Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Bomb attacks in London England
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55368 is a reply to message #55363] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 17:55   |
Nightmale
Messages: 2
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give them
more oil power.
It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and not
for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was obviouly
sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care if
others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost* would
have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that as
he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had waited
a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually *didn't
want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in charge,
and that would give them more power politically as the country was restructured.
That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate for
so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of countries
weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it was
getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The way
it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on war
for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55371 is a reply to message #55363] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 18:48 |
Pete Ruthenburg
Messages: 127
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
dea what their interests are, other than any reason to
kill. This is the essence of evil. It isn't a political agenda, it's a
perverse counter-moral agenda that can't be requited or quenched until it
has complete control.
Blaming the bombings on the US and its' allies is like saying terrorist have
just as much right to express themselves by killing innocent men, women and
children as we do to own an iPod with our favorite tunes (I don't own one,
but bin Laden probably does).
No offense Jef - you are entitled to your opinion - just expressing mine.
On 7/7/05 8:50 AM, in article 42cd40e8@linux, "Jef Knight" <"Jef Knight">
wrote:
> Don Nafe wrote:
>
>> Just hear about it...check your news
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>Kim,
I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however, agree
with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all (my
opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war feel
due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in the
desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet. I
do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so they
can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the war
was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55373 is a reply to message #55372] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 18:56 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>
> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and not
> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
obviouly
> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care if
> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
would
> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that as
> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
waited
> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
*didn't
> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
charge,
> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
restructured.
> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
for
> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
countries
> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it was
> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
way
> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on war
> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
made
> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
ended
> up behind it or not.
>
> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>
> This London thing is screwed.
>
> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>
> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5835A.2BD71B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>to own an iPod with our favorite tunes (I don't own one,
>but bin Laden probably does). =20
He's got a couple of Dialysis machines too I heard. =20
Some guys have all the luck...
Tom
(Sorry Nappy!)
"Dedric Terry" <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote in message =
news:BEF35517.2C9B%Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55374 is a reply to message #55373] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 19:20 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
dedric@keyofd.net..." target="_blank">dedric@keyofd.net...
> well, if the US/allies would stop killing their women and children =
and
> bombing their country into a god-forsaken moonscape maybe they =
wouldn't
> be so upset with us.
>=20
> just a thought....
>=20
> jef
That's a nicely wrapped and media-induced anti-war bandwagon banner if =
I
ever saw one.
Just remember this is the same terrorist organization (al Quaeda) that =
is
killing Iraqi officials, citizens, Egyptian diplomats (any diplomats
actually) and trying to derail any semblance of government in Iraq. =
All in
the name off...??? What exactly? Does anyone know why they would =
bomb
London to get Britain out of Iraq, and derail the Iraqi government at =
the
same time? There is no logic in cutting off one's nose to spite one's =
face,
unless it really isn't your face after all...
Only one answer: terrorists don't represent anyone's best interests =
other
than their own - not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Islam. And I'm pretty =
sure
they don't have any idea what their interests are, other than any =
reason to
kill. This is the essence of evil. It isn't a political agenda, it's =
a
perverse counter-moral agenda that can't be requited or quenched until =
it
has complete control.
Blaming the bombings on the US and its' allies is like saying =
terrorist have
just as much right to express themselves by killing innocent men, =
women and
children as we do to own an iPod with our favorite tunes (I don't own =
one,
but bin Laden probably does).
No offense Jef - you are entitled to your opinion - just expressing =
mine.
On 7/7/05 8:50 AM, in article 42cd40e8@linux, "Jef Knight" <"Jef =
Knight">
wrote:
> Don Nafe wrote:
>=20
>> Just hear about it...check your news
>>=20
>> don=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> =20
>>=20
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5835A.2BD71B60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55376 is a reply to message #55374] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 21:10 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
yofd.net</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:BEF35517.2C9B%dedric@keyofd.net">news:BEF35517.2C9B%dedric@k=
eyofd.net</A>...</DIV>>=20
well, if the US/allies would stop killing their women and children =
and<BR>>=20
bombing their country into a god-forsaken moonscape maybe they=20
wouldn't<BR>> be so upset with us.<BR>> <BR>> just a=20
thought....<BR>> <BR>> jef<BR><BR>That's a nicely wrapped and=20
media-induced anti-war bandwagon banner if I<BR>ever saw =
one.<BR><BR>Just=20
remember this is the same terrorist organization (al Quaeda) that=20
is<BR>killing Iraqi officials, citizens, Egyptian diplomats (any=20
diplomats<BR>actually) and trying to derail any semblance of =
government in=20
Iraq. All in<BR>the name off...??? What =
exactly? Does=20
anyone know why they would bomb<BR>London to get Britain out of Iraq, =
and=20
derail the Iraqi government at the<BR>same time? There is no =
logic in=20
cutting off one's nose to spite one's face,<BR>unless it really isn't =
your=20
face after all...<BR><BR>Only one answer: terrorists don't =
represent=20
anyone's best interests other<BR>than their own - not Iraq, not =
Afghanistan,=20
not Islam. And I'm pretty sure<BR>they don't have any idea what =
their=20
interests are, other than any reason to<BR>kill. This is the =
essence of=20
evil. It isn't a political agenda, it's a<BR>perverse =
counter-moral=20
agenda that can't be requited or quenched until it<BR>has complete=20
control.<BR><BR>Blaming the bombings on the US and its' allies is like =
saying=20
terrorist have<BR>just as much right to express themselves by killing =
innocent=20
men, women and<BR>children as we do to own an iPod with our favorite =
tunes (I=20
don't own one,<BR>but bin Laden probably does).<BR><BR>No offense Jef =
- you=20
are entitled to your opinion - just expressing mine.<BR><BR><BR><BR>On =
7/7/05=20
8:50 AM, in article <A =
href=3D"mailto:42cd40e8@linux">42cd40e8@linux</A>, "Jef=20
Knight" <"Jef Knight"><BR>wrote:<BR><BR>> Don Nafe =
wrote:<BR>>=20
<BR>>> Just hear about it...check your news<BR>>> =
<BR>>> don=20
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>=20
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5835A.2BD71B60--Deej,
Thanks for the response, and your extremely civilized approach, in a thread
and topic which can often provoke the worst in people. Appreciated, as always.
:o)
I guess my thoughts on waiting come back to this. I hear what you're saying
about the possible disposal of weapons. Personally I'm of the opinion that
there were not any of any note in the first place, but of course I don't
see how any of us "NG experts" could possibly know for sure, so I certainly
cannot be certain. The thing that bothers me is...
I do think we definately do need some kind of world body to make invasion
decisions, and that world body needs to be publicly accountable and transparent.
