The UK-US 'Special Relationship'

[Blue Meanie]

ErnestM said:

Blue Meanie said:

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

But where else can Ernest watch Beck, Hannity, and Palin?

For the record, I don't watch any of these (They conflict with my History/Discovery/Military channel time). I was talking about some of the wire services (Reuters, AP et al) and some of the news aggregation web sites that use those services. Also some of the print media sites are not completely biased yet.

I do catch the occasional O'Reilly (especially when he has Dennis Miller on because I find Dennis hilarious)

Also for the record - Beck, Hannity and even O'Reilly are not "news anchors". They don't even suggest that they are presenting an inbiased view. They are commentators. But, obviously, Blue Meanie and Shay watch them all the time because they know, first hand, the views of all of these commentators and why they disagree with them. I mean, certainly, they wouldn't disagree with these folks based soley on what somebody else TOLD them that these folks said. Right?

Actually, I do. I find Beck is comedy Gold, he just doesn't know it, Rush in on my local station, after Beck in the morning, and Bill'O is on before Countdown, with Keith Doberman.

As to them not being anchors, well, they do say fair and balanced a hell of a lot, not to mention it being on the screen countless times. Like Fox and friends, Fox is a ridiculous slant to the far right. Still, countless Americans tune in to cheer on their favourite shock jock, and slobber in party unison!

There are many news networks, and each have their biases, no-one is saying they aren't, but Fox really do take the biscuit. persoannly, I find Al Jazeera to be the best of the bunch, even BBC, as it tends to be fairly opinion free, and just tells you what happened, not what they think happened.

[Shay HTFC]

Sounds like someones getting a bit touchy and defensive about Fox News over there.

Charlie Brooker always gives quite a humorous overview of good old Glenn Beck and co... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aEk864YrKw
Any news channel that gives air time to those meat heads has to be questioned really.

[ErnestM]

The BBC lost me on climate change.

[Blue Meanie]

ErnestM said:

The BBC lost me on climate change.

The BBC has been crap for some time now, on the news front, anyhow. They are seemingly quite the lefty government mouthpiece a lot of the time.

[tinman0]

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

Not the one Ernest mentions for a start.

And BBC America Evening News is just plain embarrassing.

[Bing o]

ErnestM said:

Blue Meanie said:

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

But where else can Ernest watch Beck, Hannity, and Palin?

For the record, I don't watch any of these (They conflict with my History/Discovery/Military channel time). I was talking about some of the wire services (Reuters, AP et al) and some of the news aggregation web sites that use those services. Also some of the print media sites are not completely biased yet.

I do catch the occasional O'Reilly (especially when he has Dennis Miller on because I find Dennis hilarious)

Also for the record - Beck, Hannity and even O'Reilly are not "news anchors". They don't even suggest that they are presenting an inbiased view. They are commentators. But, obviously, Blue Meanie and Shay watch them all the time because they know, first hand, the views of all of these commentators and why they disagree with them. I mean, certainly, they wouldn't disagree with these folks based soley on what somebody else TOLD them that these folks said. Right?

As my ex-partner was a Fox News addict, I have sat through years of Fox, and it is like a child's cartoon dressed up as a news program. Sort of like the Daily Mail on a bad acid trip.

[Tadite]

The only news source that I like and respect completely is "The Economist." For TV the only one I think is half way decent is PBS special programs such as "Frontline." I do read the NY Times, Times of London, and a few others from time to time WSJ but those should all be done with a understanding of the spin.

None of the mainstream TV news channels are worth a damn in anything but crisis reporting. I truly do not understand why people want to watch talking heads scream at each other. What could be entertaining about that?

[Tadite]

Jimbeaux said:

You certainly have a bizzare view of reality. I am pleased that it is shared by yourself and only about 9 other people.

It is nice normal standard realism. I know the neoconservative style is was more popular these days but I think the old fashioned practical realism system of politics is making a comeback.

[tinman0]

Tadite said:

Jimbeaux said:

You certainly have a bizzare view of reality. I am pleased that it is shared by yourself and only about 9 other people.

It is nice normal standard realism. I know the neoconservative style is was more popular these days but I think the old fashioned practical realism system of politics is making a comeback.

Where?

Is that what lefties say now - instead of saying "conservative" they say "neoconservative"?

