he could have been talking about anything. How about a link?
HERE is one link . . .and its a good article too. Read it, I dare you.
It is very good at discussing the ways that this war are a failure in large geopolitical terms . . .such as the loss of the oil fields of even Saudi Arabia . . . ?!?!
) China last week startlingly warned Taiwan's re-elected president that it would use force if necessary to keep Taiwan part of China - whatever the consequences. Said Xu Shiquan, one of China's senior advisers on Taiwan affairs: 'China will pay any price to prevent [Taiwanese] independence.' No one at all familiar with Chinese history and Chinese culture will mistake that 'any price' for a bluff.
Let the reader understand: for decades, the US has pledged to defend Taiwan if it's ever attacked by China. But in Iraq Mr Bush has so undercut the image of American power that in the big league - the really big league - the mortal game of 'Chicken' may have begun.
Bush never even considered thinking about the really big picture!
HERE is one link . . .and its a good article too. Read it, I dare you.
It is very good at discussing the ways that this war are a failure in large geopolitical terms . . .such as the loss of the oil fields of even Saudi Arabia . . . ?!?!
You were right it was an interesting read. Slim on facts, don't get me wrong there were some facts. But, It oozed contempt like the biased editorial that it was. That is evident by the 5th or so sentence when he mentions "Bush regime". He could be right. I don't see things that way myself.
You were right it was an interesting read. Slim on facts, don't get me wrong there were some facts. But, It oozed contempt like the biased editorial that it was. That is evident by the 5th or so sentence when he mentions "Bush regime". He could be right. I don't see things that way myself.
Yo didn't read it . . . . who do you think you're fooling . . . it is a long article . . . you probably stopped when you got to the word 'regime'.
a_greer you just don't get it. You obviously haven't listened to NPR much after slandering it in your previous post. I was poking fun at you and Rush and apparently you haven't listened to much Rush either. He likes to make ad hominem attacks, exactly like I just did. Maybe you should read that Michael Moore book...
Yo didn't read it . . . . who do you think you're fooling . . . it is a long article . . . you probably stopped when you got to the word 'regime'.
It basically says that bush and co. ivaded iraq because of their slipping influence on SA and their desire to control oil without looking at the side effects.
This not an original article, there have been many like it.
Since I can't afford television access or have a stereo good enough to pick anything up except NPR on my clock radio...
NPR rules. I listen to it and I have a clearer view of what all the other news media outlets screw-up into their own commercial/consumer driven needs. I understand why the general sheepolation out there haven't a clue now... They get their news from commercial and ideological swill like FUXNews.
Thank you NPR. If I could afford it right now I'd give them a pledge...
Maybe they don't want to hear about how their mission pointless and a failure?
With all respect, sir, no. They don't. They don't want to hear that they are missing out on the good things in life (ie. 6-18 months of births, graduations, weddings, quality time w/ the family and friends, clean clothes and warm beds, real food, the internet, etc) for no good reason. Consider their position and excuse what may appear to be narrow-mindedness -- to us in our (relatively) cozy lives -- as a way of coping with a horrible situation.
Anyway, not to detract from the discussion, just couldn't resist throwing in my 2 cents.
With all respect, sir, no. They don't. They don't want to hear that they are missing out on the good things in life (ie. 6-18 months of births, graduations, weddings, quality time w/ the family and friends, clean clothes and warm beds, real food, the internet, etc) for no good reason. Consider their position and excuse what may appear to be narrow-mindedness -- to us in our (relatively) cozy lives -- as a way of coping with a horrible situation.
Anyway, not to detract from the discussion, just couldn't resist throwing in my 2 cents.
please continue...
But it is a mistake to assume that Democrats would just go in and say . .. your all wasting your time, or worse, what Rush thinks, say that they are terrible for the war they are waging . . .
They are courageous and competent and highly trained soldiers, many of whom know what's what, They have a right to hear more than the mere lies about how hunky dory everything is and how everyone loves their cause when in fact there is some questions raised.