(admitedly the U.N. isn't ideal) Hence any country being invaded will, unfortunately,
get warning, but I just don't see a way around this. Even if the U.N. was
completely decisive, you would still have to have a process of debate over
such an important issue, so I would be hard to imagine that, in best best
best case scenario, you could invade in less than a couple of weeks, which
would of course still allow some forwarning of the invasion during which
time any said weapons could be removed.
And I can't reconcile the idea that it is worth going against, or preempting
the world body for the sake of the surprise factor. Hence, to me, in this
case, the simple fact was that, to me, there was no choice but to give warning
of the inva
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55377 is a reply to message #55375] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 22:12 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
sion. To me, going against the world body means going against
democracy pretty much. Unfortunate as it may be, I'm willing to risk WMDs
getting out there in order to maintain democracy. If we lose democracy then
really, who cares?
Admittedly the U.N. is a dissapointingly innefficient body, and was, indeed,
deliberately designed that way by a small band of power hungry countries
who, while wanting a world body, didn't actually want to give up any power
in the process. Unfortunately this status quo remains to this day, hence
it remains unlikely that a better body could be put into force today.
Anyhow...
To me the war should never have been about WMDs. We all know lots of countries
have them, and if you could invade countries for that the world would be
a mess. There's a llloooong list of countries I'd like not to have them.
All of them in fact. Like many people, if they weren't around I'd be happy.
Unfortunately everyone seems to have them. That's no reason to invade though.
The reason to invade is that Suddam was a brutal dictator. Dissapointingly,
that didn't seem to rate very highly in the debate.
>If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have half
>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and infrastructure
>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
Err, I thought you did? ;o) Or were, or whatever. Last I heard you've got
a lot of troups there, and I've read a number of reports...
....well, take a look at this for example. This was just the third thing
in the list when I typed "U.S. Iraq oil" into google:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
I've heard Americans hate the BBC as much as non Americans hate, well NBC
for example, so I understand if you don't accept it as gospel, but take a
look anyhow. At least you'll understand where I'm coming from. There's a
lot of information around on supposed U.S. plans for Iraq's oil.
It's possible though that the U.S. has discovered that the world is watching.
We all know this subject has been done to death. I imagine GWB is well aware
at this point that if the U.S. goes and takes all the oil that the gig will
be up. I expect he hoped it would fade away, but has discovered everyone
has stayed a little more tense about the issue than expected.
Like I said, the way I look at it, every single country who was politically
involved in that whole fiasco had an alterier motive, and it saddens me that
all around the world the polliticians and citizens were up in arms because
of one side of the argument or another, but seemly no political forces, and
few citizens, had the pure open and honest desire to do good my removing
a dictator. Citizens wanted either to defend themselves against suspected
WMDs and terrorists, or to keep their sons and daughters safe at home. Politicians
wanted oil.
I don't accept that GWB, or anybody else, was doing it for good. What I see
as a neon sign which tells me this is that none of the long list of other
cases where good could be done have been acted upon.
Of course I understand that nobody has the might to take on everyone, but
I think there was a clear reason why Iraq was chosen.
Cheers,
Kim.The US only imports about 4.9% of it's imported oil from Iraq. Only about
55% of our oil is imported - that amounts to 2.69% of our total oil
consumption coming from Iraq (as of 2003). In 2000, it was even less, and
our lead supplier changes every few years (it was Canada in 2001, then Saudi
Arabia in 2002/3). Iraq was a distant 6th in 2003 on the US import list.
Iraq isn't a significant concern for US oil consumption. However, it was in
fact (according to reports I've read) only producing a small percentage of
it's capabilities before the war, but it has the 2nd largest reserves behind
Saudi Arabia. So, the scenario I (and others) see is that the US is looking
at an opportunity for much of the world to break the OPEC hold on prices.
Remember, most of the world's oil comes from OPEC - less than 1/2 of the US
oil comes from OPEC countries (including non-Arab OPEC countries, such as
Venezuela, which was the 4th top supplier for the US in 2003). Much of
Iraq's potential was likely buried behind Saddam's regime, assuming that
reserve can be efficiently drilled and processed.
I haven't seen anything in any administration that leads me to believe the
US is seeking Iraq's oil - including statements by Bill Clinton. Perhaps
Iraq doesn't hold the potential it's reserves would seem to indicate - and
perhaps it's a possible way for the world to stop the slide into an
OPEC-dominated world economy. Just my speculation, but one I fear - not the
US's intentions, but OPEC's.
Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who don't live here.
There is a lot of hearsay and paranoia that many find convenient to throw at
the US, but none of it fits logical facts and statistics. I don't think GWB
comes across as a very bright man, but I also think his intentions are
better than some might believe - he just doesn't sell it as well as some
past politicians might have.
Somewhere along the line after the cold war we allowed ourselves to believe
the world would be happy and peaceful, and war would never be an issue again
because there are no politically acceptable reasons for it. Then we woke up
from our naive dream state to find that some questions have no easy answers,
war is painful at best, and we rarely see any good in it until years later
when we realize what we narrowly averted in the process. Some see it
coming, others see it in passing, and still others look the other way to
only see what they want to.
On 7/8/05 12:20 AM, in article 42ce1b4b$1@linux, "Kim"
<hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...well, take a look at this for example. This was just the third thing
> in the list when I typed "U.S. Iraq oil" into google:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
>
> I've heard Americans hate the BBC as much as non Americans hate, well NBC
> for example, so I understand if you don't accept it as gospel, but take a
> look anyhow. At least you'll understand where I'm coming from. There's a
> lot of information around on supposed U.S. plans for Iraq's oil.
>
> It's possible though that the U.S. has discovered that the world is watching.
> We all know this subject has been done to death. I imagine GWB is well aware
> at this point that if the U.S. goes and takes all the oil that the gig will
> be up. I expect he hoped it would fade away, but has discovered everyone
> has stayed a little more tense about the issue than expected.
>
> Like I said, the way I look at it, every single country who was politically
> involved in that whole fiasco had an alterier motive, and it saddens me that
> all around the world the polliticians and citizens were up in arms because
> of one side of the argument or another, but seemly no political forces, and
> few citizens, had the pure open and honest desire to do good my removing
> a dictator. Citizens wanted either to defend themselves against suspected
> WMDs and terrorists, or to keep their sons and daughters safe at home.
> Politicians
> wanted oil.
>
> I don't accept that GWB, or anybody else, was doing it for good. What I see
> as a neon sign which tells me this is that none of the long list of other
> cases where good could be done have been acted upon.
>
> Of course I understand that nobody has the might to take on everyone, but
> I think there was a clear reason why Iraq was chosen.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Dedric,
Thanks for the response.
Just breifly, I don't really want to get too far into this right now, but
just quickly...
>The
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55378 is a reply to message #55376] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 23:20 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
US only imports about 4.9% of it's imported oil from Iraq.
