| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:47 am
Post subject: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') [...]
Obaue: I'd write "the Sudan".
I think they insist on the "The" getting the initial cap. They
don't
have much of a government to get you, so you are free to do what
you
want.
They certainly don't have much of an English translator for their
Web
site <http://www.sudan.gov.sd/english.htm>, but it just says
"Sudan".
You may be thinking of The Gambia (sic).
[...] |
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:22 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:3tcbl7Frrbp5U1@individual.net:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
[...]
There were links between Iraq and al Qaeda, that there is no
question
about.
I don't care how OT this gets. It is vitally important to
understand
that there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda. Saddam and
the
Ba'athists represented almost everything Al-Q most detests. The
whole
disaster is because of a complete failure to understand the
political
dynamics of the Middle East.
And since we know the Islamic mujahedin hate Western culture,
specifically American, because it represents everything they
detest,
this proves that there couldn't have been any links between the
mujahedin and the Americans against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
 |
They also hated the Soviet Union and all it stood for even more, and
the US was paying and arming them; and both wanted the Soviets out of
Afghanistan. The Ba'athists and Al-Qa'eda had no common objectives,
apart from the Ba'ath lip-service to the Palestinian cause.
It's also important to understand something that not all Americans
seem to know: Arabs in general, if the term has meaning, _want_ to
like the US. Unfortunately, the US doesn't, in general, seem to
_want_ to like Arabs, and appears often to go out of its way and
against its national interest to prove it.
| Quote: |
Surely you've heard the proverb "I against my brother, I and my
brother against my cousin".
|
And, as a tool of political analysis, singularly meaningless it is,
too.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:27 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> spake thusly:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
[...]
There were links between Iraq and al Qaeda, that there is no
question about.
I don't care how OT this gets. It is vitally important to
understand
that there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda. Saddam and
the
Ba'athists represented almost everything Al-Q most detests. The
whole disaster is because of a complete failure to understand the
political dynamics of the Middle East.
The issue was links between Iraq and 9/11. That was much more
uncertain and it took time to understand some claimed meetings
between
Iraqi intelligence and 9/11 plotters. But ignore that, Bush
wasn't
counting on connecting Saddam to 9/11 itself. He was connecting
Saddam
to terrorist threats in general and to al Qaeda proper or al
Qaeda
the holding company.
But Saddam could be connected only with terrorism against Israel,
not terrorist threats in general. And in any case his support for
the suicide bombers was one of his publicity stunts to keep the
Arab
world's minds off the wreck he was creating at home.
I remember a discussion here, before the invasion of Iraq, with
somebody who was concerned that Saddam might fire missiles at the
US
West Coast. I fear that the US people were not well informed.
Saddam was well known not to possess any ballistic technologies
that
could attack anyone outside of the Middle East. He could've bought
weapons, however, that would've easily allowed him to attack
Europe.
These technologies are available from North Korea.
|
Yep, dead easy to get a ballistic missile from North Korea past South
Korea and Japan, Indo-China, Singapore, round India, past Pakistan
and Iran and up through the Gulf blockade. Can't imagine why he
didn't do it, really.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:44 am
Post subject: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | I remember a discussion here, before the invasion of Iraq, with
somebody who was concerned that Saddam might fire missiles at the US
West Coast. I fear that the US people were not well informed.
|
Some were, some weren't.
What I've been wondering, during the many discussions these days about
terrorism and war, is how the citizenry of the countries involved would
have reacted to WWII if we had had the media then that we have now.
In the US, WWII footage was shown in theater newsreels. There was some
delay between the event and the newsreel being shown, of course --
perhaps a couple of weeks(?) or more.
There was no TV. Yes, there was radio, but that was not nearly as
"in-depth" and wide-ranging as today's radio and TV news.
Newspaper coverage of the war was plentiful, but again, not nearly as
"in-depth" as what we see these days. And commentaries/opinions were
few, indeed, in comparison to what today's newspapers and cable TV
stations provide us with.
Because of media advances, people are more informed than people were in
1939. I wonder, then, if WWII would have even gotten off the ground if
today's media existed then. (But if the war had not been fought, would
the concentration camps have gone on to fully complete their mission?)
What do you think? If today's media had existed in the 1930s (and
continuously beyond) would the world's population, including the
"downtrodden," be better off now? Would everyone be less inclined to
wage war?
Keep in mind that the media not only informs, but stokes some fires.
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:54 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
I remember a discussion here, before the invasion of Iraq, with
somebody who was concerned that Saddam might fire missiles at the US
West Coast. I fear that the US people were not well informed.
Some were, some weren't.
What I've been wondering, during the many discussions these days about
terrorism and war, is how the citizenry of the countries involved would
have reacted to WWII if we had had the media then that we have now.
In the US, WWII footage was shown in theater newsreels. There was some
delay between the event and the newsreel being shown, of course --
perhaps a couple of weeks(?) or more.
There was no TV. Yes, there was radio, but that was not nearly as
"in-depth" and wide-ranging as today's radio and TV news.
Newspaper coverage of the war was plentiful, but again, not nearly as
"in-depth" as what we see these days. And commentaries/opinions were
few, indeed, in comparison to what today's newspapers and cable TV
stations provide us with.
