Containing China

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Slowly but surely, the grand strategy of the Bush administration is being revealed. It is not aimed primarily at the defeat of global terrorism, the incapacitation of rogue states, or the spread of democracy in the Middle East. These may dominate the rhetorical arena and be the focus of immediate concern, but they do not govern key decisions regarding the allocation of long-term military resources. The truly commanding objective -- the underlying basis for budgets and troop deployments -- is the containment of China.

Linkster

Perpetual global dominance by pissing everyone off? :laugh: This sort of hair-brained thinking could only spew from the PNAC\think-tank crowd.

Edit: Link repaired
 

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2002
5,549
0
71
www.techinferno.com
No surprise there. Spreading democracy in the mideast as a side effect of gaining a foothold there makes complete strategic sense. If the USA needs to contend with a rising China that is hungry for resources this is the best way to do it.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Okay then, does it matter at all that this approach seems to be backfiring?

Why are you even asking for opinions? You've already made up your mind. Stop trying to incite a pointless argument.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Okay then, does it matter at all that this approach seems to be backfiring?

Why are you even asking for opinions? You've already made up your mind. Stop trying to incite a pointless argument.

Please go away, jrenz.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Okay then, does it matter at all that this approach seems to be backfiring?

Why are you even asking for opinions? You've already made up your mind. Stop trying to incite a pointless argument.

Please go away, jrenz.

Yeah jrenz, you are ruining his perfect troll thread.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
I've been civil to you, Genx87. What do you get by calling me a troll? If you want to discuss a great article, fine. But either way, keep your forum-bunny BS to yourself.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,702
46,451
136
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states. Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.

I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion. That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected. Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war? Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.

The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable. It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Please go away, jrenz.

The irony here is so thick.



Anyway,
And I agree china is to be the threat to us in the 21st century, this will be their century is how it is looking.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I've been civil to you, Genx87. What do you get by calling me a troll? If you want to discuss a great article, fine. But either way, keep your forum-bunny BS to yourself.

That article is full of conjecture or restates the obvious. I dont think it is any secret the next great power to challenge the United States will be China. Having plans to contain them makes total sense.

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

I don't see this as a Bush issue, not really. He's proven himself malleable to lofty rhetoric that doesn't necessarily pass the reality test. Case in point: Bush's fascination with Natan Sharansky. As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary? In other words, let?s leave this for another discussion.

I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states.

I'd image, considering current events, that lots of states are itchy about potential vasslhood, and not all of then are looking warily at China. As to whether this approach to foreign relations is correct, I'll ask you, does it matter that it can't/won't work? The fact that the fed is trying to pull it off under cover of "humanitarian" intervention just makes the whole enterprise even more dubious, and leads to us justfiably being labeled arrogant hypocrites. Contrary to popular American opinion, the rest of the world isn't peopled by mouth-breathing morons who'll just give us our way, to the exclusion of what they want. We just don't have the resources to bribe\bully\bomb everyone who refuses to play our game. The national debt ceiling is at $9 trillion, and the debt is close to that.

Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.

That doesn't mean they approve of us, or that they disapprove of China. I'd image that they're hedging all their bets, which is the prudent thing to do.

I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion.

That's a matter of opinion. Besides, how do you overheat the stated goal of one nation to assure its economic and military supremacy, FOR-EVER? That's pretty heady stuff all by itself.

That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected.

But actively trying to goad them into a conflict isn't predictable, expected or sane.

Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war?

Who besides the US seems to want to?

Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.

I don't see how this matters, but okay.

The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable.

I don't see anything to laugh at. The Chinese appear to be dead serious about the issue, and since the entire affair isn't any of our business, why be so concerned? That we're selling weapons to the Taiwanese isn't surpising though. The US is the worlds largest arms dealer, and the sale has the added benefit of poking China in the eye.

It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.

Again, not worth the effort and potential strife. If we as a nation don't learn to limit our score, reality will do it for us.

 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
Not quite sure how democracy contains China. These Middle Eastern countries seem to be electing conservative Islamic governments, see Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq. These are pretty anti-West and neutral-East. Moreover, China does plenty of business with South Korea, Japan, SE Asia, and even Taiwan, which are mostly democracies.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,702
46,451
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

I don't see this as a Bush issue, not really. He's proven himself malleable to lofty rhetoric that doesn't necessarily pass the reality test. Case in point: Bush's fascination with Natan Sharansky. As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary? In other words, let?s leave this for another discussion.