That may be true right now. That of course doesn't mean you could increase
your Iraq quoter if you were able to access their oil cheaply.
>So, the scenario I (and others) see is that the US is looking
>at an opportunity for much of the world to break the OPEC hold on prices.
And well that may happen.
>I haven't seen anything in any administration that leads me to believe the
>US is seeking Iraq's oil
So what are your thoughts specifically on the fact that there are so many
brutal leaders around the world, and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the
problem where the oil was? Co-incedence? See, that's a big thing for me.
I just can't for the life of me work out another reason why they chose to
free Iraq, and not, well Saudi Arabia would be one... bad example maybe
because they too have oil, but they're long time U.S. allies and totally
undemocratic. There's no sign of the U.S. saying "We don't like you Saudi's
because you're not a democracy".
There may be nothing specific you can put your finger on, but I think it's
important to pay attention to the underlying things.
>Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who don't live here.
I think this is a very interesting statement. The reason is because it is
an exact mirror of what many outside the U.S. would say to yourself... ie.
Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who live in the U.S.
One thing is extraordinarily clear, and that is that reports in the U.S.
suggest a different scenario to reports outside. It is my opinion that it
is the U.S. sources that are biased, but that doesn't make me correct. As
I say that please note that most of Australia's media sources are actually
aligned with the U.S. media sources, but those are the commercial media.
I can't speak for yourself Dedric as I don't know your viewing/media habits,
but I understand that something like 98% of the reports watched by U.S. citizens
is produced in the U.S. Here in Australia we can watch CNN. We get the NBC
Today show. It's fairly easy to access news from other places, and I try
to do so. That does give me a little confidence in my opinion of who is biased.
My viewing, of course, is also mostly Australian, but more on an 75/25 ratio
than a 98/2 ratio, which gives me some first hand experience in knowing how
the same event can be reported differently in different countries, and what
the differences between reports tend to be. I spent about 2 years watching
CNN for many hours a week. It was then that I learned that CNN is garbage,
and that our leading news service is too. I went searching for which news
services actually reported things in a way which made sense in the context
of actually reporting what happenned without a spin on it. I beleive I now
have some idea of which sources do and don't fit that.
Of course it is likely that you think you have too, and I can understand
how that may be the case.
It is my opinion however that there is plenty to be worried about with how
the U.S. media reports things.
You may have done this already, but to be blunt, until you've done the equivilant
to what I have done, and spent several hours a week for a couple of years
absorbing news from some other source *outside* your country with an open
mind, you can't really make a decent judgement. It is obvious that, if you
only taste your own media (whatever that media) and then taste a different
one, most people find the different taste displeasing, and that's a worldwide
phenomenon. The same thing, actually, happens with beer.
Don't ask somebody who only drinks one beer which beer is best. He will,
almost without fail, name one of the top three selling beers in his particular
neighbourhood of the planet earth, and tell you that it is the best beer
on the planet without reservation.
If you want to find the best beer, ask someone who drinks a lot of different
beers. They can then judge, without bias, which beer really does compare
well.
If you want to find the best news service...
I may be underestimating your media experience based on the figures I have
heard. My experince is that many on this group are better educated in such
things than, perhaps, the average from their culture.
It seems a little unrealistic though for you to ask me to be careful of media
sources outside the U.S. I'm a little surprised you didn't, or at least appeared
not to, realise that.
I guess my reply to that is simply that I see plenty of U.S. news direct,
and plenty of news from other sources internationally, and have an opinion
that sits somewhere in between. I think that's the best way to be.
What concerns me is that I get the feeling that you don't do the same (though
I could be wr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55379 is a reply to message #55378] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 00:52 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ong), and without a large sample of international sources I'm
unsure how you can be certain that your sources are always correct.
Why do I always start off planning to be breif, and then write ten pages...
;o)
Cheers,
Kim.I'm sure that what this thread was actually about was whether or not your
fellow list members in London were OK or not. Which this one is.
We live near Russell and Tavistock Squares, so it was pretty close,
literally, to home.
MylesKim, many people here in the USA watch/listen to a fairly narrow band of
media, much of it actively pushing a specific agenda, and much of it as
related to journalism as a wasp to a moon rock.
Generally this sort of media does not rely on the critical thinking
skills of its audience, rather it provides a series of rationalizations
for a particular view or group. It often works to justify power or to
justify a change of power.
As long as the audience agrees with a particular view or group, they
don't seem to mind being distracted by the ad hominem attacks, straw man
arguments, emotionalism, slant, spin, fear, scapegoating, hypocrisy and
misdirection they are fed.
Unfortunately this contributes to a closed-minded vilification of
generalized groups of people while propagating ignorance,
misunderstanding and misdirected anger.
Keeping a civil tone in this news group is a sign that people can still
respect each other, despite the narrow viewpoints expressed in some
media, despite history and our part in it being open to different
interpretations, and despite the fact that reasonable people can and
will disagree.
Not that we always manage to keep a civil tone. Even here we have
trouble, at times, transcending our respective biases, speaking calmly,
listening accurately and actually learning something.
No matter who did what to whom over history, the bombings in London were
despicable. One horrible event in a long history of man's inhumanity to man.
Moving forward, as always it's best to get beyond the spin, discuss
events rationally, seek all facts and attempt to make better decisions.
This is our responsibility. We build the future one day at a time.
Kudos to everyone on this group who can listen more than talk, think
more than blame and, upon reflection, help to build a positive future.
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Kim wrote:
> Dedric,
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Just breifly, I don't really want to get too far into this right now, but
> just quickly...
>
>
>>The US only imports about 4.9% of it's imported oil from Iraq.
>
>
> That may be true right now. That of course doesn't mean you could increase
> your Iraq quoter if you were able to access their oil cheaply.
>
>
>>So, the scenario I (and others) see is that the US is looking
>>at an opportunity for much of the world to break the OPEC hold on prices.
>
>
> And well that may happen.
>
>
>>I haven't seen anything in any administration that leads me to believe the
>>US is seeking Iraq's oil
>
>
> So what are your thoughts specifically on the fact that there are so many
> brutal leaders around the world, and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the
> problem where the oil was? Co-incedence? See, that's a big thing for me.
> I just can't for the life of me work out another reason why they chose to
> free Iraq, and not, well Saudi Arabia would be one... bad example maybe
> because they too have oil, but they're long time U.S. allies and totally
> undemocratic. There's no sign of the U.S. saying "We don't like you Saudi's
> because you're not a democracy".
>
> There may be nothing specific you can put your finger on, but I think it's
> important to pay attention to the underlying things.
>
>
>>Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who don't live here.
>
>
> I think this is a very interesting statement. The reason is because it is
> an exact mirror of what many outside the U.S. would say to yourself... ie.
> Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who live in the U.S.
>
> One thing is extraordinarily clear, and that is that reports in the U.S.