Because of media advances, people are more informed than people were in
1939.
|
I note that you don't write "better informed". Do you mean more informed
in the sense that more information is provided? I'm not sure that there
is more information available. Much of the reporting we receive is
commentary, rather than fact. It certainly arrives faster, though, but
much of what we see on our screens, which is presented as fact, is
partial and biased.
I wonder, then, if WWII would have even gotten off the ground if
| Quote: | today's media existed then. (But if the war had not been fought, would
the concentration camps have gone on to fully complete their mission?)
What do you think? If today's media had existed in the 1930s (and
continuously beyond) would the world's population, including the
"downtrodden," be better off now? Would everyone be less inclined to
wage war?
Keep in mind that the media not only informs, but stokes some fires.
|
And the media also misinforms and those controlling it have their own
agenda.
I think these are impossible questions because the world we live in now
is so different in so many ways from that time.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Maria Conlon <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> spake thusly:
| Quote: | What I've been wondering, during the many discussions these days about
terrorism and war, is how the citizenry of the countries involved would
have reacted to WWII if we had had the media then that we have now.
|
I find it difficult to judge, having been born 10 years after the end
of the war, but things are probably different from the European point
of view. The relentless push of Hitler through Europe was too close
to home to be ignored by the UK.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Default User
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:20 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | What do you think? If today's media had existed in the 1930s (and
continuously beyond) would the world's population, including the
"downtrodden," be better off now? Would everyone be less inclined to
wage war?
|
I don't know. Do you postulate that you can slap modern information
technology into the mass media without it affecting anything else?
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:31 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Default User wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
What do you think? If today's media had existed in the 1930s (and
continuously beyond) would the world's population, including the
"downtrodden," be better off now? Would everyone be less inclined
to
wage war?
I don't know. Do you postulate that you can slap modern information
technology into the mass media without it affecting anything else?
|
I've seen not a shred of evidence that the nation-state is any less
warlike now than it was seventy years ago. Some of the European
states have grown up a lot, and the South Americans seem more
interested in killing their own citizens than fighting the
neighbours, of course, but that's about it.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: |
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') [...]
Obaue: I'd write "the Sudan".
I think they insist on the "The" getting the initial cap. They
don't
have much of a government to get you, so you are free to do what
you
want.
They certainly don't have much of an English translator for their
Web
site <http://www.sudan.gov.sd/english.htm>, but it just says
"Sudan".
You may be thinking of The Gambia (sic).
[...]
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
When did it change? The name rules for African countries are too |
complicated.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: |
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
the Omrud wrote:
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> spake thusly:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
[...]
There were links between Iraq and al Qaeda, that there is no
question about.
I don't care how OT this gets. It is vitally important to
understand
that there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda. Saddam and
the
Ba'athists represented almost everything Al-Q most detests. The
whole disaster is because of a complete failure to understand the
political dynamics of the Middle East.
The issue was links between Iraq and 9/11. That was much more
uncertain and it took time to understand some claimed meetings
between
Iraqi intelligence and 9/11 plotters. But ignore that, Bush
wasn't
counting on connecting Saddam to 9/11 itself. He was connecting
Saddam
to terrorist threats in general and to al Qaeda proper or al
Qaeda
the holding company.
But Saddam could be connected only with terrorism against Israel,
not terrorist threats in general. And in any case his support for
the suicide bombers was one of his publicity stunts to keep the
Arab
world's minds off the wreck he was creating at home.
I remember a discussion here, before the invasion of Iraq, with
somebody who was concerned that Saddam might fire missiles at the
US
West Coast. I fear that the US people were not well informed.
Saddam was well known not to possess any ballistic technologies
that
could attack anyone outside of the Middle East. He could've bought
weapons, however, that would've easily allowed him to attack
Europe.
These technologies are available from North Korea.
Yep, dead easy to get a ballistic missile from North Korea past South
Korea and Japan, Indo-China, Singapore, round India, past Pakistan
and Iran and up through the Gulf blockade. Can't imagine why he
didn't do it, really.
North Korea managed to supply much of the Middle East with medium range |
missiles and missile technology. This included Yemen and Libya as I
recall. I think Libya was caught buying 100 of the things. 100 missiles
much more powerful than Scuds would be a big deal if they pointed at a
European city.
One threat that I think is too easily dismissed is the use of nuclear
capable missiles to attack maybe with and maybe not with nuclear
weapons. The attacked country wouldn't know what sort of response it
could justify until the missiles hit and as long as they never actually
were nuclear, this game could go on for months. A good idea of what
could happen was given to us by Israel during the 1991 Gulf War when
Saddam repeatedly fired Scud missiles that may or may not have contained
chemical weapons. That country was brought to a standstill. Imagine
Saddam (or whoever) doing that to London or New York City or Paris.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Default User wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
What do you think? If today's media had existed in the 1930s (and
continuously beyond) would the world's population, including the
"downtrodden," be better off now? Would everyone be less inclined to
wage war?
