Comments on: Our all-powerful media overlords

By: freddie

freddie — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:11:16 +0000

TheSincalir demand that all of his 40 tv stations carry an anti-Kerry film is a fine example of liberal control of the media, right?

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:10:03 +0000

You are allowed to debate foreign policy. What country should be invaded next? Debate.

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:50:21 +0000

sam, Given the role of FDR in cynically manipulating the American people into war, and given the results of that intervention (sixty years of a national security state, global interventionism, and permanent war economy), I’d say it’s too damned bad that FDR’s motives weren’t an issue on the table. If the public feels a “patriotic” obligation to get all “rah rah,” suspend their critical thinking abilities, and unite behind Glorious Leader in wartime, that’s quite an incentive for power-hungry politicians to get us into wars, don’t you think? If the government can lie us into war, and we’re obligated to “rally ‘round the flag” as soon as they start, just when the hell is it permissible to actually debate foreign policy? When the revisionist histories are written fifty years later and nobody gives a shit anymore?

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:42:26 +0000

Ummm, The Revolution was a war against the legal governments of the American colonies; and it occurred because of, not despite, an increasing level of critical thought among the citizenry. Anything that makes foreign adventurism by the centralized state less feasible is a GOOD THING. Anyway, if Steyn is saying that democracy can’t work unless the people are protected against hearing negative and critical things about the government, he’s got an awfully Straussian idea of democracy. Does anyone remember the days when self-described “conservatives” actually DISTRUSTED the government?

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:11:24 +0000

“There were precisely two countries which chose to enter the Second World War at its outset” Err, not quite two precisely- didn’t Australia declare war before Britain? And New Zealand? And South Africa? “All other participants waited until they were attacked.” What like Brazil? They just waited till they saw which way the wind was blowing.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:05:45 +0000

Germany was on the right side in the Cold War? Is Steyn aware that during the Cold War there were two countries called Germany? The Federal Republic of Germany is 1 for 1.

By: raj

raj — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:24:16 +0000

So much of what Mark Steyn writes appears to have been derived from judicious studying of his nether regions that it’s surprising that anyone takes him seriously.

By: jet

jet — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:19:38 +0000

This sums up France in the 20th century. In WWI in order for US soldiers to fight in France, France forced the US to purchase a French squad heavy machine gun. This thing was a POS which cost many man his life when it jammed, misfired, or just broke. Meanwhile, the best machine gun of WW sat hidden in R&D facilities in 1914 throughout WWI…unused. The French, always making a buck over a dead body.

By: jet

jet — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:11:54 +0000

So in 1966 when all US soldiers were kicked off French soil and major tensions were created, I guess they were still technically a member, but certaily not in spirit. In 1966 France became the same kind of ally Russia had been in 1944. Not really an ally, just sharing a common enemy. They get no credit in my book.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:48:11 +0000

Also since France wasn’t in Nato during the cold war… Also false btw. France withdrew from the military command in 1966 (at which time the cold war had been going for a while, as I recall) but has remained a member of NATO from its foundation to the present. France rejoined the military command in 1992.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:36:39 +0000

Also since France wasn’t in Nato during the cold war its hard to see how it was on the right side in that conflict. In WW2 French forces were fought by the Allies in North Africa (torch) and the South of France (Tolon). Hard to argue they were unequivocally on the same side in that conflict. A ludicrous calumny. There were precisely two countries which chose to enter the Second World War at its outset; the UK and France, who declared war on Germany in fulfilment of their treaty obligations. All other participants waited until they were attacked.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:00:04 +0000

“Belgium was of course Neutral at the outbreak of war’ Umm, I think there was a large country, west of the Atlantic that was neutral at the outbreak of both WWI and WWII. Of course, as Nicholas implies, neutrality was the right position in WW1.

By: Jackmormon

Jackmormon — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:00:50 +0000

Granted that the media prefers grand narratives, granted that the media during WWII was more critical than we allow for. But hasn’t the position of the US vis-a-vis the world fundamentally changed since the second world war? I’m not an expert on that period, but I would guess that American society didn’t generally recognize itself as being a decisive superpower in that fight—although, of course, it turned out to be one. After WWII, the US realized that it was indeed powerful, and since then it has in various ways tried to come to terms with its power. Frankly, in examining media bias in news reports, I would compare current coverage about Iraq to coverage of the Opium Wars before I would compare it to coverage of WWII…

By: WeSaferThemHealthier

WeSaferThemHealthier — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:14:11 +0000

Quiggin, There is one quote from Steyn I like though: “But that was the way they did things back then. Find the most promising local client, before Moscow or Paris or Beijing does. As the classic realpolitik line has it, he may be a sonofab*tch, but he’s our sonofab*tch. As I wrote a couple of weeks after 9/11, apropos the House of Saud and President Mubarak, “the inverse is more to the point: he may be our sonofab*tch, but he’s a sonofab*tch.” Trying to cherrypick local strongmen is a fool’s game.” I wonder how he feels sabout Allawi.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:06:42 +0000

Also since France wasn’t in Nato during the cold war its hard to see how it was on the right side in that conflict. In WW2 French forces were fought by the Allies in North Africa (torch) and the South of France (Tolon). Hard to argue they were unequivocally on the same side in that conflict. Belgium was of course Neutral at the outbreak of war, so again is hard to include as a willing ally. Greece is probably a better bet as the omitted country. So Steyn is right that these were the only countries that can unequivocally be defined as allies in all three conflicts. He did however make one incredible howler – Canada did not gain full independence until 1931, so technically was not an “ally” in WW1. Steyn is Canadian.