> suggest a different scenario to reports outside. It is my opinion that it
> is the U.S. sources that are biased, but tha
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55380 is a reply to message #55379] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 02:29 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t doesn't make me correct. As
> I say that please note that most of Australia's media sources are actually
> aligned with the U.S. media sources, but those are the commercial media.
>
> I can't speak for yourself Dedric as I don't know your viewing/media habits,
> but I understand that something like 98% of the reports watched by U.S. citizens
> is produced in the U.S. Here in Australia we can watch CNN. We get the NBC
> Today show. It's fairly easy to access news from other places, and I try
> to do so. That does give me a little confidence in my opinion of who is biased.
> My viewing, of course, is also mostly Australian, but more on an 75/25 ratio
> than a 98/2 ratio, which gives me some first hand experience in knowing how
> the same event can be reported differently in different countries, and what
> the differences between reports tend to be. I spent about 2 years watching
> CNN for many hours a week. It was then that I learned that CNN is garbage,
> and that our leading news service is too. I went searching for which news
> services actually reported things in a way which made sense in the context
> of actually reporting what happenned without a spin on it. I beleive I now
> have some idea of which sources do and don't fit that.
>
> Of course it is likely that you think you have too, and I can understand
> how that may be the case.
>
> It is my opinion however that there is plenty to be worried about with how
> the U.S. media reports things.
>
> You may have done this already, but to be blunt, until you've done the equivilant
> to what I have done, and spent several hours a week for a couple of years
> absorbing news from some other source *outside* your country with an open
> mind, you can't really make a decent judgement. It is obvious that, if you
> only taste your own media (whatever that media) and then taste a different
> one, most people find the different taste displeasing, and that's a worldwide
> phenomenon. The same thing, actually, happens with beer.
>
> Don't ask somebody who only drinks one beer which beer is best. He will,
> almost without fail, name one of the top three selling beers in his particular
> neighbourhood of the planet earth, and tell you that it is the best beer
> on the planet without reservation.
>
> If you want to find the best beer, ask someone who drinks a lot of different
> beers. They can then judge, without bias, which beer really does compare
> well.
>
> If you want to find the best news service...
>
> I may be underestimating your media experience based on the figures I have
> heard. My experince is that many on this group are better educated in such
> things than, perhaps, the average from their culture.
>
> It seems a little unrealistic though for you to ask me to be careful of media
> sources outside the U.S. I'm a little surprised you didn't, or at least appeared
> not to, realise that.
>
> I guess my reply to that is simply that I see plenty of U.S. news direct,
> and plenty of news from other sources internationally, and have an opinion
> that sits somewhere in between. I think that's the best way to be.
>
> What concerns me is that I get the feeling that you don't do the same (though
> I could be wrong), and without a large sample of international sources I'm
> unsure how you can be certain that your sources are always correct.
>
> Why do I always start off planning to be breif, and then write ten pages...
> ;o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Have anny of you guys seen the hush media pc? It's a 1U high pc that looks
like a really slick high end stereo component.
I'm bringing it up because the case is made from a single block of milled
aluminum with cooling fins carved into the sides. Passive heat pipes move
heat from the internal components and transfer it to the fins.
There are no active cooling components whatsoever, and as a result it is
completely, absolutely utterly silent.
Of course you can't run paris on it, but I would bet that it would make a
decent sample player/vst host if combined with a decent fire-wire interface.
The CPU specs are on the low side, but I run cubase and halion on a laptop
with lower specs so I bet it would be cool for lots of stuff.
Chuck"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've heard Americans hate the BBC as much as non Americans hate, well NBC
>for example,
Interesting... I don't know anybody who hates the BBC; when I
had Time-Warner cable (now I've switched to satellite), I used
to enjoy watching BBC America from time to time - and not just
for the Blackadder reruns :) I liked hearing their news. In
fact, I know a few people that have that, and like their news
also. With the exception of FOX News Channel, our network news
here is so left-leaning that I tend to think that conservatives
especially like being able to watch the BBC news, even if it's
just for the reason that it gives you a different viewpoint
than the nets that are still act
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55382 is a reply to message #55380] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 06:55 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;. Now THAT'S some real objective
journalism! lol NOT!!! The BBC at least seems to slam
people even-handedly - they're just as willing to hammer Khofi
Annan for lining his sons pockets in the oil-for-food debacle
(something I've never seen NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC do even ONCE)
as they're willing to hammer Bush & Blair for whatever the
world thinks they've done wrong on any given week.
So, I don't know where the idea came from that we hate the
BBC... is that true gang? Do the rest of you here in the US
find that a lot of Americans dislike the BBC?
NeilMyles Davis <mylescdavis@btconnect.com> wrote:
>I'm sure that what this thread was actually about was whether or not your
>fellow list members in London were OK or not. Which this one is.
>
>We live near Russell and Tavistock Squares, so it was pretty close,>literally,
to home.
Man, I didn't even know anyone on this NG lived in London.
Glad to hear you're OK.
Neil>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the region
and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in power. I
don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment. It would have been
illegal to invade Iran or North Korea, despite the fact that they are easily
as dangerous to the world as Sadaam was because they had not been heavily
sanctioned by the UN for making war on another soveriegn nation and then
been found by the UN to have been in direct violation of those sanctions.
One of their many violations of these sanctions was overt aggression against
those who were seeking to enforce the sanctions by targeting planes with SAM
that were enforcing the no-fly zones that the Sadaam agreed to as a
condition of allowing him to remain in power. These were acts of war.
Blocking the inspectors from doing their jobs, having them expelled for long
periods and then suddenly saying........"oh, you're upset?..........gee,I
can't imagine why............c'mon back now and see that we never had any
WMD's" ............was too little too late. We had every justification for
removing Sadaam.
There may be other brutal dictators out there, but I don't know of any at
that time or at this moment who are in direct violation of UN sanctions
after having invaded another country, ane are multi billionaires who have
the means to support global terrorism and are harboring terrorist training
camps and and are shooting at our soldiers.
Iran and North Korea qualify on most points, but not the ones that would
allow a removal of their heads of state under interantional law.
Unfortunately for the Europeans, Iran will soon have them targeted with
nukes because they are appeasing these guys, just like they did with Hitler.
I wonder if, after the shellacking we've gotten from the Euro's over Iraq,
if we will be willing to pull France's perfidious ass out of the fire yet
one more time.
Regards,
Deej
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42ce478d@linux...
>
> Dedric,
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Just breifly, I don't really want to get too far into this right now, but
> just quickly...
>
> >The US only imports about 4.9% of it's imported oil from Iraq.
>
> That may be true right now. That of course doesn't mean you could increase
> your Iraq quoter if you were able to access their oil cheaply.
>
> >So, the scenario I (and others) see is that the US is looking
> >at an opportunity for much of the world to break the OPEC hold on prices.