[Tadite]

tinman0 said:

Tadite said:

Jimbeaux said:

You certainly have a bizzare view of reality. I am pleased that it is shared by yourself and only about 9 other people.

It is nice normal standard realism. I know the neoconservative style is was more popular these days but I think the old fashioned practical realism system of politics is making a comeback.

Where?

Is that what lefties say now - instead of saying "conservative" they say "neoconservative"?

No. These are the basic theories of government in terms of how you use power. A neoconservative believes that the point of being the most important nation on earth and the last true super power is to use that power to create dramatic change in the globe. That military power can be used to radically reorganize the world to suit our view of how things should be. In the case of Iraq it was the neocons who used for the war because they saw it as a way or changing the fundamentals of the region to in short use military power to create a democratic state that would then agree with American policy. Notice that these are the same arguments that old liberal theorists would have used heading into the Vietnam War or what is also used by the social change activists. That government can create fundamental change on that what it doesn't like by force.

A old conservative realist wouldn't care. To him nations act as they want to by there domestic political situation and that it really doesn't matter what that domestic situation is. That the power of being a super power is in fact to simply force or use diplomatic incuragment to bring people to our policies but that military or economic power was the reasons why they did. But more importantly they only thought of the world by the a geopolitical bent. They don't care about some secondary country in the middle of no where that isn't a threat to the country. They only cared about important countries and they would never use military force on some nothing nation because it wouldn't be worth the money.

Much of this is a simple question. What is the point of military power? A realist thinks that it is only used in matters of national security or in the game of global politics. A neocon thinks that it can be used on a vastly large set of issues. To a neocon the trillion or so dollars we have spent on the Iraq War are worth the money we have created a democratic state (one that isn't voting how we like however). A realist would be horrified. To him Iraq wouldn't be worth a trillion dollars.... ever.....

But this is more then republican v. democratic. Both parties have people who support these types of positions even if the republicans under W. Bush had more of the major neocon thinkers. The ones on the left mostly died out in the 60's.

[tinman0]

Tadite said:

tinman0 said:

Tadite said:

Jimbeaux said:

You certainly have a bizzare view of reality. I am pleased that it is shared by yourself and only about 9 other people.

It is nice normal standard realism. I know the neoconservative style is was more popular these days but I think the old fashioned practical realism system of politics is making a comeback.

Where?

Is that what lefties say now - instead of saying "conservative" they say "neoconservative"?

No. These are the basic theories of government in terms of how you use power. A neoconservative believes that the point of being the most important nation on earth and the last true super power is to use that power to create dramatic change in the globe. That military power can be used to radically reorganize the world to suit our view of how things should be. In the case of Iraq it was the neocons who used for the war because they saw it as a way or changing the fundamentals of the region to in short use military power to create a democratic state that would then agree with American policy. Notice that these are the same arguments that old liberal theorists would have used heading into the Vietnam War or what is also used by the social change activists. That government can create fundamental change on that what it doesn't like by force.

A old conservative realist wouldn't care. To him nations act as they want to by there domestic political situation and that it really doesn't matter what that domestic situation is. That the power of being a super power is in fact to simply force or use diplomatic incuragment to bring people to our policies but that military or economic power was the reasons why they did. But more importantly they only thought of the world by the a geopolitical bent. They don't care about some secondary country in the middle of no where that isn't a threat to the country. They only cared about important countries and they would never use military force on some nothing nation because it wouldn't be worth the money.

Much of this is a simple question. What is the point of military power? A realist thinks that it is only used in matters of national security or in the game of global politics. A neocon thinks that it can be used on a vastly large set of issues. To a neocon the trillion or so dollars we have spent on the Iraq War are worth the money we have created a democratic state (one that isn't voting how we like however). A realist would be horrified. To him Iraq wouldn't be worth a trillion dollars.... ever.....

But this is more then republican v. democratic. Both parties have people who support these types of positions even if the republicans under W. Bush had more of the major neocon thinkers. The ones on the left mostly died out in the 60's.

Buy an American car and try and feel better about your country It's not all green grass outside the US.

[Ayahuasca]

Blue Meanie said:

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

But where else can Ernest watch Beck, Hannity, and Palin?

I don't know about them, but I watch Fox News for Megyn Kelly. I have a 'special relationship' with her.

