The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:WXWzz4CI51xKFAZT@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , DRS
writes
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message

Agreed. The right wing in the USA sound just like the N.Koreans, Chinese
and the Israelis.

You have a very strange world view.

Based on travelling in it and talking to people in other countries and
seeing their news.

Tell me how much travel have you done outside North America ?

Next time your country gets its ass in a
sling in some war, I trust you will look elsewhere for help and not across
the big pond to the country that got you through those two big ones. Or do
you suppose the *left* wing in the U.S. will rush to your aid?

We have not needed any help from the US since 1946.... on the other hand
the US has needed the UK's help on many occasions.

What's this, "We" crap? fortunately, there are many Brits that do not
believe the way you do, especially about the US and it's foreign
policies.....

Well about 85% of the population disagreed with you and that caused the
largest ever civil protests in the UK since the civil war.

I know a number of them.

Of course you do.... :-)


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"DRS" wrote in message
m.au...
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message , DRS
writes

[...]

And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.

A rouge state? Only by the wingnuts in here.

It is not acceptable to merely
deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be
established by evidence.

Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans
did not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.

There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy
of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it.

The "Taliban GOVERNMENT"?!

You seem to be saying that there is some question about whether the
Taliban
is or is not the legitimate government there

At the time of the invasion the Taliban were the legitimate government
of Afghanistan

I wasn't aware that Afghanistan had any such thing as a "legitimate
government of" then. And the one they have now seems only barely so, if
that. It does not seem to be a country that one associates easily with the
concept of legitimate government.


because the Afghan government
and army are showing "armed resistance to it." That certainly seems an odd
view.

After the invasion "elections" were held at which some parties were not
permitted to run for office.... So it was hardly free and democratic.
This is why there is still a war going on.

I doubt that's the only reason and question whether it's an important one.
Afghanistan's political instability seems to be rooted largely in its
tribalism.


It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater
experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the
Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground
for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians.

And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the Taliban
seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a discussion about
future relationships with a rattlesnake. When you're dealing with a group
that believes cutting off people's hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable
forms of corrective punishment for paying insufficient attention to their
view of proper Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion?

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:51:48 +0100, Chris H wrote:

However this was fully discussed in 2001 in UK.current-events.terrorisum

Well that's sorted, then. Nothing like a bunch of know-nothing net
kooks to set us straight on "terrorisum".

See link
http://www.phaedsys.com/news/index.html

The "kooks" I spend my time with are people at the defence industry and
counter terrorist business. We get to talk to a LOT of people who know
what is going on.

In other words, your information is anecdotal.

Not TV programs or newspapers with a political bias or

Many people in the news media do have political bias, of course.
Nevertheless the news people have the means and resources to get the overall
picture that your anecdotal sources "who know what is going on" do not.

someone's conspiracy web blog let alone some losers in the pub... (if
you listened to them the SAS has a fighting strength of 10,000 :-)

Other "kooks" are friends currently serving in the UK military in Iraq
and Afghanistan, friends in some companies like Aegis etc.

If you're talking about the Aegis combat system, that isn't a company. There
are several large corporations working on Aegis -- my nephew, who has a
background in development of naval weapons systems, works for one of them.
There are various companies named "Aegis" but they have nothing to do with
this.

Neil Harrington wrote:
Many people in the news media do have political bias, of course.
Nevertheless the news people have the means and resources to get the overall
picture that your anecdotal sources "who know what is going on" do not.

That doesn't mean that they make use of the means. Just like you.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

They have no credibility at all. They do have a political
bias which clouds their view of the media they use for information to
make up for their real lack of any first hand knowledge.

Of course the political commentators on Fox News have a political
bias. That's why O'Reilly et al are aired. You don't have an
understanding of what a political commentator is.

That pretty much sums up my take on you.

The difference is I have shown that I doe move in the circles I claim
and as I am well enough known if I were bull****ting there are several
people here who would have blown the whistle.

On the other hand all we have for you is your "opinion" and that has
equivocated and just plain ignored things you don't like.

I offer opinion couched in terms that make it clear that I am offering
opinion. You offer opinion in the guise of "facts". When I do offer
facts, they are supported by cites that back-up the statements.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

They have no credibility at all. They do have a political
bias which clouds their view of the media they use for information to
make up for their real lack of any first hand knowledge.

Of course the political commentators on Fox News have a political
bias. That's why O'Reilly et al are aired. You don't have an
understanding of what a political commentator is.

Political commentators aren't support to lie in order to sow hatred.
That's supposed to be the jobs of propaganda ministers working for
corrupt dictatorships.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

BFD, what does that prove? Every news outlet trailing in the ratings will
bad mouth the others and those in front crow about their position.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote:

They have no credibility at all. They do have a political
bias which clouds their view of the media they use for information to
make up for their real lack of any first hand knowledge.

Of course the political commentators on Fox News have a political
bias. That's why O'Reilly et al are aired. You don't have an
understanding of what a political commentator is.

Political commentators aren't support to lie in order to sow hatred.
That's supposed to be the jobs of propaganda ministers working for
corrupt dictatorships.

--
another rant from the sad little man

In message , mikey4
writes


On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

BFD, what does that prove? Every news outlet trailing in the ratings will
bad mouth the others and those in front crow about their position.

Maybe in the US but not the rest of the world

BTW the rest of the world is bigger than the US... it is even bigger
than Texas. What is normal in the US is usually not normal in the rest
of the world.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , mikey4
writes


On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

BFD, what does that prove? Every news outlet trailing in the ratings will
bad mouth the others and those in front crow about their position.

Maybe in the US but not the rest of the world

BTW the rest of the world is bigger than the US... it is even bigger
than Texas. What is normal in the US is usually not normal in the rest
of the world.

You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News
programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News
political commentary host's programs?

The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to
understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you
clearly don't understand.

I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never
do. You just hand-wave.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida