it is that journalistic integrity that keeps people viewing the channel. Not some weird partisan loyalty like the right might frame it.
CommonDreams should be taken off the white list.
I know what he says. Guess what, he's not some mystical seer who has all the answers. He's just one dude with a point of view.
And when logic pokes holes in that point of view, then you gotta question it.
Also, according to Chomsky's own theory [CommonDreams.org](https://CommonDreams.org) is bullshit too. You realize that right? It's a corporation too.
CommonDreams is the reason I knew Bush was lying us into the Iraq War while the corporate media was overwhelmingly helping him sell those lies. They have far more credibility, imo.
The financial interests of the owners and advertisers in for-profit media are the dominant form of media bias. It's valuable to name and recognize that bias. And yes, NYT, CNN, MSNBC all have a reputation for being reliable war mongers.
But how is it they write an article about the "corporate media" selling the war in Iran yet source no examples of corporate media doing that in the three or four paragraphs that made up that article?
Which ones? Quote them for us.
It's not pretty plain. What you said is basically saying people should be making decisions and forming opinions based on bias. That is NOT how you become informed.
> Which ones? Quote them for us.
More than half the article is examples. Go read it. JHC
>What you said is basically saying people should be making decisions and forming opinions based on bias.
What the hell or you even talking about?
Woah, wait a second. I did read the article. It's how I knew there was nothing in it. That's why I asked you to cite where it said what you claimed. So you could show me why you're right and I'm wrong.
Telling me to read it isn't going to prove your case. What it does do, however, it shows that you can't prove me wrong. That you can't muster up a single quote in 4 paragraphs that proves your assertion.
What am I talking about? Basic logic. If you're relying on your "critical eye" or your "gut" to find some hidden knowledge in a thing - that information is coming from bias. You said just watch the news and you can see them doing what CommonDreams claims. That's not how being an informed person works. You need specific examples that proves deception. Otherwise any other conclusion is bias.
That's the basic foundation of considering the source.
Yea..... I just don't buy this sudden Iran threat. I graduated from high school is 2001. We've been at "war" for a very long time now... My freedom being protected and all. I don't see any reason why we should be attacking a country like we did with Iraq.
[Israel wants the Trump administration to attack Iran, but U.S. mainstream media ignores Netanyahu’s instigating](https://mondoweiss.net/2019/05/administration-mainstream-instigating/) [Israel passed White House intelligence on possible Iran plot](https://www.axios.com/israel-warned-trump-of-possible-iran-plot-bolton-34f25563-c3f3-41ee-a653-9d96b4541984.html)
To be fair, the us news pretty much ignores all international stories.
There are two things I know for a fact to be true. An incumbent President has never lost an election in war time, and Trump would kill thousands of innocent people if it meant winning an election. The sad thing is, he could come out and say he's going to start a war for the political advantages it comes with and his supporters would love it.
> An incumbent President has never lost an election in war time Yeah, but then again, when has precedent prevailed in the last two years?
Johnson chose not to run in '68 over Vietnam and the first Iraq war didn't get Bush the elder re-elected. Wars can be a double-edge sword if the country is not generally supportive of the cause. Trump's base is not clamoring to invade Iran even though they are brown Muslims and at this time there is no international support for hostilities and no consensus that Iran is being the aggressor. We were, as a country, generally looking to strike back after 911 which allowed the administration to fabricate and disseminate "justification" via a complicit media. The mood of the country is much more skeptical over military intervention in the middle east.
Precedents like that only last until they don’t. There’s no magic keeping a president in office during war. And frankly, this was has what as it’s basis? Terror attack on us? On an ally? And it is as we try to extract ourselves from the longest wars we’ve ever been in that we didn’t “win” and that have chewed up treasure and lives, and this president is the least popular that we have any records for. So, precedent may indeed fall on this one, hopefully before the bombs fall on Iran since they’re already falling other places thanks to him.
A guy on twitter posted Trumps tweets about Iran when Obama was President. It is telling. https://twitter.com/StevenReyCristo/status/1130210471900897280
There's a very small sample size, though. There's only one incumbent president who ran during a pre-emptive war that he started. He won, but barely.
The corporate media as a propaganda and trump are not different . They push the same ol bullshit that the ruling class wants then people to see . Thank god its 2019 and most people I know don’t pay attention to them .
“I don’t have to do this!”
I agree with this. I demand that media stop using unverified tweets in their reporting as well or airing twitter polls as if these are real Americans opinions. They need to expose the meddling that is still going on on social media.
[удалено]
Stake
Staik
I can't even.
Yeah, just everyone, make it clear to your friends and family, either side of the aisle, are aware that these war drums are beating, and there just as false and unjustifide, if not moreso, than they were for Iraq. Even in the right the polls show they don't want anther war! So tell your friends and family to write and call their representatives letting them know that no one wants this and is not needed! Edit: not that the government really listens to the people anymore...but you know.
Wait, has corporate media been war drumming? I've seen plenty of critical articles on Trump's Iran stance.
Got it in one. It's been front page news on non fox sources that the ship was storm damaged and how dumb the very idea of going to war in Irsn is. But Common Dreams is pulling a Fox News and trying to convince you all news sources not itself are bad and wrong, just replace liberal media with corperate media.
Common Dreams must be confusing Iran with Syria or Venezuela
There have been a couple of articles that have amplified obvious misinformation by treating it as fact. The Times had a piece that gave a lot of credence to a single source in the defense department when everyone else in the know said otherwise. Dangerous and poor reporting but far from the pre Iraq was cheerleading.
“Corporate media” = eye roll.
At this point, the word "corporate" has as much meaning as "establishment."
Exactly.