>
> And well that may happen.
>
> >I haven't seen anything in any administration that leads me to believe
the
> >US is seeking Iraq's oil
>
> So what are your thoughts specifically on the fact that there are so many
> brutal leaders around the world, and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the
> problem where the oil was? Co-incedence? See, that's a big thing for me.
> I just can't for the life of me work out another reason why they chose to
> free Iraq, and not, well Saudi Arabia would be one... bad example maybe
> because they too have oil, but they're long time U.S. allies and totally
> undemocratic. There's no sign of the U.S. saying "We don't like you
Saudi's
> because you're not a democracy".
>
> There may be nothing specific you can put your finger on, but I think it's
> important to pay attention to the underlying things.
>
> >Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who don't live
here.
>
> I think this is a very interesting statement. The reason is because it is
> an exact mirror of what many outside the U.S. would say to yourself...
ie.
> Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who live in the U.S.
>
> One thing is extraordinarily clear, and that is that reports in the U.S.
> suggest a different scenario to reports outside. It is my opinion that it
> is the U.S. sources that are biased, but that doesn't make me correct. As
> I say that please note that most of Australia's media sources are actually
> aligned with the U.S. media sources, but those are the commercial media.
>
> I can't speak for yourself Dedric as I don't know your viewing/media
habits,
> but I understand that something like 98% of the reports watched by U.S.
citizens
> is produced in the U.S. Here in Australia we can watch CNN. We get the NBC
> Today show. It's fairly easy to access news from other places, and I try
> to do so. That does give me a little confidence in my opinion of who is
biased.
> My viewing, of course, is also mostly Australian, but more on an 75/25
ratio
> than a 98/2 ratio, which gives me some first hand experience in knowing
how
> the same event can be reported differently in different countries, and
what
> the differences between reports tend to be. I spent about 2 years watching
> CNN for many hours a week. It was then that I learned that CNN is garbage,
> and that our leading news service is too. I went searching for which news
> services actually reported things in a way which made sense in the context
> of actually reporting what happenned without a spin on it. I beleive I now
> have some idea of which sources do and don't fit that.
>
> Of course it is likely that you think you have too, and I can understand
> how that may be the case.
>
> It is my opinion however that there is plenty to be worried about with how
> the U.S. media reports things.
>
> You may have done this already, but to be blunt, until you've done the
equivilant
> to what I have done, and spent several hours a week for a couple of years
> absorbing news from some other source *outside* your country with an open
> mind, you can't really make a decent judgement. It is obvious that, if you
> only taste your own media (whatever that media) and then taste a different
> one, most people find the different taste displeasing, and that's a
worldwide
> phenomenon. The same thing, actually, happens with beer.
>
> Don't ask somebody who only drinks one beer which beer is best. He will,
> almost without fail, name one of the top three selling beers in his
particular
> neighbourhood of the planet earth, and tell you that it is the best beer
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55384 is a reply to message #55378] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 06:03 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ly to that is simply that I see plenty of U.S. news direct,
> and plenty of news from other sources internationally, and have an opinion
> that sits somewhere in between. I think that's the best way to be.
>
> What concerns me is that I get the feeling that you don't do the same
(though
> I could be wrong), and without a large sample of international sources I'm
> unsure how you can be certain that your sources are always correct.
>
> Why do I always start off planning to be breif, and then write ten
pages...
> ;o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> well, if the US/allies would stop killing their women and children and
>> bombing their country into a god-forsaken moonscape maybe they wouldn't
>> be so upset with us.
>>
>> just a thought....
>>
>> jef
>
>That's a nicely wrapped and media-induced anti-war bandwagon banner if I
>ever saw one.
>
>Just remember this is the same terrorist organization (al Quaeda) that is
>killing Iraqi officials, citizens, Egyptian diplomats (any diplomats
>actually) and trying to derail any semblance of government in Iraq. All
in
>the name off...??? What exactly? Does anyone know why they would bomb
>London to get Britain out of Iraq, and derail the Iraqi government at the
>same time? There is no logic in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face,
>unless it really isn't your face after all...
>
>Only one answer: terrorists d
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55386 is a reply to message #55380] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 06:16 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ave
>just as much right to express themselves by killing innocent men, women
and
>children as we do to own an iPod with our favorite tunes (I don't own one,
>but bin Laden probably does).
>
>No offense Jef - you are entitled to your opinion - just expressing mine.
Well-said... what pisses me off the most about this sort of
thing is that - and this goes for London, the World Trade Center
(both times), the bombings in Spain, etc, - is that they're
attacking innocent people. This is not the same as colllateral
damage in a war zone (which is no less tragic, don't get me
wrong), it's completely different - they have a greivance with
the policies of our country, or with those of England, or
whoever; so they kill a bunch of average guys on their way to
work, or women dropping their kids off at daycare. Those people
don't make the rules, they live under them. Then they
rationalize it by saying that we're all infidels anyway, so we
all deserve to die. It's just such a twisted set of beliefs.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Mohammed had in mind.
NeilI often watch the BBC and there are also Chinese, Mexican and Pakistani news
services on the satellite system here.
Deej
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42ce79af$1@linux...
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've heard Americans hate the BBC as much as non Americans hate, well NBC
> >for example,
>
> Interesting... I don't know anybody who hates the BBC; when I
> had Time-Warner cable (now I've switched to satellite), I used
> to enjoy watching BBC America from time to time - and not just
> for the Blackadder reruns :) I liked hearing their news. In
> fact, I know a few people that have that, and like their news
> also. With the exception of FOX News Channel, our network news
> here is so left-leaning that I tend to think that conservatives
> especially like being able to watch the BBC news, even if it's
> just for the reason that it gives you a different viewpoint
> than the nets that are still actively lamenting the fact that
> Kerry didn't get elected president. I actually caught a moment
> a few weeks ago where Matt Lauer was asking a guest on the
> Today Show "Now, if John Kerry had been elected, do you think
> this would have happened?". Now THAT'S some real objective
> journalism! lol NOT!!! The BBC at least seems to slam
> people even-handedly - they're just as willing to hammer Khofi
> Annan for lining his sons pockets in the oil-for-food debacle
> (something I've never seen NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC do even ONCE)
> as they're willing to hammer Bush & Blair for whatever the
> world thinks they've done wrong on any given week.
>
> So, I don't know where the idea came from that we hate the
> BBC... is that true gang? Do the rest of you here in the US
> find that a lot of Americans dislike the BBC?
>
> Neil"Cujo" <chris@nospamapplemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>My wife is a Brit, she was very upset this morning.
>I had to drive her to work as she would get on the T here in Boston.