They are not automatons, or worse, puppets who should be kept from the 'corrupting' influence of knowledge . . .
Besides, when they get on the internet and see that the AFR IS being selective as to the partisan position it chooses to allow, then they will loose even more faith in their superiors and suspect their superior's faith in them as individuals.
Could it be because the soldiers don't want to hear anyone disparaging their commander. Soldiers, for the most part, are "funny" about that. It might also have a lot about moral while they are in peril.
These are just thoughts that I have.
So I take it you were fighting to get Rush off of military radio during the Clinton years, when he was constantly disparaging the commander in chief, right?
So I take it you were fighting to get Rush off of military radio during the Clinton years, when he was constantly disparaging the commander in chief, right?
I wasn't paying attention to politics too much during that time. But there is a difference, IMO.
I like to call it WARTIME. Things change.
By the way, rush can fly a kite as far as I care. But my instincts tell me the complaint would be the same if it was any other conservative in place of him.
The complaint would be the same because the complaint is valid. If US taxpayer dollars are funding 1 hour of PURE REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA, then there should also be 1 hour of pure Democratic propaganda. NPR is not propaganda, it is a worldwide respected journalistic bureau, so don't try to throw that up as "balancing" out Limbaugh.
Better yet, how about NO partisan propaganda on the radio that Americans pay for?
And in wartime particularly the need for balanced and level playing fields is ever more important. Not that this is an actual war, legally.
I wasn't paying attention to politics too much during that time. But there is a difference, IMO.
I like to call it WARTIME. Things change.
By the way, rush can fly a kite as far as I care. But my instincts tell me the complaint would be the same if it was any other conservative in place of him.
You're still NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
and yes, it would be the same complaint if the only radio allowed was a non-stop one sided propagandinstic partisan diatribe!
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
he could have been talking about anything. How about a link?
How about we "get creative" and copy the text of the quote and paste into Google and see what comes up?
Originally posted by NaplesX
he could have been talking about anything. How about a link?
HERE is one link . . .and its a good article too. Read it, I dare you.
It is very good at discussing the ways that this war are a failure in large geopolitical terms . . .such as the loss of the oil fields of even Saudi Arabia . . . ?!?!
) China last week startlingly warned Taiwan's re-elected president that it would use force if necessary to keep Taiwan part of China - whatever the consequences. Said Xu Shiquan, one of China's senior advisers on Taiwan affairs: 'China will pay any price to prevent [Taiwanese] independence.' No one at all familiar with Chinese history and Chinese culture will mistake that 'any price' for a bluff.
Let the reader understand: for decades, the US has pledged to defend Taiwan if it's ever attacked by China. But in Iraq Mr Bush has so undercut the image of American power that in the big league - the really big league - the mortal game of 'Chicken' may have begun.
Bush never even considered thinking about the really big picture!
Originally posted by faust9
NPR isn't available outside the US, Rush is. I could listen to Rush while in Sasebo, but not NPR.
In Italy (1995 - 1999) Armed Forces Radio had music, NPR, Limbaugh, and Schlessinger.
Originally posted by pfflam
HERE is one link . . .and its a good article too. Read it, I dare you.
It is very good at discussing the ways that this war are a failure in large geopolitical terms . . .such as the loss of the oil fields of even Saudi Arabia . . . ?!?!
You were right it was an interesting read. Slim on facts, don't get me wrong there were some facts. But, It oozed contempt like the biased editorial that it was. That is evident by the 5th or so sentence when he mentions "Bush regime". He could be right. I don't see things that way myself.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You were right it was an interesting read. Slim on facts, don't get me wrong there were some facts. But, It oozed contempt like the biased editorial that it was. That is evident by the 5th or so sentence when he mentions "Bush regime". He could be right. I don't see things that way myself.
Yo didn't read it . . . . who do you think you're fooling . . . it is a long article . . . you probably stopped when you got to the word 'regime'.