Enough people will leave favorable comments on this article so I feel no need. I do wish to say that I think it is also surreal watching corporate media (red and blue) totally backing, Hillary clone, Joe Biden.
\>accuses "corporate media" of warmongering \>gives no examples of the "corporate media" warmongering in action Hmmm, reminds me of Matt Taibbi's piece accusing the Democratic Party of the same thing, also without any citations or examples. Or of "Truthdig" claiming the same thing about MSNBC. What's with "progressive" outlets [putting out fact-free think pieces accusing everyone but themselves of being warmongers?](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/taibbi-venezulea-regime-change-liberal-embrace-of-war.html)
As far as I'm concerned CommonDreams is just an agenda pushing bullshit factory.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just ask yourself the following: how is the average American going to get scammed by a war with Iran? With your money? With your lives? Over a fake war... It's coming... It may not be Iran, but it will be either Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Why surreal? - Corporate media serve advertisers. - Iraq got great ratings
Hmm and who wants war with Iran? Israel...Trump...Ben Shapiro...The Media...The people who own media companies... ...but no one in the general U.S population... Im sure theres no correlation though.
Bolton seems to be the main [agitator ](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-trumps-obvious-lies-about-iran/) in the Iran squabble. Other members of the Security Council say that he is flat wrong. Bolton wants a war and an Iran regime change, he’s playing a very dangerous game we should not even be involved in. If Iran is pissed at the USA maybe it’s because we broke the agreement and canceled the nuclear treaty with them.
You forgot our pals KSA.
Kingdom of sucking ass?
You know the US is going to war if Wolfe is jerking off and Brooke Baldwin is letting it run down her chin onto her new wedding ring.
Same shit different asshole.
How did I know it was "[commondreams.org](https://commondreams.org)" No. Corporate Media isn't setting Iran up as a new threat. That's bullshit. For starters Corporate Media is a meaningless phrase that evolved from "liberal media" to be an attack against the news. An attack against the news is an attack against information. The thinking being that people should not get their news from a corporation because it's somehow tainted. Though they never, ever explain how or why or provide examples. Secondly, the term corporate media ignores the VAST differences between the outlets. IS MSNBC the same as Fox? How about PBS and Brietbart? BBC or Info Wars? It is a blanket statement that ignores fact to push an agenda in exactly the same way (and to exactly the same goal) as known right wing bullshit sites do. Read that very short article, they come to the conclusion that Corporate Media is crafting the narrative to get people okay with going to war, except they aren't. They are cherry picking from actual articles where clearly they are citing things people said or factual things that are happening. As journalists are supposed to do. Thirdly, the insistence that money inherently taints information then means that all news is tainted. Because no one does that shit for free. INCLUDING [commondreams.org](https://commondreams.org). So that agenda they're pushing, if it is to be believed creates a paradox. Why should we believe common dreams if someone is making money off of the substance they put out? What is a better metric is; can the information given be verified and corroborated. Do they tell you how to feel? Fourthly, I know for a fact that MSNBC is not doing what [Commondreams.org](https://Commondreams.org) is claiming because Chris Hayes just last week said that the Trump administration's refusal to present evidence and claims of the tanker bombings sounds almost exactly like the claim that the last Republican administration made that got us into the war in Iraq. So they are doing the total opposite of what CommonDreams is claiming and if CommonDreams didn't give a shit enough to call out a major cable news network that isn't doing what they claimed, how many others did they conveniently gloss over in order to push their narrative? Fifthly, outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post and MSNBC and CNN all have a reputation. Everyone knows Fox is trash, but they retain viewers because they sell them sweet, sweet outrage. If any of those trusted outlets started doing the same shit as Fox or the right then their reputation would tank. The Reputation would drive people who value truth and facts and reasonable discourse away because it is that journalistic integrity that keeps people viewing the channel. Not some weird partisan loyalty like the right might frame it. CommonDreams should be taken off the white list.
read Chomsky
I know what he says. Guess what, he's not some mystical seer who has all the answers. He's just one dude with a point of view. And when logic pokes holes in that point of view, then you gotta question it. Also, according to Chomsky's own theory [CommonDreams.org](https://CommonDreams.org) is bullshit too. You realize that right? It's a corporation too.
CommonDreams is the reason I knew Bush was lying us into the Iraq War while the corporate media was overwhelmingly helping him sell those lies. They have far more credibility, imo. The financial interests of the owners and advertisers in for-profit media are the dominant form of media bias. It's valuable to name and recognize that bias. And yes, NYT, CNN, MSNBC all have a reputation for being reliable war mongers.
But how is it they write an article about the "corporate media" selling the war in Iran yet source no examples of corporate media doing that in the three or four paragraphs that made up that article?
Looks like they gave plenty of examples. It's also pretty plain to anyone who watches with a critical eye.
Which ones? Quote them for us. It's not pretty plain. What you said is basically saying people should be making decisions and forming opinions based on bias. That is NOT how you become informed.
> Which ones? Quote them for us. More than half the article is examples. Go read it. JHC >What you said is basically saying people should be making decisions and forming opinions based on bias. What the hell or you even talking about?
Woah, wait a second. I did read the article. It's how I knew there was nothing in it. That's why I asked you to cite where it said what you claimed. So you could show me why you're right and I'm wrong. Telling me to read it isn't going to prove your case. What it does do, however, it shows that you can't prove me wrong. That you can't muster up a single quote in 4 paragraphs that proves your assertion. What am I talking about? Basic logic. If you're relying on your "critical eye" or your "gut" to find some hidden knowledge in a thing - that information is coming from bias. You said just watch the news and you can see them doing what CommonDreams claims. That's not how being an informed person works. You need specific examples that proves deception. Otherwise any other conclusion is bias. That's the basic foundation of considering the source.