Page 1 of 24 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 474
  1.    #1  
    The folks at The Economist are, in my opinion, the greatest collection of publishing intellects in the world. The folks at the NY Times, while often far left of where I find myself, are perhaps the smartest editorial board on this country. I'd like to post selections from 9/11/02 editorials, first The Economist's and then the Times':

    "Some of the successes lie in what has not happened rather than what has. America has not turned in on itself, seeking to hide from a hostile world: rather, its international engagement has been reinvigorated, even if its tolerance of opposition or of compromise in that engagement has diminished. The process of globalisation has not been put into reverse, either by the demands of security or by a disenchantment with open markets: if anything, the chances of a new round of trade liberalisation have increased, despite a weak world economy. And, most important of all, if Mr bin Laden and his sort hoped that their atrocities, and the American military response to them, would bring to life a mass movement in the Islamic world, they have so far been sorely disappointed. Not in Pakistan, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt, not in Palestine, not in Indonesia, not even in Afghanistan itself have the numbers fighting, or even marching, against America ever gone beyond a few thousand at a time. Moreover, there has been no big terrorist success since September 11th, although several attempts appear to have been thwarted. "

    and

    "Although America was bound together by emotion on Sept. 11, 2001, America isn't bound together by emotions. It's bound together by things that transcend emotion, by principles and laws, by ideals of freedom and justice that need constant articulation, perhaps especially when America's virtues seem most self-evident. What we suffered on that day will be an important part of the story of this country. But in the long run it will not be as important a part of the story as what we choose to do in response to what we suffered. It is possible to confuse temperateness with indifference and democracy with indecision, just as it was possible on 9/11 to feel terribly weak in the midst of our undiminished strength. But time will help us make those distinctions, if we continue to seek them out. "

    Now, the editorial board I respect most, that of the Wall Street Journal, I must admonish them for using this anniversary to put down other institutions, and to further their agenda.

    "Here at home we have been struck above all this year by the American public's consistent determination. This can be measured in the high approval ratings for Mr. Bush, despite economic news that would normally take him down toward 50%. We'd measure it as well by the public's refusal to heed persistent media alarms about an alleged war on civil liberties as part of the anti-terror campaign. The public has more faith in our democracy's ability to adapt to new threats while preserving our freedoms than do the Vietnam-era elites now running some of our institutions."
  2. #2  
    The Wall Street Journal is spot on. I read the Economist piece on the AvantGo channel last week and it was nauseating... it is nothing more than American chest thumping.

    The mass movement in the Islamic world will come if/when Oil man Bush invade Iraq.
  3.    #4  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The Wall Street Journal is spot on. I read the Economist piece on the AvantGo channel last week and it was nauseating... it is nothing more than American chest thumping.

    The mass movement in the Islamic world will come if/when Oil man Bush invade Iraq.
    I respect The Economist folks for many reasons, but also because they are not American, and therefore if they thump our chests, that's assault. Seriously, though, what mass movement are you referring to? The second statement you makes seems anti-bush, but the WSJ is very pro-war. Please reconcile the two for me.
  4. #5  
    I am predicting that there will be mayhem in the Middle East if the U.S and Britain invades.

    Make no mistake folks... The U.S/British action will bring more terrorism, not less. I am sure that Osama is praying for a U.S. invasion right now.


    I tend to forget that the Economist is a British publication...It seems that everything they write about is about America.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    I respect The Economist folks for many reasons, but also because they are not American, and therefore if they thump our chests, that's assault. Seriously, though, what mass movement are you referring to? The second statement you makes seems anti-bush, but the WSJ is very pro-war. Please reconcile the two for me.
  5.    #6  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I am predicting that there will be mayhem in the Middle East if the U.S and Britain invades.


    Just today Saudi Arabia announced it would back force should the Security Council deem it necessary.
  6. #7  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Just today Saudi Arabia announced it would back force should the Security Council deem it necessary.
    They're also running nationwide commercials claiming that they've always worked for "peace and freedom." Heh. That, nepotism, monarchy, and teaching their children the kinds of things that turn them into osamas.

    let's just say they see the oil on the wall.
  7. #8  
    Originally posted by septimus
    They're also running nationwide commercials claiming that they've always worked for "peace and freedom." Heh. That, nepotism, monarchy, and teaching their children the kinds of things that turn them into osamas.

    let's just say they see the oil on the wall.
    I'm not sure that oil is the only issue with the Saudis. That 'turn them into osamas' issue is probably weighing in on it as well. IOW, "if we don't go along with them, maybe they'll start looking closely at our nepotism, monarchy, and teaching our children the kinds of things that turn them into osamas, not to mention the nationality of the majority of 9/11 participants, and oh yeah, our prince guy making that money offer while saying it was the Americans' own fault."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #9  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Make no mistake folks... The U.S/British action will bring more terrorism, not less.
    People have been chanting this every ten minutes since 1991. A decade ago it was an understandable mistake.
  9. #10  
    Being a newbie I should probably avoid such threads. I dont know how many toe's I will be stepping on by speaking my mind.

