Libya

[Geoff_M]

Great headline you won't likely see in the NYT: "2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Now Involved In Three Wars".

 

[goofy!]

And don't watch CNN or read the NYtimes if you wan't unbiased news either.

I think that is why people are suggesting that it is not intelligent to just watch one channel exclusively. It is best to gather information from various sources to get a more complete picture.

I am as liberal as they get and I always have my remote switching between Fox, MSNBC, CNN and BBC during any big news story.

It is only smart to watch everything, even channels that are skewed differently than what you believe in, because it gives you a much better overall perspective.

And then you can make up your own mind where the truth lies, rather than blindly believing what only one channel (perspective) feeds you.

You are a much better informed person when you know what the other side is thinking

 

[Holly]

This seems to be happening a LOT lately.

So what?


That's how some of the best discussions come about.

 

[Mrs. Sojourner]

I think that is why people are suggesting that it is not intelligent to just watch one channel exclusively. It is best to gather information from various sources to get a more complete picture.

I am as liberal as they get and I always have my remote switching between Fox, MSNBC, CNN and BBC during any big news story.

It is only smart to watch everything, even channels that are skewed differently than what you believe in, because it gives you a much better overall perspective.

And then you can make up your own mind where the truth lies, rather than blindly believing what only one channel (perspective) feeds you.

You are a much better informed person when you know what the other side is thinking

Well said.

 

[SaraJayne]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Gadhafi promises long, drawn out war...

Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi called the allied nations bombing his country "terrorists" Sunday, a day after the United States, United Kingdom and France began to enforce a United Nations-mandated no-fly zone to protect Libya's civilians from their leader.

There was violence across the country on Sunday, with Gadhafi apparently shelling rebels in the west while allied airstrikes destroyed one of Gadhafi's convoys in the east, according to rebels.

Gadhafi said the strikes were a confrontation between the Libyan people and "the new Nazis," and promised "a long-drawn war."

"You have proven to the world that you are not civilized, that you are terrorists -- animals attacking a safe nation that did nothing against you," Gadhafi said in a televised speech.

Rest of the story at the link...

Just exactly what this country needs....another war to be involved in.

 

[ChrisFL]

What proof do you have of that?

http://www.newshounds.us/

 

[WDWBlue]

Not to insult anyone but I think Bicker is the smartest person on the Dis! Whether I agree with him or not, his argument is always sound and airtight! But I admit that sometimes I have to read his posts twice to get it, since he likes loooooog sentences. LOL

I always get the impression that he is talking down to everyone, going out of his way to sound more intelligent and better informed than the average Joe (which I don't think is true).

 

[bicker]

This seems to be happening a LOT lately.

Only the last twelve or thirteen years or so, as far as I know.

 

[travelbug]

Whether I agree with him or not, his argument is always sound and airtight! LOL

You paid bicker a very nice compliment here, which was very thoughtful. As far as airtight arguments go, I guess I see that a little bit differently. People's opinions are just that -- opinions. Some people may read a person's line of thinking and see it as airtight. Other people may read that same line of thinking and see it as full of holes. Individual perspective paints the difference.

That said, this is just my opinion -- not to be confused with an irrefutable fact.

 

[Jennasis]

Great headline you won't likely see in the NYT: "2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Now Involved In Three Wars".

Careful now...

 

[Planogirl]

I always get the impression that he is talking down to everyone, going out of his way to sound more intelligent and better informed than the average Joe (which I don't think is true).

Actually, posting style aside , I have found Bicker to often be more well-informed than many here but that is OT.

I do wonder how all of this will play out. I also wondered if we won't see ground troops as the next step. As for news sources, I find the BBC to be the most central but I try to watch all of them when I can. And Jon Stewart of course.

 

[gonzo76]

What is your opinion on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann?

I will answer that since I am pretty Liberal.

Can't stand Olbermann. Although I don't think he is as bad as Beck. Keith is also pretty negative and depressing.

