That wasn't CCR. It really wasn't much of anything.
Not anything...just everything...and dead on accurate.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
US war on terror is abject failure and likely a trillion dollar industry. Not much money to be had focusing on foreign policy. Would it have been so wrong to air the interveiw with hostage holder on US media. We could listen. What is being said doesn't match what happened. Americans and Brits were hostages. This operation had a huge impact with much less loss of life than there could have been. If we want to see fewer lives taken in attacks it might be good policy to point out when lives are spared.
So when did they take away women's rights? Or is getting stoned to death to save her family's honor because three dudes ganged raped her a part of it?
Yes a problem but where is your sense of proportion. Half a million children under 12 years of age died by 1996 under Clinton's US initiated sanctions in Iraq by barring common medicines.The average death toll was 5,000 a month for that age group according to UN/WHO. Care about those mothers or the mothers can't feed their children in Gaza.80% of children there are malnourished.What about if you are expecting a child in southern Lebanon or Iraq and you know that baby may be born with horrific deformations from the use of depleted uranium. Isn't it pc to speak out for women in this context? The Karen Hughes approach while at WhiteHouse and State Dept. used "womens rights" to promote the Bush,PNAC plan to "transform"the arab world.How did this secretary and I mean secretary like type type rise to such power.The topic becomes distractive and hypocritical.She played a major role in cable co's blocking international news here. Is it too trite to say : The revolution will not be televised
US war on terror is abject failure and likely a trillion dollar industry. Not much money to be had focusing on foreign policy. Would it have been so wrong to air the interveiw with hostage holder on US media. We could listen. What is being said doesn't match what happened. Americans and Brits were hostages. This operation had a huge impact with much less loss of life than there could have been. If we want to see fewer lives taken in attacks it might be good policy to point out when lives are spared.
See, this is precisely what I was talking about earlier in this thread. There is a difference between examining the root causes of what causes Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorism, and examining the role that the U.S. has negatively played in the region, and condoning violent, horrific action. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but you seem to be telling us that this 'operation' that cost the lives of hundreds of people and injured hundreds more was a successful one with "much less loss of life than there could have been."
Huh? Hundreds of people are dead from gunfire. Abhorrent U.S. policy in the Middle East doesn't make these kind of things okay. If that was how this worked, the U.S. should be allowed to do anything it wants in the name of national security because we don't want thousands of Americans to die again. And that's just wrong, as is the previous example. We're going so far to condemn the U.S. that you're condoning the kind of guys who put bombs on buses. Why do people feel the need to do that? Why can't both approaches be wrong? And why are people so unwilling to admit that although U.S. policy has led to terrible conditions in the Middle East, there is an amount of personal responsibility involved in deciding to open fire into an unarmed crowd for your political cause? Why are people so unwilling to deal with that? I know it's harder than simply "U.S = Bad!" but the world is more complicated than that.
Yes a problem but where is your sense of proportion. Half a million children under 12 years of age died by 1996 under Clinton's US initiated sanctions in Iraq by barring common medicines.The average death toll was 5,000 a month for that age group according to UN/WHO. Care about those mothers or the mothers can't feed their children in Gaza.80% of children there are malnourished.
Where did he or she say she didn't care about "those" mothers? I think the best approach is to care about all mothers, including those dying of malnutrition in the Gaza Strip and those who are being stoned to death in Iran. Why does one feel the need to make one death more or less important, or more or less a violation of human rights, than the other?
I'm sorry I am a little tired. I have at times used "US" when I am actually referring to policies in central Asia and or Middle East that were initiated in the late 19th century by the British Empire. Palestine, taking down Ottoman Empire, Gallipoli. We, US ,did not get involved until WW2. Take it from there whatever your opinion may be of Israel or our role in assasinating the cleric, that led to downfall of Mosedeq or funding/arming both sides in conflicts. I am very fascinated with the world prior and during WW1.I think we could learn alot from that war.
Yes I did say "operation" is that wrong, bad? Would you prefer I say "terrorist attack"? It's rather subjective. Yes I think they could have used the explosives that they still had at the end, could have been used to cause a great deal more carnage. I think it is a good thing that more lives were not lost.
Women/mothers, I think that there is a difference in numbers. Not to minimize the value of 1 life or 1000 that suffer from sexist policy etc BUT there are 4.5 million refugees in and from Iraq today. Many are widows with children. From my point of veiw,as you prioritize policies we can affect, I am more concerned with the plight of the 4.5 million than the Saudi policy toward women. I was not in anyway commenting on gay rights in the Muslim world.
We in US have Bill of Rights, promise, power and I believe we can do better.
I never said I condoned this or that it's ok.I don't know why I chose to participate when I have come here and read threads in the past. Do we have to see the world the same way?
