New Approach

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

Sadr is a Shia, not a Sunni.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

dts, i get up before 3 am. i wasn't sitting up to watch that bozo. i knew i could read all the talking points today.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Sadr is a Shia, not a Sunni.

Correction noted. Thank you Rupert.

[Downthestretch55]

http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2007/01...ard.html#links

[SentToStud]

From the BBC.... Seems fairly balanced and summarily informative. It's not surprising (at least if you ascribe to this columnist's views) that things hinge more on politics, jobs and money than tends to get reported through the US media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254869.stm

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

From the BBC.... Seems fairly balanced and summarily informative. It's not surprising (at least if you ascribe to this columnist's views) that things hinge more on politics, jobs and money than tends to get reported through the US media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254869.stm

S2S,
That's an interesting article. Thanks for the link.
Now, for a minute, consider the game of poker.
The game begins and you sit with a big pile of chips after 9-11. You lose pot after pot, but you keep on betting. Bluff as big as the bluffer you want to see hung. He is, and you still have another card or two to play, one more hand, or maybe two.
Except, now you're going "all in", betting on Maliki.
To me, that's not a smart bet. And the "chips" are the additional soldiers lives that get thrown into the "game". They'll buy some time for the next hand, if it's dealt.
The next hand is already being stacked in the shuffle. The cards will come up Iran, Iran, Iran.
Seems to me that there just seem to be too many wars to start, too little time, and a horrible legacy to consider.
So, the Taliban is back bigger than ever in Afghanistan? So what?
So, Iraq is lost except for letting the next one pick up the losing cards. So what?
So, the "war on terror" is world wide and the dupes see it limited to Iraq. so what?
The next hand will be dealt, and it will be all about Iran.
Sad to say, this losing poker player is playing with our chips, and we'll all walk away from the table as much the losers as he is. But, so what?
btw, if you're a poker player and can read faces at the table, have a look at the video of his speech. It says it all.
DTS

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.

DTS this is flat out inaccurate. We are trying to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. We have killed numerous Shiites while trying to protect ourselves. American troops are attacked by more Shiite militias than Sunnis. And the Shiites are fighting amongst themselves for power. It really is not fair to over simplify and then imply that it does not make sense.
BTW the man we would most like to kill is a Shiite... Sadr from that bopping of town of Sadr city.

oops did not read enough, Rupert caught it. And I also think we got more information out of the Bush adminstration as far as tactics than we have ever gotten before. At least we know how they are going to try to create safer areas and how this in turn might stabilize the country. Having said that I dont think its going to work. We have reached an extreme level of instability. Urban civil war.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

DTS this is flat out inaccurate. We are trying to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. We have killed numerous Shiites while trying to protect ourselves. American troops are attacked by more Shiite militias than Sunnis. And the Shiites are fighting amongst themselves for power. It really is not fair to over simplify and then imply that it does not make sense.
BTW the man we would most like to kill is a Shiite... Sadr from that bopping of town of Sadr city.

oops did not read enough, Rupert caught it. And I also think we got more information out of the Bush adminstration as far as tactics than we have ever gotten before. At least we know how they are going to try to create safer areas and how this in turn might stabilize the country. Having said that I dont think its going to work. We have reached an extreme level of instability. Urban civil war.

P,
I noted the correction, post #26. What I meant to say was that the Iranian backed Shia are also those that the US is allied with against the Sunni.

To me, it is easy to justify genocide, whether the words are "surge", "escalation" or "augmentation" (like they need bigger boobs).
It make about as much sense.
Believe whatever you think is justified.
I don't.
Insanity is obvious.

[Downthestretch55]

Pgardn,
Two more questions:
1) Have you noticed that since the speech on Wed. there is a lack of reporting by all major US media on the situation in Iraq?
2) What do you make of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/wa...rtner=homepage

I think the press, which I consider vital to this country, is being intimidated by this administration thru legal means. Witness what happened to the reporters in the CIA operative leak ordeal. Madness imo.

The press being able to accurately report situations is vital to the freedom of this country. I view the press as almost the 4th branch of government, even though they are not a part of the government... Terribly important to any true democracy. Almost all dictators, etc... countries that want tight control over everything, attack the intellectuals and press first.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I think the press, which I consider vital to this country, is being intimidated by this administration thru legal means. Witness what happened to the reporters in the CIA operative leak ordeal. Madness imo.

The press being able to accurately report situations is vital to the freedom of this country. I view the press as almost the 4th branch of government, even though they are not a part of the government... Terribly important to any true democracy. Almost all dictators, etc... countries that want tight control over everything, attack the intellectuals and press first.

Forcing the reporter to testify was going to hurt the Bush administration, not help them. The reporter knew which person in the Bush administration leaked the story. The Bush administration didn't want the reporter to be forced to testify.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Forcing the reporter to testify was going to hurt the Bush administration, not help them. The reporter knew which person in the Bush administration leaked the story. The Bush administration didn't want the reporter to be forced to testify.