[AJS-]

What annoys me about the so called special relationship is the fancotiiful notion that we might have any real influence over American foreign policy. It's a joke, perpetuated by people who are in denial about the fact that Britain is not that powerful anymore. We're 1/5th the size of the US population wise, and smaller still in military terms. We don't have any sway in trade negotiations because that is all done under the banner of the EU.

BRITAIN IS NOT A WORLD POWER!

Now that doesn't mean we can't defend our interests such as the Falklands, it doesn't mean we can't contribute to something if we genuinely ought to or if we genuinely have an interest in doing so. It does however mean we can quite legitimately, and really should, duck out of daft ventures like Iraq, whose purpose, 7 years on is still not clear, and which has benefited us not one bit. Save the lives of our soldiers and a whole lot of money, and say we don't have any interest there.

I think Iraq was probably a stupid idea from the American point of view as well, but at least they hae some sort of claim to be the world's policeman and something to gain by being there rather than the Chinese or the Russians. We do not, and the sooner we face up to that and concentrate on being what we are the better.

[Lost soul]

Northern Munkee said:

I wish we'd give up trying to punch above our weight.

That is the point we still try to act as a super power

[JonRB]

I asked an American friend last night what she and her friends and acquaintances thought of the UK's claims to the Falkland Islands and the geopolitical situation with Argentina and her answer was "huh?"

She hadn't even heard of the Falkland Islands let alone knew there was anything in the news about them at present.

[ErnestM]

JonRB said:

I asked an American friend last night what she and her friends and acquaintances thought of the UK's claims to the Falkland Islands and the geopolitical situation with Argentina and her answer was "huh?"

She hadn't even heard of the Falkland Islands let alone knew there was anything in the news about them at present.

Ask her how big Kim Kardashians ass is...

[s2art]

AJS- said:

What annoys me about the so called special relationship is the fancotiiful notion that we might have any real influence over American foreign policy. It's a joke, perpetuated by people who are in denial about the fact that Britain is not that powerful anymore. We're 1/5th the size of the US population wise, and smaller still in military terms. We don't have any sway in trade negotiations because that is all done under the banner of the EU.

BRITAIN IS NOT A WORLD POWER!

Now that doesn't mean we can't defend our interests such as the Falklands, it doesn't mean we can't contribute to something if we genuinely ought to or if we genuinely have an interest in doing so. It does however mean we can quite legitimately, and really should, duck out of daft ventures like Iraq, whose purpose, 7 years on is still not clear, and which has benefited us not one bit. Save the lives of our soldiers and a whole lot of money, and say we don't have any interest there.

I think Iraq was probably a stupid idea from the American point of view as well, but at least they hae some sort of claim to be the world's policeman and something to gain by being there rather than the Chinese or the Russians. We do not, and the sooner we face up to that and concentrate on being what we are the better.

Actually Britain is a world power, as is France. Both nations have the ability to project power around the globe, both have a nuclear capability.
You are confusing the term world power with Hyperpower, such as the USA. Arguable, because of our nuclear capability, we are still a superpower.
Its all a matter of definitions.

[AJS-]

s2art said:

Actually Britain is a world power, as is France. Both nations have the ability to project power around the globe, both have a nuclear capability.
You are confusing the term world power with Hyperpower, such as the USA. Arguable, because of our nuclear capability, we are still a superpower.
Its all a matter of definitions.

True, and still probably in the top 10 of powerful countries, but really as nothing compared to America, China or even Russia in terms of military muscle. Just by sheer weight of numbers we cannot be.

[Jimbeaux]

Mojocvh said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

KANEIT said:

L Following your logic, we should have invaded Belize, a much closer once-British territory, decades ago.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 4th March 02:28

And you have your butts handed to you again..

Indeed Jimbo, quoting seems "odd" these last couple of days on occasion.

Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 4th March 12:31[/footnote]

Jimbeaux said:

True. Once again for the record, I didn't say what I am quoted as saying above; KANEIT and I are the wrong way around.

[footnote]Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 7th March 01:31

[Jimbeaux]

ErnestM said:

The BBC lost me on climate change.

You are correct that those Fox guys you mentioned are commentators, not news reporters. The actual news portions are pretty good IMO due to the fact that they have many more resources in the field than most others. Yes, they are biased, but no more that most all others are the other way.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 8th March 00:51