I never said I condoned this or that it's ok.I don't know why I chose to participate when I have come here and read threads in the past. Do we have to see the world the same way?
No, we don't have to see the world the same way, but if you post something on a discussion board without being willing to discuss it, then what's the point?
I thinks it's "fool me once shame on...shame on you, fool me twice can't get fooled again"
Maybe that's only in Tennessee
Let's move beyond this because it's deconstructive. We need solutions, not this hackneyed banter. Bush is who he is. We need to move on.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I'm sorry I am a little tired. I have at times used "US" when I am actually referring to policies in central Asia and or Middle East that were initiated in the late 19th century by the British Empire. Palestine, taking down Ottoman Empire, Gallipoli. We, US ,did not get involved until WW2. Take it from there whatever your opinion may be of Israel or our role in assasinating the cleric, that led to downfall of Mosedeq or funding/arming both sides in conflicts. I am very fascinated with the world prior and during WW1.I think we could learn alot from that war.
Yes I did say "operation" is that wrong, bad? Would you prefer I say "terrorist attack"? It's rather subjective. Yes I think they could have used the explosives that they still had at the end, could have been used to cause a great deal more carnage. I think it is a good thing that more lives were not lost.
Women/mothers, I think that there is a difference in numbers. Not to minimize the value of 1 life or 1000 that suffer from sexist policy etc BUT there are 4.5 million refugees in and from Iraq today. Many are widows with children. From my point of veiw,as you prioritize policies we can affect, I am more concerned with the plight of the 4.5 million than the Saudi policy toward women. I was not in anyway commenting on gay rights in the Muslim world.
We in US have Bill of Rights, promise, power and I believe we can do better.
When you say you didn't condone anything, you're right in that you never used the word condone. Here's what you did say...
"Would it have been so wrong to air the interveiw with hostage holder on US media. We could listen. What is being said doesn't match what happened. Americans and Brits were hostages. This operation had a huge impact with much less loss of life than there could have been. If we want to see fewer lives taken in attacks it might be good policy to point out when lives are spared."
So therefore, by listening to the hostage taker, the possibility is that there is a legitimate grievance that could make such actions undertaken permissible, even necessary. This 'operation' could have been much worse, you've stated. I think we need to clarify what we are talking about. We are talking about the 'operation' where gunmen fired on crowds of people, specifically looking for people of American or British nationality so they could either take them hostage or kill them. And the story is supposed to be that 'it could have been worse?' That was what I was commenting on. Clearly, in the minds of some, there seems to be just cause for such actions. I'm wondering what the grievance could be that makes it just to fire into an unarmed crowd.
And in regards to your second part ('mothers'), the fact is that the first poster never said anything in regards to Israel, Iraq, etc. when commenting on the plight of women in Iran. You seemed to assume that she didn't care about that, which I didn't think was very fair. There are human rights violations occurring in Iraq due to the American occupation. That's a fact. There are also human rights violations in Iran. That's a fact as well. Numbers aside, I don't see the need to make one more or less important than the other. In both cases, the issue is human rights violations. I think we should be willing to call everyone, including ourselves, out on human rights violations.
And in regards to your post title, don't worry; I'm very 'chill.' I'm simply discussing.
No, we don't have to see the world the same way, but if you post something on a discussion board without being willing to discuss it, then what's the point?
You are right and what upsets me is I don't understand how much will change when we can not see ourselves in a global context. Mainstream news on this event or our election or what's going on in Mexico we get one derivative snap shot wrapped up in rhetorical jibberish. It's such a manipulation. Is BBC World or freespeech tv a threat. Some believe so. I am thrilled that all these stocks have taken a slide. What a good time for people to cut losses and divest in newscorp, g.e. time warner.comcast.
just deserts
Digster, I was very young when the war in Vietnam was going on. I may not have understood but I know I saw what was happening on the ground there. There was no embedded media. I think that fed the anti war movement and produced great music. Music that would not be allowed on Clear Channel today.
Many policy makers believe the music and movement was BAD. I think it was GOOD as it led to change.
Who decides what we hear?
Was it wrong for much of the world to have heard that interview?
What are we a bunch of lemmings? Peace
While I agree entirely with your assertion that you have to be careful about being force-fed information, and getting as wide a range of information from diverse sources as possible, I'm still not sure what impact that has with what we're talking about. Right now, we still know relatively little. We know the group that committed the action was likely not al Qaeda, although it was a similarly extremist organization. We know India is saying that it's quite possible that Pakistan was involved in the attack, or at least Pakistani-supported organizations, but we also don't know how solid that is because when something happens in India the first action is typically to suspect Pakistan. We also know the original intention was to bomb the hotels and kill thousands as opposed to hundreds, although I've seen no evidence that the reason this did not happen was that the terrorists decided not to do it, as opposed to being unable to do so. What we do know is that people opened fire into unarmed crowds. We know Americans and Brits were targeted. If we don't call it terrorism, what are we supposed to call it? Terrorism is using violence to instill fear against unarmed civillians as a means to enact some type of change. Isn't that what happened here?