    But I was not sure how many states the US has. First there where 50 then did Britain join first or was it Canada? was U.A.E third or does it matter at all as subsequently U.N. merged in too!!!
  10. #11  
    Originally posted by Xenoepist
    Being a newbie I should probably avoid such threads. I dont know how many toe's I will be stepping on by speaking my mind.
    Well, I wear steel-toe boots most of the time, so...
    But I was not sure how many states the US has.
    Isn't it all one big state? ...in a way?
    First there where 50 then did Britain join first or was it Canada?
    Canada was definitely first.
    was U.A.E third or does it matter at all as subsequently U.N. merged in too!!!
    Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #12  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Isn't it all one big state? ...in a way? Canada was definitely first. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
    Aaahh finally somebody Confesses at last.
  12. #13  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
    Careful -- some people don't get irony.
  13. #14  
    The key phrase here is if the SECURITY COUNCIL deem it not necessary -- not if the American or British deem it necessary. Good thing that the Security Council has Russia and China to tame the American hawk at the U.N.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Just today Saudi Arabia announced it would back force should the Security Council deem it necessary.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  14.    #15  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The key phrase here is if the SECURITY COUNCIL deem it not necessary -- not if the American or British deem it necessary. Good thing that the Security Council has Russia and China to tame the American hawk at the U.N.


    Right, and what has the US been doing? Trying to convince the Security Council of its view. To listen to some people you'd think we've already nuked Iraq. People, the ways of the UN are working.
    Now, let's think about this: Germany and others are claiming success in returning weapons inspectors to Iraq, but honestly can you tell me that Iraq would have made such a move if we'd followed the German route of appeasement and dove-ism?
  15. #16  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [...] Now, let's think about this: Germany and others are claiming success in returning weapons inspectors to Iraq, but honestly can you tell me that Iraq would have made such a move if we'd followed the German route of appeasement and dove-ism?
    Better question: when did the weapons inspectors depart and where are they looking at the moment?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16.    #17  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Better question: when did the weapons inspectors depart and where are they looking at the moment?
    I heard we could have weapons inspectors on the ground by October 15th. Don't know why it isn't sooner. I also saw on the news this morning that the Iraqis have already claimed presidential palaces to be off limits to weapons inspectors.
  17. #18  
    Right. But who fabricated the crisis? How comes all of a sudden Iraq is a big threat to the world requiring immediate action? What evidence is there that Iraq is more dangerous now than it was on September 10th, 2001 (when there was no urgency to move in)?

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Right, and what has the US been doing? Trying to convince the Security Council of its view. To listen to some people you'd think we've already nuked Iraq. People, the ways of the UN are working.
    Now, let's think about this: Germany and others are claiming success in returning weapons inspectors to Iraq, but honestly can you tell me that Iraq would have made such a move if we'd followed the German route of appeasement and dove-ism?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  18. #19  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I heard we could have weapons inspectors on the ground by October 15th.
    I guess 'immediate resumption' doesn't translate the same in all languages.
    Don't know why it isn't sooner.
    Perhaps because full inspections aren't really going to resume? The Wall Street Journal is probably right. 82nd Airborne is going to have to conduct the inspections.
    I also saw on the news this morning that the Iraqis have already claimed presidential palaces to be off limits to weapons inspectors.
    So much for 'without conditions'. Some people never learn.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #20  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Right. But who fabricated the crisis? How comes all of a sudden Iraq is a big threat to the world requiring immediate action? What evidence is there that Iraq is more dangerous now than it was on September 10th, 2001 (when there was no urgency to move in)?
    It might have something to do with the possibility of a person known to produce and pursue 'WoMD', who doesn't like us, willing to provide them to people obviously willing to _use_ those 'WoMD' against us whereas no one took such a possibility seriously (mistakenly) before 9/10/2001. Now, such an action is a very real potentiality. As usual, the unknown is more disconcerting than the known.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 1 of 24 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions