[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I dunno.......how about we think about bombing as something different than those big ass possible UFO bombers flying over northern Africa and think about drones that the US military has been using for more years than will make civilians feel comfortable.

You know me, Toughy. I say we continue to think of bombing as bombing so that we know what we're talking about. Look, I agree with you that the media has gigantic blind spots and the strangest idea of what 'news' is. But I also think that the time when we could pretend that words just mean whatever we might want them to for ideological or partisan ends. The other side does it. They do it to our detriment. So job growth isn't job growth when the government has a hand in it. Tax cuts for the rich aren't tax cuts for the rich if we call them something else. The two issues might seem completely unrelated but I think they are linked. If we're going to insist that Republicans are full of it when they claim that there's no global warming or that tax cuts raise revenues then we're going to have to hold ourselves to the same standard. Otherwise we're hypocrites. I don't want us to be hypocrites. It's not particularly convenient but I think that our country is in enough trouble that we need to inject some hard reality into the discussion, even if that means that we can't just make it up as we go along because it's easier to make our ideological point or tip the partisan balance of power.

So bombing is when someone drops ordnance on something else. Shelling is when someone uses artillery to achieve the same ends.

I also think that the historical record counts. Again, the other side is wholesale pulling things out of a hat to boost their ideological and partisan ends. They are claiming that the men who wrote the Constitution were all fundamentalist Christians but they weren't. If we are going to call them out on making up history, I think we have to not make it up ourselves. Otherwise, we have no ground upon which to stand. Oh, I'm sure we could claim that because we're making it up as we go for good and pure ideological and partisan reasons and they are doing it for malevolent ones, I don't think that's going to convince anyone. I pretty certain that they think they're the ones who are doing it for a higher good.

So if we say that, for instance, we bombed Libya for 36 years doesn't that mean we should actually be able to point to incidents--specific incidents? Shouldn't we also recognize that since every *other* navy in the world is going to defend itself if threatened by fighters in international waters, ours is going to do the same? Shouldn't we also recognize that a dogfight is not bombing?

Daddy Bush killed whatshisface's girl child in a tent somewhere in that northern desert.

I think it was Reagan since it was 1986.

Let us who have served, not contribute to the whitewashing of war. Find a US government that has not been involved in trying to get rid of whateveris the spelling of his name since he took power. Please name me a US government ....other than that assfuckingmonkey who occupied the White House for 10 years bedfore Obama......that was not involved in a lone or NATO action that wanted to change the government of Lybia.

Jimmy Carter. Gerald Ford. Bill Clinton.

Don't rely on what the mainstream media tells you is happening.......

Actually, I typically get my information from a variety of sources. You really going to do the "if you weren't listening to the mainstream media" thing with me, my friend? I'm not parroting what one might hear on the mainstream media. Rather, I'm working off of my own readings, my own memories, my library and the sources of information I *do* use. Juan Cole, who is no one's war monger, is one of my favorite sources. The BBC always does a pretty good job as does Al Jazeera.

Cheers
Aj