I also don't really understand the 'music' argument you're trying to make. No doubt there were many idiots who tried to limit the constitutionally-assured free speech of artists in the 1960s. No argument from me. But I'm afraid I'm not making the connection. Surely no one would state there is a comparison to be drawn between Bob Dylan writing 'Blowing in the Wind' and an armed man opening fire on an unarmed crowd in Mumbai. So I guess I'm just not entirely sure what's being said here, that's all.
All it would take is one small attack on US soil to put this country in a frenzy and write the government a blank check to do whatever..
So when the next attack happens, and 30, 100, maybe 3000 people die.. how many million more are we going to kill in retaliation? What is the 9/11 retaliation total as of now?
The big question I'm getting at, is can Obama fight terrorism more efficiently than Bush?
You have two options the way I see it. You can be a pussy, let them push you around and hope they go away, or you can be tough and keep poking at the bees nest... It's a lose, lose situation.. humanity amazes me sometimes.
GW veered off the path of fighting terrorism when he invaded Iraq. Subsequently, by doing that, he allowed Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorism.
GW veered off the path of fighting terrorism when he invaded Iraq. Subsequently, by doing that, he allowed Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorism.
so when he was in Afghanistan they were fighting terrorism?
I didn't know occupying another country is counted as 'fighting terrorism'... we should inform Israel.
GW veered off the path of fighting terrorism when he invaded Iraq. Subsequently, by doing that, he allowed Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorism.
A breeding ground for terrorism, or just resistance to a foreign aggressor?
This whole war an terror thing is a ruse to carry out an agenda, for those that don't see it...my condolences.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yes a problem but where is your sense of proportion. Half a million children under 12 years of age died by 1996 under Clinton's US initiated sanctions in Iraq by barring common medicines.The average death toll was 5,000 a month for that age group according to UN/WHO. Care about those mothers or the mothers can't feed their children in Gaza.80% of children there are malnourished.What about if you are expecting a child in southern Lebanon or Iraq and you know that baby may be born with horrific deformations from the use of depleted uranium. Isn't it pc to speak out for women in this context? The Karen Hughes approach while at WhiteHouse and State Dept. used "womens rights" to promote the Bush,PNAC plan to "transform"the arab world.How did this secretary and I mean secretary like type type rise to such power.The topic becomes distractive and hypocritical.She played a major role in cable co's blocking international news here. Is it too trite to say : The revolution will not be televised
"if the revolution ain't gonna be televised the fuck, i'll probably miss it"
if only the revolution could be by text message then the populace ight take part
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Let's move beyond this because it's deconstructive. We need solutions, not this hackneyed banter. Bush is who he is. We need to move on.
sure thing, Captain Serious
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
I intended to come off annoyed, not condescending. The above is one of about 9 posts I've seen by this guy in just 2 weeks that say essentially the same thing, and he's not the only one.
All I'm saying is the guy's been elected for not even 30 days, he's not signed any laws or issued any executive orders, and I'm still just riding a little high on the fact that we're getting rid of Dubya and having a shot at maybe turning this country around a bit. It's one thing to piss on my parade, I could live with that. But people like the above poster, on and offline, have spent past 3 weeks claiming to know who I am and why I voted for him and what I expect from him and it's getting very, very old. It's like they are hoping for a massive, catastrophic failure just because it would give them a chance to gloat, without regard to how bad it would be for us as a country.
you posted the wrong link, he said MOST, not ALL
call it what you want but you acted exactly like the 3 adjectives you complained about....not even a gap in between!
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Comments
youre right... it was 3 dog night.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yes, it was. A band you are too young to know about.
oh pish posh you dont even know how old i am.
and besides i know shakespeare and i can assure you i i wasnt around in elizabethan times.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
“No sir, no jot, not I! I know thy favor well - ‘tho now you have no seacap on your head.”
I'll bet Cate knows about them, i also have a fair idea she knows the story of where their name originated from
Not anything...just everything...and dead on accurate.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.google.ca/search?q=ccr+bullfrog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I prefer the CCR version.
It stands for Change you Cant Remember
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ooh ooh indeed i do know what a 3 dog night is. all us aussies do.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
See, this is precisely what I was talking about earlier in this thread. There is a difference between examining the root causes of what causes Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorism, and examining the role that the U.S. has negatively played in the region, and condoning violent, horrific action. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but you seem to be telling us that this 'operation' that cost the lives of hundreds of people and injured hundreds more was a successful one with "much less loss of life than there could have been."