I just listened to one of the reporters last night on C-span talking about the ordeal. He basically stated that the current administration has been terribly hostile towards the press, including the incident in which he is awaiting an appeal.
I dont think the Bush adminstration cares one way another what happens to these reporters or revealing sources. It is true that "they" could have put a CIA operative in danger of being killed, but this adminstration is not crying over the reporters going to jail. I dont think the adminstration is worried about any trail leading back to someone important at this point. At least that is the clear feelings of the male reporter who will not reveal his source(s) and very well could end up in jail.

My big problem is reporting that is so biased as to be laughable. CNN "reporting" the news thru Lou Dobbs (these are editorials). And Fox... bad.
Actually I listened to Fox this morning and they actually grilled Cheney to the point he did not answer questions. I thought they would just give him the Soap Box, but they did not. Cheney appears to have a different agenda than the president and they pointed this out with lots of back tape. I officially declare Cheney out of touch after that interview. I cant see how the military can work with this guy after the way he came off today. His own words, thats what I want. Good solid interview. Very rare.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I just listened to one of the reporters last night on C-span talking about the ordeal. He basically stated that the current administration has been terribly hostile towards the press, including the incident in which he is awaiting an appeal.
I dont think the Bush adminstration cares one way another what happens to these reporters or revealing sources. It is true that "they" could have put a CIA operative in danger of being killed, but this adminstration is not crying over the reporters going to jail. I dont think the adminstration is worried about any trail leading back to someone important at this point. At least that is the clear feelings of the male reporter who will not reveal his source(s) and very well could end up in jail.

My big problem is reporting that is so biased as to be laughable. CNN "reporting" the news thru Lou Dobbs (these are editorials). And Fox... bad.
Actually I listened to Fox this morning and they actually grilled Cheney to the point he did not answer questions. I thought they would just give him the Soap Box, but they did not. Cheney appears to have a different agenda than the president and they pointed this out with lots of back tape. I officially declare Cheney out of touch after that interview. I cant see how the military can work with this guy after the way he came off today. His own words, thats what I want. Good solid interview. Very rare.

For years there has been a huge liberal bias in the media. Now there are actually some stations that lean to the right. What's wrong with that? There should be a balance. If practically all the stations lean to the left, I don't see a problem with a station that leans to the right.

By the way, some of my most liberal friends are actually watching Fox News these days. They actually prefer it over CNN. They think CNN is terrible.

Why would you have a problem with CNN having Lou Dobbs? That would be like me complaining that Fox is too liberal since they have Allan Colmes.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

For years there has been a huge liberal bias in the media. Now there are actually some stations that lean to the right. What's wrong with that? There should be a balance. If practically all the stations lean to the left, I don't see a problem with a station that leans to the right.

By the way, some of my most liberal friends are actually watching Fox News these days. They actually prefer it over CNN. They think CNN is terrible.

Why would you have a problem with CNN having Lou Dobbs? That would be like me complaining that Fox is too liberal since they have Allan Colmes.

There should not have to be a balance in the first place. I hate Dobbs because he does not report the News. He reports his opinions on the news.

The best listening comes on Sunday where one gets to listen straight from the mouth of people in charge. And most of the time its garbage because people in charge dont answer the questions they are asked. Today on Fox, they actually got Cheney to say some very interesting things that I found very insightful. Charlie Rose sometimes gets some very interesting interviews when he is not asking his Hollywood friends to come on.
Its the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times for me for the most part.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

There should not have to be a balance in the first place. I hate Dobbs because he does not report the News. He reports his opinions on the news.

The best listening comes on Sunday where one gets to listen straight from the mouth of people in charge. And most of the time its garbage because people in charge dont answer the questions they are asked. Today on Fox, they actually got Cheney to say some very interesting things that I found very insightful. Charlie Rose sometimes gets some very interesting interviews when he is not asking his Hollywood friends to come on.
Its the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times for me for the most part.

Journalists are human. They are not robots. Most of them have at least a slight bias at the very minimum. Even when they try to be impartial, there is still often times a slight bias.

The newspapers you mentioned both have a bias. The Walstreet Journal is notoriously conservative. The NY Times is notoriously liberal.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Journalists are human. They are not robots. Most of them have at least a slight bias at the very minimum. Even when they try to be impartial, there is still often times a slight bias.

The newspapers you mentioned both have a bias. The Walstreet Journal is notoriously conservative. The NY Times is notoriously liberal.

You can always read between the lines. The importance is that both of these papers have very good writers and can get to stories because their tendrils reach deep into the political soil, and they have so many foreign correspondents. Most papers just dont have the man power to go out a get basic information.

NY times has a great Science section also. They actually have people that know their stuff. Very comforting, to me anyway.