>That said,and I am not trying to get any fights started as I respect all
>of your opinions. the was on Iraq seems not to be a retaliation eh? seems
>more like a planned offensive to me. I though were supposed to be hunting
>Bin Laden? Anyone with a support or troops sticker on their car offended
>the Karl Rove "may" have outed a CIA operative?
Well, I don't have a "support our troops" ribbon, but I DO
support our troops... they're following orders, not making
policy; and yes, if Rove was the one who outed Valerie Plame
(I assume that's who you're referring to), then I think he
should be tried for treason & pay the price if found guilty.
Neilhttp://brooklynboy.com/pages/product_organize.htm
Neil wrote:
> I remember awhile back there were a couple of you that were
> talking about studio management software. A friend of mine has a
> voice & piano studio, and she's looking for some software for
> mainly basic accounting purposes (for which purposes, Quicken or
> something of that ilk would obviously work just fine, and also
> don't cost very much), but I thought if there was a package that
> would handle accounting & things like scheduling, etc. in the
> same bundle, that would be even better.
>
> I'm going to cruise around the web to see what's available, but
> if any of you know of any apps that do this sort of thing, and
> are reasonably-priced or perhaps even fall into the
> freeware/donationware/shareware category, please let me know.
> (e-mail is: neil.henderson-AT-sbcglobal.net, or just post the
> info here).
>
> Thanks!
>
> NeilStrewth. Very glad to hear you're OK. Like Neil had no idea we had London
residents. Hope you're not too shaken, and all yours have come through unscathed.
Cheers,
Kim.
Myles Davis <mylescdavis@btconnect.com> wrote:
>I'm sure that what this thread was actually about was whether or not your
>fellow list members in London were OK or not. Which this one is.
>
>We live near Russell and Tavistock Squares, so it was pretty close,
>literally, to home.
>
>Myles
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>Interesting... I don't know anybody who hates the BBC;
Well maybe I'm casting a generalization from very little. I know for sure
that at one point at least I gave a BBC link to someone on this group when
asked for a "credible media report" with respect to something, and assumed
the BBC would be fine as an example, being an ally in Afghanistan and Iraq
etc, but was told in no uncertain terms that they were way out there.
Perhaps I've taken one event and cast a stereotype, in which case I withdraw
my statement.
I find it interesting that you consider your media left though, but it's
too late in the night to persue this from here. I'd be interested to hear
more on what makes you say that though.
Cheers,
Kim.Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>Keeping a civil tone in this news group is a sign that people can still
>respect each other, despite the narrow viewpoints expressed in some
>media, despite history and our part in it being open to different
>interpretations, and despite the fact that reasonable people can and
>will disagree.
Here here. And if people can continue to use technology, as we all now are,
to express views across the globe and come to better understanding, then
I think, eventually, things ill get better. Of course we'll need this technology
to get to people who now can't come close to affording it for the job to
be complete, but eventually maybe it will all work out.
>Not that we always manage to keep a civil tone. Even here we have
>trouble, at times, transcending our respective biases, speaking calmly,
>listening accurately and actually learning something.
True, but I think there's hope, and I think the current tone of this thread
is pretty good.
>No matter who did what to whom over history, the bombings in London were
>despicable. One horrible event in a long history of man's inhumanity to
man.
I think we all agree on that.
>Moving forward, as always it's best to get beyond the spin, discuss
>events rationally
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55387 is a reply to message #55375] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 06:19 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
, seek all facts and attempt to make better decisions.
>This is our responsibility. We build the future one day at a time.
That's it, communication, understanding, rationality, and repeat. ;o)
>Kudos to everyone on this group who can listen more than talk, think
>more than blame and, upon reflection, help to build a positive future.
I second that.
Cheers to you.
Kim."Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
>
>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the region
>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in power.
I
>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you guys
were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case with Afghanistan/Taliban.
Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this scenario
has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you guys
are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number of
questionable alliances, IMO.
> It would have been
>illegal to invade Iran or North Korea, despite the fact that they are easily
>as dangerous to the world as Sadaam was because they had not been heavily
>sanctioned by the UN for making war on another soveriegn nation and then
>been found by the UN to have been in direct violation of those sanctions.
>One of their many violations of these sanctions was overt aggression against
>those who were seeking to enforce the sanctions by targeting planes with
SAM
>that were enforcing the no-fly zones that the Sadaam agreed to as a
>condition of allowing him to remain in power. These were acts of war.
>Blocking the inspectors from doing their jobs, having them expelled for
long
>periods and then suddenly saying........"oh, you're upset?..........gee,I
>can't imagine why............c'mon back now and see that we never had any
>WMD's" ............was too little too late. We had every justification for
>removing Sadaam.
Agreed. Unfortunately the U.N. hadn't specifically authorised it. I personally
would have liked them to have done so, but they didn't, and under those circumstances
I think the greater evil was GWB going in, not the U.N. not approving it.
>There may be o
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55388 is a reply to message #55384] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 06:24 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ther brutal dictators out there, but I don't know of any at
>that time or at this moment who are in direct violation of UN sanctions
>after having invaded another country, ane are multi billionaires who have
>the means to support global terrorism and are harboring terrorist training
>camps and and are shooting at our soldiers.
Was Saddam shooting at your soldiers *before* you went in?
There's much debate about the terrorist thing too. I mean it looks unfortunately
like London is harbouring terrorists. Seems you guys were for a few months
prior to 9/11 too. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a terrorist or three
in Iraq, but we all know more of the 9/11 culprits came from Saudi Arabia
than Iraq, and GWB seems happy to leave their regime as it stands.
>Unfortunately for the Europeans, Iran will soon have them targeted with
>nukes because they are appeasing these guys, just like they did with Hitler.
Much as we all hate WMDs, nobody uses them, because we all know if you touch
that button you're wiped out, plain and simple. Touch the button and you're
all dead.
Terrorists are the only WMD issue, because they're quite simply crazy off
their nuts.
>I wonder if, after the shellacking we've gotten from the Euro's over Iraq,
>if we will be willing to pull France's perfidious ass out of the fire yet
>one more time.
Well let's hope we don't have to find out shall we. I'd like to think you
would, as I would, support anyone who values democracy and freedom, and you
guys should know they do, 'cause you've got that statue that says so.
Much as you may not agree with their opinion, you must defend their right
to have it, as I would for you.
Cheers,
Kim.Couldn't have said it better Dedric. Sorry we didn't get to hang in Co. Springs
when I was out.
rod
Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> well, if the US/allies would stop killing their women and children and
>> bombing their country into a god-forsaken moonscape maybe they wouldn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55393 is a reply to message #55382] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 06:54 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ke that would add a lot of un-
needed cost to the thing... what do they run, price-wise?
Neil
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Have anny of you guys seen the hush media pc? It's a 1U high pc that looks
>like a really slick high end stereo component.
>
>I'm bringing it up because the case is made from a single block of milled
>aluminum with cooling fins carved into the sides. Passive heat pipes move
>heat from the internal components and transfer it to the fins.