Huh? Hundreds of people are dead from gunfire. Abhorrent U.S. policy in the Middle East doesn't make these kind of things okay. If that was how this worked, the U.S. should be allowed to do anything it wants in the name of national security because we don't want thousands of Americans to die again. And that's just wrong, as is the previous example. We're going so far to condemn the U.S. that you're condoning the kind of guys who put bombs on buses. Why do people feel the need to do that? Why can't both approaches be wrong? And why are people so unwilling to admit that although U.S. policy has led to terrible conditions in the Middle East, there is an amount of personal responsibility involved in deciding to open fire into an unarmed crowd for your political cause? Why are people so unwilling to deal with that? I know it's harder than simply "U.S = Bad!" but the world is more complicated than that.
Where did he or she say she didn't care about "those" mothers? I think the best approach is to care about all mothers, including those dying of malnutrition in the Gaza Strip and those who are being stoned to death in Iran. Why does one feel the need to make one death more or less important, or more or less a violation of human rights, than the other?
Yes I did say "operation" is that wrong, bad? Would you prefer I say "terrorist attack"? It's rather subjective. Yes I think they could have used the explosives that they still had at the end, could have been used to cause a great deal more carnage. I think it is a good thing that more lives were not lost.
Women/mothers, I think that there is a difference in numbers. Not to minimize the value of 1 life or 1000 that suffer from sexist policy etc BUT there are 4.5 million refugees in and from Iraq today. Many are widows with children. From my point of veiw,as you prioritize policies we can affect, I am more concerned with the plight of the 4.5 million than the Saudi policy toward women. I was not in anyway commenting on gay rights in the Muslim world.
We in US have Bill of Rights, promise, power and I believe we can do better.
i ran
the river's bleeding the sea is boiling
No, we don't have to see the world the same way, but if you post something on a discussion board without being willing to discuss it, then what's the point?
Let's move beyond this because it's deconstructive. We need solutions, not this hackneyed banter. Bush is who he is. We need to move on.
-Reagan
When you say you didn't condone anything, you're right in that you never used the word condone. Here's what you did say...
"Would it have been so wrong to air the interveiw with hostage holder on US media. We could listen. What is being said doesn't match what happened. Americans and Brits were hostages. This operation had a huge impact with much less loss of life than there could have been. If we want to see fewer lives taken in attacks it might be good policy to point out when lives are spared."
So therefore, by listening to the hostage taker, the possibility is that there is a legitimate grievance that could make such actions undertaken permissible, even necessary. This 'operation' could have been much worse, you've stated. I think we need to clarify what we are talking about. We are talking about the 'operation' where gunmen fired on crowds of people, specifically looking for people of American or British nationality so they could either take them hostage or kill them. And the story is supposed to be that 'it could have been worse?' That was what I was commenting on. Clearly, in the minds of some, there seems to be just cause for such actions. I'm wondering what the grievance could be that makes it just to fire into an unarmed crowd.
And in regards to your second part ('mothers'), the fact is that the first poster never said anything in regards to Israel, Iraq, etc. when commenting on the plight of women in Iran. You seemed to assume that she didn't care about that, which I didn't think was very fair. There are human rights violations occurring in Iraq due to the American occupation. That's a fact. There are also human rights violations in Iran. That's a fact as well. Numbers aside, I don't see the need to make one more or less important than the other. In both cases, the issue is human rights violations. I think we should be willing to call everyone, including ourselves, out on human rights violations.
And in regards to your post title, don't worry; I'm very 'chill.' I'm simply discussing.
just deserts
Many policy makers believe the music and movement was BAD. I think it was GOOD as it led to change.
Who decides what we hear?
Was it wrong for much of the world to have heard that interview?
What are we a bunch of lemmings? Peace
I also don't really understand the 'music' argument you're trying to make. No doubt there were many idiots who tried to limit the constitutionally-assured free speech of artists in the 1960s. No argument from me. But I'm afraid I'm not making the connection. Surely no one would state there is a comparison to be drawn between Bob Dylan writing 'Blowing in the Wind' and an armed man opening fire on an unarmed crowd in Mumbai. So I guess I'm just not entirely sure what's being said here, that's all.
I didn't know occupying another country is counted as 'fighting terrorism'... we should inform Israel.
A breeding ground for terrorism, or just resistance to a foreign aggressor?
This whole war an terror thing is a ruse to carry out an agenda, for those that don't see it...my condolences.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i think they already know.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"if the revolution ain't gonna be televised the fuck, i'll probably miss it"
if only the revolution could be by text message then the populace ight take part
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
sure thing, Captain Serious
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
you posted the wrong link, he said MOST, not ALL
call it what you want but you acted exactly like the 3 adjectives you complained about....not even a gap in between!
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'