Maddow , I will watch her sometimes. 2 or 3 times a month. She does a lot of fact checking. If she is wrong, she admits it. I like that about her.

Can not stand Ed Shultz. Uhg.. He is the worst.

 

[Tinkermommy]

Well, I watch Fox News and CNN but I really love to watch BBC news. I think it is the best reporting we currently have.

I also like to visit factcheck.org. They check the FACTS on all things political. If they have a bias, I can't see it, as they scrutinize both sides of the political spectrum and both are sometimes guilty of being wrong/misleading.

An old saying goes "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see." With our technology today, we have to really take the time to find things and make decision based on multiple sources (and I am not talking CBS and ABC news).

People can spin/slant/photoshop, etc. You have to take time to really find out the facts and make your own decision about them.

 

[136368]

Great headline you won't likely see in the NYT: "2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Now Involved In Three Wars".

 

[shortbun]

I think that is why people are suggesting that it is not intelligent to just watch one channel exclusively. It is best to gather information from various sources to get a more complete picture.

I am as liberal as they get and I always have my remote switching between Fox, MSNBC, CNN and BBC during any big news story.

It is only smart to watch everything, even channels that are skewed differently than what you believe in, because it gives you a much better overall perspective.

And then you can make up your own mind where the truth lies, rather than blindly believing what only one channel (perspective) feeds you.

You are a much better informed person when you know what the other side is thinking

Really? See, there are channels I don't waste my time on. (-2 grammar) I just can't do it. The other channels show me what they're saying on the competition anyway. Or-you can always watch the comedy channel...I'm suprised you don't include them in your rotation. I rarely watch more than a hour at night and it's usually news/current events on the Comedy Channel.

 

[Guy Incognito]

It's all a matter of perspective. Clearly, for the people onto whom atrocities would be committed, nothing could be worse than how things would have been, and anything done to preclude those atrocities being committed would be an improvement. Put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself whether you'd prefer having the entire world stand by watching you being attacked. Any reasonable person would clearly hope and expect that people of conscience would not stand by and let such things continue unabated, and they would be justified in their expectations in that regard, simply on humanitarian grounds. We're not talking about people not having access to the latest films or books - we're talking about sanitation, power, emergency care, basic necessities - all being withheld - and the inevitability that the government there would commit much worse (if they haven't done so already). There is a threshold of offense beyond which it would be morally indefensible for the outside world to just sit back and do nothing.

you would think so, but there's also a level of offense that the outside world is willing to ignore, if the nation in question is sufficiently powerful/influential enough that no amount of international pressure will have an impact. On the flip side, there is also those nations that are so poor/insignificant to the 'major players' that they are also basically ignored when the oppressive regimes controlling them begin to exterminate their own citizens. Humanitarian groups et al will do what they can to bring those atrocities into the light, but there's only so much that will accomplish.

 

[Buckalew11]

I watch the bare minimum on the news. I tend to start worrying a lot and have a more negative outlook on life because of it. I do try to watch a little Fox and a little CNN but no MSNBC. I feel like they sensationalize things and tell us what they want us to know or what they want to. ( <--I'm not grading my post )

What I do wonder as things escalate in the mid-east, who'll bring peace to the area? I know this has been happening for forever and will continue but it is predicted or told that peace or false peace will come. At this point that seems unlikely and unbelievable, but, I guess, we'll see what happens.

 

[Charade]

Great headline you won't likely see in the NYT: "2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Now Involved In Three Wars".

Ouch.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

Same day as the Iraq war started only 7 years later. Seems like things don't change too much. Sad to see so much suffering and unrest and more Americans involved in another war.

 

["Got Disney"]

Yep, and don't visit fox news if you want real information

I think everyone knows that.

thats right because the MSM like MSNBC is so factual....NOT!

http://www.newshounds.us/

You post a far left blogger to make your point that Fox lies....this is not proof...try again please.

Getting news from one side of the isle is not getting the news.

As for what is happening in Libya I am still on the fence about it all.