>
>There are no active cooling components whatsoever, and as a result it is
>completely, absolutely utterly silent.
>
>Of course you can't run paris on it, but I would bet that it would make
a
>decent sample player/vst host if combined with a decent fire-wire interface.
> The CPU specs are on the low side, but I run cubase and halion on a laptop
>with lower specs so I bet it would be cool for lots of stuff.
>
>Chuck"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
>>
>>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the region
>>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
>>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in power.
>I
>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
>
>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you guys
>were allies with I
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55394 is a reply to message #55386] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 07:14 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
raq with the same dude in power, as was the case with
Afghanistan/Taliban.
>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this scenario
>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you guys
>are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number of
>questionable alliances, IMO.
Hey, you guys were once allies with Stalin, who then became the
enemy of the entire free world!!!!
(OK, I know we were allies with him against Germany too, but I'm
just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
the United States).
Neil>Was Saddam shooting at your soldiers *before* you went in?
Yes, he had targeted our aircraft withg our pilots as well as British
aircraft with *their* pilots numerous times.
I've got to jump and run right now and don't have time for another lengthy
reply at the moment, but........
I'll be back
;o)
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42ce8a46$1@linux...
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> >>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
> >
> >Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the
region
> >and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
> >resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in power.
> I
> >don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
>
> Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you
guys
> were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case with
Afghanistan/Taliban.
> Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this
scenario
> has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you guys
> are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number of
> questionable alliances, IMO.
>
> > It would have been
> >illegal to invade Iran or North Korea, despite the fact that they are
easily
> >as dangerous to the world as Sadaam was because they had not been heavily
> >sanctioned by the UN for making war on another soveriegn nation and then
> >been found by the UN to have been in direct violation of those sanctions.
> >One of their many violations of these sanctions was overt aggression
against
> >those who were seeking to enforce the sanctions by targeting planes with
> SAM
> >that were enforcing the no-fly zones that the Sadaam agreed to as a
> >condition of allowing him to remain in power. These were acts of war.
> >Blocking the inspectors from doing their jobs, having them expelled for
> long
> >periods and then suddenly saying........"oh, you're upset?..........gee,I
> >can't imagine why............c'mon back now and see that we never had any
> >WMD's" ............was too little too late. We had every justification
for
> >removing Sadaam.
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately the U.N. hadn't specifically authorised it. I
personally
> would have liked them to have done so, but they didn't, and under those
circumstances
> I think the greater evil was GWB going in, not the U.N. not approving it.
>
> >There may be other brutal dictators out there, but I don't know of any at
> >that time or at this moment who are in direct violation of UN sanctions
> >after having invaded another country, ane are multi billionaires who have
> >the means to support global terrorism and are harbori
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55395 is a reply to message #55375] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 07:28 |
Rod Lincoln
Messages: 883
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ng terrorist
training
> >camps and and are shooting at our soldiers.
>
> Was Saddam shooting at your soldiers *before* you went in?
>
> There's much debate about the terrorist thing too. I mean it looks
unfortunately
> like London is harbouring terrorists. Seems you guys were for a few months
> prior to 9/11 too. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a terrorist or
three
> in Iraq, but we all know more of the 9/11 culprits came from Saudi Arabia
> than Iraq, and GWB seems happy to leave their regime as it stands.
>
> >Unfortunately for the Europeans, Iran will soon have them targeted with
> >nukes because they are appeasing these guys, just like they did with
Hitler.
>
> Much as we all hate WMDs, nobody uses them, because we all know if you
touch
> that button you're wiped out, plain and simple. Touch the button and
you're
> all dead.
>
> Terrorists are the only WMD issue, because they're quite simply crazy off
> their nuts.
>
> >I wonder if, after the shellacking we've gotten from the Euro's over
Iraq,
> >if we will be willing to pull France's perfidious ass out of the fire yet
> >one more time.
>
> Well let's hope we don't have to find out shall we. I'd like to think you
> would, as I would, support anyone who values democracy and freedom, and
you
> guys should know they do, 'cause you've got that statue that says so.
>
> Much as you may not agree with their opinion, you must defend their right
> to have it, as I would for you.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Glad to hear your OK.
When will this all end?
Someone has to stop,I wonder who will be the first.
respect
Nappy
Myles Davis <mylescdavis@btconnect.com> wrote:
>I'm sure that what this thread was actually about was whether or not your
>fellow list members in London were OK or not. Which this one is.
>
>We live near Russell and Tavistock Squares, so it was pretty close,
>literally, to home.
>
>Myles
>"Why do I always start off planning to be brief, and then write ten
pages.."
cuz your brother is out of town?????? this
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55398 is a reply to message #55394] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 07:49 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
that something like 98% of the reports watched by U.S. citizens
>is produced in the U.S. Here in Australia we can watch CNN. We get the NBC
>Today show. It's fairly easy to access news from other places, and I try
>to do so. That does give me a little confidence in my opinion of who is biased.
>My viewing, of course, is also mostly Australian, but more on an 75/25 ratio
>than a 98/2 ratio, which gives me some first hand experience in knowing how
>the same event can be reported differently in different countries, and what
>the differences between reports tend to be. I spent about 2 years watching
>CNN for many hours a week. It was then that I learned that CNN is garbage,
>and that our leading news service is too. I went searching for which news
>services actually reported things in a way which made sense in the context
>of actually reporting what happenned without a spin on it. I beleive I now
>have some idea of which sources do and don't fit that.
>
>Of course it is likely that you think you have too, and I can understand
>how that may be the case.
>
>It is my opinion however that there is plenty to be worried about with how
>the U.S. media reports things.
>
>You may have done this already, but to be blunt, until you've done the equivilant
>to what I have done, and spent several hours a week for a couple of years
>absorbing news from some other source *outside* your country with an open
>mind
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55399 is a reply to message #55394] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 07:51 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
, you can't really make a decent judgement. It is obvious that, if you
>only taste your own media (whatever that media) and then taste a different
>one, most people find the different taste displeasing, and that's a worldwide
>phenomenon. The same thing, actually, happens with beer.
>
>Don't ask somebody who only drinks one beer which beer is best. He will,
>almost without fail, name one of the top three selling beers in his particular
>neighbourhood of the planet earth, and tell you that it is the best beer
>on the planet without reservation.
>
>If you want to find the best beer, ask someone who drinks a lot of different
>beers. They can then judge, without bias, which beer really does compare
>well.
>
>If you want to find the best news service...
>
>I may be underestimating your media experience based on the figures I have
>heard. My experince is that many on this group are better educated in such
>things than, perhaps, the average from their culture.
>
>It seems a little unrealistic though for you to ask me to be careful of media
>sources outside the U.S. I'm a little surprised you didn't, or at least appeared
>not to, realise that.
