***
What bugs me is that this isn't the fault of the American people.
Most of the Americans I know _want_ to be informed. It's the fault of
U.S. media who have a big disconnect with the rest of the populace.
***
I've heard a bit here and there about Brits, though a fair amount, not
exclusively, of that is because I listen to BBC World Service. On the other
other hand, I remember our own pundits and watchdogs complaining about the US
media's fascination with Michael Jackson (the pop star, not the general), when
that morning I'd heard that, of the three headlines for the opening of the
news summary, Michael Jackson (ps) was the second, following the deaths in
Istanbul.
I was too pi**ed at my news icon to even hear the third headline...
Vis a' vis, the US press: I've noticed that the small bits I hear from them
sound like envy that the Brit's SEEM to be do so well with their own areas, no
matter what Karl's come up with in casualty figures. I assumed that experience
can be a very good teacher, and they've had plenty in the area, much of it in
error.
The_Beast
> At 10:16 AM -0600 11/27/03, Doug Evans wrote:
[snip]
> general), when that morning I'd heard that, of the three headlines for
Our talking head was actually making fun of the whole thing. Miles Obrien was
saying that there was a white bronco to pick up Jackson at the Airport.
> I was too pi**ed at my news icon to even hear the third headline...
British forces have had a long time administrating an Empire with dissident
forces that didn't really want them there. All that time they had to keep an
uneasy peace to keep things calm and they've been at it for centuries with out
really pissing off the locals. They left the colonies in much better states
than when they claimed them and they still keep good relations with most of
them with in the Commonwealth.
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/ is an eye
opener for someone interested in Military history.
***
British forces have had a long time administrating an Empire with dissident
forces that didn't really want them there. All that time they had to keep an
uneasy peace to keep things calm and they've been at it for centuries with out
really pissing off the locals. They left the colonies in much better states
than when they claimed them and they still keep good relations with most of
them with in the Commonwealth.
***
No argument; in fact, my point. Mesopotamia may count as a less than a shining
example, though.
The_Beast
And actually, here's the thing I like the most about our site. A list of the
men that have paid the ultimate price. Its US and Coalition.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
Reading it closely I'm seeing more Italian names than I thought I should,
they're clearly in the thick of it. I'll have to tank some Italians next time
I see them at work. Clearly Italy is living up to it's responsibilities and
took it on the chin when that MP HQ was bombed.
> At 12:43 PM -0600 11/27/03, Doug Evans wrote:
I'm really starting to think that the Arab mix of Socialism (everyone gets
money for being a
citizen) and only the strong Mulla/Shek/Strong
Man thing as the only viable form of government is really screwing up the
region. I just had a conversation with one Marine who's due to go to Kabul for
Embassy Duty who related that the Iraqi's seemed to have a very bad penchant
for showing up to security duty with any reliablity.
John, have you seen any of that?
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> At 3:29 PM -0800 11/28/03, John Atkinson wrote:
*sigh* that's bascially what Mike was saying. Too bad.