[Gerben42]

This plan is horrible. Gee, I've made a mistake before so to fix that I'm going to send more US soldiers into death...

I feel sad for all the soldiers who have been sent to Iraq and their families, as well as for the Iraqi people. Why can't we all just... get along?

[Winstonm]

There were two points about last night's broadcast that were hone-in points.

Point 1:
The first was the almost offhanded way Bush charecterized Iran as the true bad guys who were funding and supporting the insugerncy - he said little more than that, but now it is officially "in the record" that Bush warned us about Iran's role in the insurgency. He also said he had move an additional aircraft carrier into the region. It is also interesting that Israel "let slip" about three weeks ago that they had nuclear weapons and then promptly denied it, after which the Brittish press got wind of an Israeli plan to use low-yield nukes and bunker buster bombs to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which is mainly underground. If that were to occur, would Bush and co. do anything other than side with Israel once again? Is the increase in forces and the added Navy hardware simply a threat to keep Syria on the sidelines when Israel attacks Iran? Are we there to safeguard Israel when Israel goes on the offensive?

Point 2:
After the speech, on the channel I was watching (can't tell you whcih, but the only one my poor t.v. could get without cable), there was a retired something-or-other from one of the armed forces - most of what he said was just mumbo-jimbo until he got to the end, and then he spilled his guts - he said that 65% of the world's oil reserves are in the middle east so the security of this region was vital to the national security of the U.S.

So that poses all sorts of interesting questions - for one, no matter who is in control of a country, would that country ever cut off oil supply to the U.S.? It would be somewhat suicidal to do so, in that the U.S. is such a major consumer of oil that the lost revenues would cripple the withholding country, would it not?

Because the U.S. still relies on oil, does that give the U.S. the right to intervene in its national security interest in a region simply because of that region's oil?

I can guarantee to one and all that if the entire world's population of Muslims would simply convert to Baptist and give us all their oil, there would be no more wars, and there would be a lot more drunk ex-Mulsims on Saturday nights.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Jan 6 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

In a similar fashion, a lot the allegations of bias have to do with the use for banners and graphics rather than specific statements by the individual anchors. For example, check out the following banner that was displayed yesterday when Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker



Do graphics that run during Shepard Smith's broadcast conform to the rules of this "challenge"? (Yes I know that this is Hannity and Colmes, not Shepard)

Amused to see just how FOX is spinning the Libby verdict:

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Jan 9 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

keylime, on Jan 9 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

Take a lesson from the Ethiopians: they are fighting to win resoundingly, and are getting the job done. Why won't we unleash our forces to do the same? One word: politics. Bunch of pussies our generals and admirals are becoming - stop reasoning and start fighting.

Dwayne

I would have thought that at least one of the lessons from Iraq had become perfectly apparent by now: Its relatively easy to seize territory and kill people. Creating a stable society is hard work. "Nation building" requires time, effort, lots of money, and a sustained commitment to process.

The Ethiopians are in the same position that the US was 4.5 years ago. They seized a lot of territory. However, its far from clear whether they will be able to stablize Somalia or even Mogadishu. Only time will tell...

Thought it might be worthwhile to revisit and earlier discussion...
Recall the glorious offensive in Somalia?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6521278,00.html

[Winstonm]

Yes, and there seems to be a slight problem here, as well:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...8d841dc&k=21972

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 6 2007, 02:54 AM, said:

Quote

I don't think it made the papers here - and Pravda -er, Fox, - surely didn't report it.

who did report it here? also, i'll repeat a challenge i've made before: show me an example of biased reporting by the anchor of fox news, sheppard smith, in his role as anchor...

Given the recent decision by Fox "News" to exclude Ron Paul from the upcoming Republican debate it seemed reasonable to revist an old thread:

Don't get me wrong... I think that Ron Paul is a complete whack job. None-the-less, his fund raising has been extremely impressive and his polling / performance is clearly better than some of the candidates who are being allowed to participate in the debate.

[luke warm]

no argument here, excluding him was just wrong imo... btw i heard a rumor that paul is actually doing quite well among the younger college kids