Originally posted by pfflam
Yo didn't read it . . . . who do you think you're fooling . . . it is a long article . . . you probably stopped when you got to the word 'regime'.
What? You are questioning my reading speed?
Come on. I read it. Why would you do that?
This is just silly.
Originally posted by pfflam
Yo didn't read it . . . . who do you think you're fooling . . . it is a long article . . . you probably stopped when you got to the word 'regime'.
It basically says that bush and co. ivaded iraq because of their slipping influence on SA and their desire to control oil without looking at the side effects.
This not an original article, there have been many like it.
Good Morning Abu Ghraib!
Since I can't afford television access or have a stereo good enough to pick anything up except NPR on my clock radio...
NPR rules. I listen to it and I have a clearer view of what all the other news media outlets screw-up into their own commercial/consumer driven needs. I understand why the general sheepolation out there haven't a clue now... They get their news from commercial and ideological swill like FUXNews.
Thank you NPR. If I could afford it right now I'd give them a pledge...
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe they don't want to hear about how their mission pointless and a failure?
With all respect, sir, no. They don't. They don't want to hear that they are missing out on the good things in life (ie. 6-18 months of births, graduations, weddings, quality time w/ the family and friends, clean clothes and warm beds, real food, the internet, etc) for no good reason. Consider their position and excuse what may appear to be narrow-mindedness -- to us in our (relatively) cozy lives -- as a way of coping with a horrible situation.
Anyway, not to detract from the discussion, just couldn't resist throwing in my 2 cents.
please continue...
Originally posted by kage2050
With all respect, sir, no. They don't. They don't want to hear that they are missing out on the good things in life (ie. 6-18 months of births, graduations, weddings, quality time w/ the family and friends, clean clothes and warm beds, real food, the internet, etc) for no good reason. Consider their position and excuse what may appear to be narrow-mindedness -- to us in our (relatively) cozy lives -- as a way of coping with a horrible situation.
Anyway, not to detract from the discussion, just couldn't resist throwing in my 2 cents.
please continue...
But it is a mistake to assume that Democrats would just go in and say . .. your all wasting your time, or worse, what Rush thinks, say that they are terrible for the war they are waging . . .
They are courageous and competent and highly trained soldiers, many of whom know what's what, They have a right to hear more than the mere lies about how hunky dory everything is and how everyone loves their cause when in fact there is some questions raised.
They are not automatons, or worse, puppets who should be kept from the 'corrupting' influence of knowledge . . .
Besides, when they get on the internet and see that the AFR IS being selective as to the partisan position it chooses to allow, then they will loose even more faith in their superiors and suspect their superior's faith in them as individuals.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Could it be because the soldiers don't want to hear anyone disparaging their commander. Soldiers, for the most part, are "funny" about that. It might also have a lot about moral while they are in peril.
These are just thoughts that I have.
So I take it you were fighting to get Rush off of military radio during the Clinton years, when he was constantly disparaging the commander in chief, right?
Originally posted by Kirkland
So I take it you were fighting to get Rush off of military radio during the Clinton years, when he was constantly disparaging the commander in chief, right?
I wasn't paying attention to politics too much during that time. But there is a difference, IMO.
I like to call it WARTIME. Things change.
By the way, rush can fly a kite as far as I care. But my instincts tell me the complaint would be the same if it was any other conservative in place of him.
Better yet, how about NO partisan propaganda on the radio that Americans pay for?
And in wartime particularly the need for balanced and level playing fields is ever more important. Not that this is an actual war, legally.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I wasn't paying attention to politics too much during that time. But there is a difference, IMO.
I like to call it WARTIME. Things change.
By the way, rush can fly a kite as far as I care. But my instincts tell me the complaint would be the same if it was any other conservative in place of him.
You're still NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
and yes, it would be the same complaint if the only radio allowed was a non-stop one sided propagandinstic partisan diatribe!