Are they lying sacks of shit or does the media just make them out that way? I've been wondering for a while now if this whole ebola scare was legit or not. If it's as bad as people was saying it was why isn't it on the news anymore? Why is no one talking or thinking about it now? I personally think the US Government lies about everything

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/health/ebola-one-year-later/

There's an article from just 8 hours ago about the epidemic. It's still in the news, just not in the mainstream media as much anymore because that's how the news cycle works.

If it was just the US government lying about it, why have so many other countries acknowledged the epidemic and sent aid of their own? What would they possibly stand to gain by lying about something so easily proven false?

There are plenty of lies in politics but this was a real epidemic and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. I honestly can't put it any other way.

We sent 3000 US Marines to deal with the epidemic in Ethiopia, and from what I've heard, they did a great job addressing people's health needs.

When the outbreak began to get controlled and buzz began to die out the news shifted to something hotter, like ISIS.

dont worry; thats what everyone thinks lol

I'm sorry, I dldn't get what this topic is about. Even a basic google search would have revealed that the Ebola scare wasn't a piece of United States propaganda and that people are still talking about it now. Why wouldn't you actively research something before accusing a government of lying about it? If your contention is that they lie about everything, what do you mean? So if they said "We're going to deploy fireworks on the 4th of July" that would be a lie too?

I think she's just suddenly surprised at current events and immediately went here to talk about it to us.

Quote from GuardianTempest

I think she's just suddenly surprised at current events and immediately went here to talk about it to us.

But to BE surprised about the lack of Ebola news, surely she must have checked up on whether there was Ebola news or not?

OP probably doesn't read news sites because studies have shown that news sites are more boring than stick animation sites.

and then below news sites are the general forum section of stick animation sites


also maybe the debate topic should be changed

Quote from Alien

also maybe the debate topic should be changed

Changed to what, though? Her line of questioning was essentially about the government covering up lies.

Quote from Nish

Changed to what, though? Her line of questioning was essentially about the government covering up lies.

This is correct. I only used ebola as an example. The way the US government works is ridiculous, i mean they start wars for oil. They can control the media too so who knows whats really happening behind closed doors.

Quote from Impious

This is correct. I only used ebola as an example. The way the US government works is ridiculous, i mean they start wars for oil. They can control the media too so who knows whats really happening behind closed doors.

Did you read any of the posts in the previous page?

Most government work that way, I'm afraid. They just don't have the kind of of muscle to pull off the stunts that the US government gets away with (or the Freedom of speech that the media has in the US which allows them to expose it. In most countries you just don't hear of corrupt government because the media is not allowed to speak of it). It is a fundamental problem with politicians and not specifically the US government. Oil was a massive factor, and certainly an enormous motivation, when it comes to conflicts in the Middle-East, but to imply that they fabricated a war behind closed doors FOR oil and nothing else would be a bit simplistic, and very uninformed worldview.

I see what you mean but I still think that it was all for oil. Some time ago the US was supplying the Middle East with weapons,back when oil prices were still low and things were good here. Then there was some kind discord and they attacked us, the oil prices shot up. But now they're starting to go back down after Obama declares that the war on terror is over? Maybe it's just because I'm not from here but that's the way i see them.

Quote from Impious

I see what you mean but I still think that it was all for oil. Some time ago the US was supplying the Middle East with weapons,back when oil prices were still low and things were good here. Then there was some kind discord and they attacked us, the oil prices shot up. But now they're starting to go back down after Obama declares that the war on terror is over? Maybe it's just because I'm not from here but that's the way i see them.

Like I said, oil was certainly a motivating factor. For example, no one in the US forced Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. He gave them a bloody good reason to step in. Nobody asked the fundamentalist groups to openly begin showing signs of hostility. To say that it was all about oil is really a very narrow view to take on the whole scenario.

Of course when you invade a country, you do things that make the economics of it more profitable to you. But lets not forget that everyone from the Soviet Regime to China have expressed an interest in that region ONLY for oil. So to blame the US government alone for it would be pointless.

Obama is backing down because of increased pressure to withdraw from various sources. However, that has led to disaster. You know all these liberalfags who were calling for US troops to come back home? They're the ones moaning the rise of ISIS now. ISIS is specifically gaining power because the US withdrew their forces.

This isn't a fashionable thing to say, but the Middle East has ALWAYS been a land that can only be controlled through force. Whether it was from the Mohammedan tribes warring each other, the USSR, Capitalist Fascism, the Al Quaida or Saddam Hussein's regime, it is a place where violence has always dictated the winner.

Geopolitically speaking, there were numerous advantages to invading Iraq that is about MORE than just oil. For one, Osama Bin Laden was trying to take control of Pakistan, which was key to toppling India. Population wise, India is USA's only real hope to rival China's economic growth. Lets also not forget Iran's considerable wealth and the entire situation between Israel and Palestine which will only be conducive to control if troops are on the ground somewhere.

Secondly, the rise of fundamentalism had to be stopped. Bush won the second election based almost entirely on his retaliation to the terrorism that was built around the 9/11 propaganda. These things are worth a LOT of money too, not just oil.

Thirdly, yes there were NO weapons of mass destruction. But after 9/11, and Pakistan's revelation that they did have nuclear technology, nothing could be left to chance. It is easy to say "omgtheyhadnoWMDs" but who the fuck would take the chance of NOT going in and looking? What most people don't know is that some of the FLAGS used by fundamentalist Islamic groups (almost ALL of whom were given refuge by Saddam Hussein's regime had fucking Mushroom Clouds as their sigil.)

I'll say it again, oil WAS a huge motivating factor. But to say it was "all for oil" (which is what you did) is a high-schooler's view of politics, not a global-centric one.