I don't know. Do you postulate that you can slap modern information
technology into the mass media without it affecting anything else?
|
Not really. I'm just wondering "what if."
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> spake thusly:
What I've been wondering, during the many discussions these days
about terrorism and war, is how the citizenry of the countries
involved would have reacted to WWII if we had had the media then
that we have now.
I find it difficult to judge, having been born 10 years after the end
of the war, but things are probably different from the European point
of view. The relentless push of Hitler through Europe was too close
to home to be ignored by the UK.
|
Yes, that is a good point. Here in the US, we were not as close to the
fighting, and we were not attacked -- not on our mainland. Pearl Harbor,
which /was/ attacked, was known to some Americans but not all. It very
likely seemed remote to many Americans.
Drifting off the topic:
In the late 1940s, when I was 5 or 6 years old, there was a German woman
(from Germany, speaking German) living down the street. (That was 23rd
Street in Detroit.) The kids in the neighborhood were afraid of her, and
"hated krauts," and told each other that she carried a butcher knife and
would use it on us because she was German and lost the war. It was all
nonsense, of course, but not to kids. We smartened up, though, probably
when it became obvious that no one was getting attacked with a butcher
knife. Still, it must have been hard for the woman, being feared and
hated by kids. (How long did it all that last? I couldn't say. Maybe a
few days, maybe longer. But it's there in my mind while other events of
those times are not.)
One of these days, I must tell you about my Japanese aunt, acquired in
1953.
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Laura F. Spira wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote, in part:
Because of media advances, people are more informed than people were
in 1939.
I note that you don't write "better informed". Do you mean more
informed in the sense that more information is provided?
|
I meant that more coverage/reporting is provided nowadays than was
apparently the case before and during WWII. (I had to think about it for
a bit before deciding what I meant.)
| Quote: | ..........I'm not sure
that there is more information available. Much of the reporting we
receive is commentary, rather than fact. It certainly arrives faster,
though, but much of what we see on our screens, which is presented as
fact, is partial and biased.
|
Yes, there is bias present. However, I think there is more information
disseminated than there was during WWII. (As for the quality of the
information, and the necessity of giving it out, those are debatable
matters.)
As I understand it, the American public (if not the British) was not
fully informed about much of the doings in the war at the time. I think
the US government did more to keep spirits -- and patriotism -- up "on
the home front" than the government does now. ("I think" means I have no
real facts, just memories of what my mother and others said afterwards.
[My father never told me of his days on the battlefields in Europe. I
gathered it was too painful to talk about. He did talk of other aspects
of his Army Air Force years.])
| Quote: | I wonder, then, if WWII would have even gotten off the ground if
today's media existed then. (But if the war had not been fought,
would the concentration camps have gone on to fully complete their
mission?) What do you think? If today's media had existed in the
1930s (and
continuously beyond) would the world's population, including the
"downtrodden," be better off now? Would everyone be less inclined to
wage war?
Keep in mind that the media not only informs, but stokes some fires.
And the media also misinforms and those controlling it have their own
agenda.
|
True. But there are those from various sides who have control in one
medium or another; listening to or reading all sides, and then deciding
what is most likely true, seems to be the only way to get the full
picture.
| Quote: | I think these are impossible questions because the world we live in
now is so different in so many ways from that time.
|
I don't know, but I do wonder about it all.
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:22:19 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
And since we know the Islamic mujahedin hate Western culture,
specifically American, because it represents everything they
detest,
this proves that there couldn't have been any links between the
mujahedin and the Americans against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
:-)
They also hated the Soviet Union and all it stood for even more...
|
Be careful of your "they"s. I didn't hate the Soviet Union and all it
stood for, nor did a number of Americans. Most of us weren't
McCarthy-like even in the anti-commie days of 1950s America.
I never really understood how the Cold War came about. We were allies,
if uneasy ones, in WWII yet seemingly completely at odds shortly
thereafter. All those years of animosity between America and the USSR,
arming ourselves to the teeth so we would be able to blow up the world
should one of us attack the other. What a waste and how silly. Who in
their right mind would use the nuclear arsenal at their disposal for
that purpose?
| Quote: | It's also important to understand something that not all Americans
seem to know: Arabs in general, if the term has meaning, _want_ to
like the US. Unfortunately, the US doesn't, in general, seem to
_want_ to like Arabs, and appears often to go out of its way and
against its national interest to prove it.
|
Well, I like 'em fine. I'm quite sure I'd like most of them a whole
lot better than I like the rednecks of the Appalachian Mountains, for
example.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
In message <437156BC.7DE1ACB8@magersfontein.co.uk>, "Bill Bonde ('by a
commodius vicus of recirculation')" <John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk>
writes
| Quote: | A good idea of what
could happen was given to us by Israel during the 1991 Gulf War when
Saddam repeatedly fired Scud missiles that may or may not have contained
chemical weapons. That country was brought to a standstill. Imagine
Saddam (or whoever) doing that to London or New York City or Paris.
|
London and Antwerp have already had their fill of ballistic missile
attacks. Particularly Antwerp. The worst missile attack in history was
when Antwerp's crowded Ritz cinema was destroyed. About 300 killed.
--
James Follett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in