>
>I guess my reply to that is simply that I see plenty of U.S. news direct,
>and plenty of news from other sources internationally, and have an opinion
>that sits somewhere in between. I think that's the best way to be.
>
>What concerns me is that I get the feeling that you don't do the same (though
>I could be wrong), and without a large sample of international sources I'm
>unsure how you can be certain that your sources are always correct.
>
>Why do I always start off planning to be breif, and then write ten pages...
> ;o)
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.my guess is...whoever is not involved.
On 9 Jul 2005 01:20:31 +1000, "Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Glad to hear your OK.
>When will this all end?
>Someone has to stop,I wonder who will be the first.
>
>respect
>Nappy
>
>
>Myles Davis <mylescdavis@btconnect.com> wrote:
>>I'm sure that what this thread was actually about was whether or not your
>>fellow list members in London were OK or not. Which this one is.
>>
>>We live near Russell and Tavistock Squares, so it was pretty close,
>>literally, to home.
>>
>>Myles
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sorry mate... you been hoodwinked.
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42ce7ca0@linux...
> >and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
>
> Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the region
> and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
> resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in power.
> I
> don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment. It would have been
> illegal to invade Iran or North Korea, despite the fact that they are
> easily
> as dangerous to the world as Sadaam was because they had not been heavily
> sanctioned by the UN for making war on another soveriegn nation and then
> been found by the UN to have been in direct violation of those sanctions.
> One of their many violations of these sanctions was overt aggression
> against
> those who were seeking to enforce the sanctions by targeting planes with
> SAM
> that were enforcing the no-fly zones that the Sadaam agreed to as a
> condition of allowing him to remain in power. These were acts of war.
> Blocking the inspectors from doing their jobs, having them expelled for
> long
> periods and then suddenly saying........"oh, you're upset?..........gee,I
> can't imagine why............c'mon back now and see that we never had any
> WMD's" ............was too little too late. We had every justification for
> removing Sadaam.
>
> There may be other brutal dictators out there, but I don't know of any at
> that time or at this moment who are in direct violation of UN sanctions
> after having invaded another country, ane are multi billionaires who have
> the means to support global terrorism and are harboring terrorist
> training
> camps and and are shooting at our soldiers.
>
> Iran and North Korea qualify on most points, but not the ones that would
> allow a removal of their heads of state under interantional law.
> Unfortunately for the
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55401 is a reply to message #55380] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 08:58 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
4;linux..." target="_blank">42ce478d@linux...
>>
>> Dedric,
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> Just breifly, I don't really want to get too far into this right now, but
>> just quickly...
>>
>> >The US only imports about 4.9% of it's imported oil from Iraq.
>>
>> That may be true right now. That of course doesn't mean you could
>> increase
>> your Iraq quoter if you were able to access their oil cheaply.
>>
>> >So, the scenario I (and others) see is that the US is looking
>> >at an opportunity for much of the world to break the OPEC hold on
>> >prices.
>>
>> And well that may happen.
>>
>> >I haven't seen anything in any administration that leads me to believe
> the
>> >US is seeking Iraq's oil
>>
>> So what are your thoughts specifically on the fact that there are so many
>> brutal leaders around the world, and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the
>> problem where the oil was? Co-incedence? See, that's a big thing for me.
>> I just can't for the life of me work out another reason why they chose to
>> free Iraq, and not, well Saudi Arabia would be one... bad example maybe
>> because they too have oil, but they're long time U.S. allies and totally
>> undemocratic. There's no sign of the U.S. saying "We don't like you
> Saudi's
>> because you're not a democracy".
>>
>> There may be nothing specific you can put your finger on, but I think
>> it's
>> important to pay attention to the underlying things.
>>
>> >Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who don't live
> here.
>>
>> I think this is a very interesting statement. The reason is because it is
>> an exact mirror of what many outside the U.S. would say to yourself...
> ie.
>> Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who live in the
>> U.S.
>>
>> One thing is extraordinarily clear, and that is that reports in the U.S.
>> suggest a different scenario to reports outside. It is my opinion that it
>> is the U.S. sources that are biased, but that doesn't make me correct. As
>> I say that please note that most of Australia's media sources are
>> actually
>> aligned with the U.S. media sources, but those are the commercial media.
>>
>> I can't speak for yourself Dedric as I don't know your viewing/media
> habits,
>> but I understand that something like 98% of the reports watched by U.S.
> citizens
>> is produced in the U.S. Here in Australia we can watch CNN. We get the
>> NBC
>> Today show. It's fairly easy to access news from other places, and I try
>> to do so. That does give me a little confidence in my opinion of who is
> biased.
>> My viewing, of course, is also mostly Australian, but more on an 75/25
> ratio
>> than a 98/2 ratio, which gives me some first hand experience in knowing
> how
>> the same event can be reported differently in different countries, and
> what
>> the differences between reports tend to be. I spent about 2 years
>> watching
>> CNN for many hours a week. It was then that I learned that CNN is
>> garbage,
>> and that our leading news service is too. I went searching for which news
>> services actually reported things in a way which made sense in the
>> context
>> of actually reporting what happenned without a spin on it. I beleive I
>> now
>> have some idea of which sources do and don't fit that.
>>
>> Of course it is likely that you think you have too, and I can understand
>> how that may be the case.
>>
>> It is my opinion however that there is plenty to be worried about with
>> how
>> the U.S. media reports things.
>>
>> You may have done this already, but to be blunt, until you've done the
> equivilant
>> to what I have done, and spent several hours a week for a couple of years
>> absorbing news from some other source *outside* your country with an open
>> mind, you can't really make a decent judgement. It is obvious that, if
>> you
>> only taste your own media (whatever that media) and then taste a
>> different
>> one, most people find the different taste displeasing, and that's a
> worldwide
>> phenomenon. The same thing, actually, happens with beer.
>>
>> Don't ask somebody who only drinks one beer which beer is best. He will,
>> almost without fail, name one of the top three selling beers in his
> particular
>> neighbourhood of the planet earth, and tell you that it is the best beer
>> on the planet without reservation.
>>
>> If you want to find the best beer, ask someone who drinks a lot of
> different
>> beers. They can then judge, without bias, which beer really does compare
>> well.
>>
>> If you want to find the best news service...
>>
>> I may be underestimating your media experience based on the figures I
>> have
>> heard. My experince is that many on this group are better educated in
>> such
>> things than, perhaps, the average from their culture.
>>
>> It seems a little unrealistic though for you to ask me to be careful of
> media
>> sources outside the U.S. I'm a little surprised you didn't, or at least
> appeared
>> not to, realise that.
>>
>> I guess my reply to that is simply that I see plenty of U.S. news direct,
>> and plenty of news from other sources inte
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 22 07:36:14 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.07791 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