I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states.

I'd image, considering current events, that lots of states are itchy about potential vasslhood, and not all of then are looking warily at China. As to whether this approach to foreign relations is correct, I'll ask you, does it matter that it can't/won't work? The fact that the fed is trying to pull it off under cover of "humanitarian" intervention just makes the whole enterprise even more dubious, and leads to us justfiably being labeled arrogant hypocrites. Contrary to popular American opinion, the rest of the world isn't peopled by mouth-breathing morons who'll just give us our way, to the exclusion of what they want. We just don't have the resources to bribe\bully\bomb everyone who refuses to play our game. The national debt ceiling is at $9 trillion, and the debt is close to that.

Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.

That doesn't mean they approve of us, or that they disapprove of China. I'd image that they're hedging all their bets, which is the prudent thing to do.

I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion.

That's a matter of opinion. Besides, how do you overheat the stated goal of one nation to assure its economic and military supremacy, FOR-EVER? That's pretty heady stuff all by itself.

That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected.

But actively trying to goad them into a conflict isn't predictable, expected or sane.

Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war?

Who besides the US seems to want to?

Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.

I don't see how this matters, but okay.

The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable.

I don't see anything to laugh at. The Chinese appear to be dead serious about the issue, and since the entire affair isn't any of our business, why be so concerned? That we're selling weapons to the Taiwanese isn't surpising though. The US is the worlds largest arms dealer, and the sale has the added benefit of poking China in the eye.

It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.

Again, not worth the effort and potential strife. If we as a nation don't learn to limit our score, reality will do it for us.

First off, I?d like to complement you on the backhanded insinuation that I often visit pro-war right wing news/opinion sites (as far off the mark as this may be from reality).

We aren't forcing people to be our friends in the region at the point of a gun and they are lining up even closer to the US as it is clear China intends to project their growing economic and military power in the region. China has relatively little to offer its closest neighbors besides intimidation and competition, while we have much to offer.

I see no compelling reason why we should lay down economically or militarily for China.
Would it be fair to say that I prefer that the US is the dominant economic and military power in the world? Yes, it would. How far should we go? Iraq far is too far IMO.

The military isn?t trying to goad us into a conflict, they are planning for the consequences of one arising (as it is their job to do so).

The Chinese are dead set on Taiwan not having advanced weapons to defend themselves in the event the PRC decides they are tired of talking and decides to invade. I don?t support the foreign military overthrow of democratic nations (except under certain very limited conditions: mass genocide, etc...) and it should be prevented, especially one that has been an ally and trade partner. We have the means to do this even without committing American lives to the effort and we already extend the same purchasing ability to our other Asian allies.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

I don't see this as a Bush issue, not really. He's proven himself malleable to lofty rhetoric that doesn't necessarily pass the reality test. Case in point: Bush's fascination with Natan Sharansky. As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary? In other words, let?s leave this for another discussion.

I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states.

I'd image, considering current events, that lots of states are itchy about potential vasslhood, and not all of then are looking warily at China. As to whether this approach to foreign relations is correct, I'll ask you, does it matter that it can't/won't work? The fact that the fed is trying to pull it off under cover of "humanitarian" intervention just makes the whole enterprise even more dubious, and leads to us justfiably being labeled arrogant hypocrites. Contrary to popular American opinion, the rest of the world isn't peopled by mouth-breathing morons who'll just give us our way, to the exclusion of what they want. We just don't have the resources to bribe\bully\bomb everyone who refuses to play our game. The national debt ceiling is at $9 trillion, and the debt is close to that.

Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.

That doesn't mean they approve of us, or that they disapprove of China. I'd image that they're hedging all their bets, which is the prudent thing to do.

I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion.

That's a matter of opinion. Besides, how do you overheat the stated goal of one nation to assure its economic and military supremacy, FOR-EVER? That's pretty heady stuff all by itself.

That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected.

But actively trying to goad them into a conflict isn't predictable, expected or sane.

Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war?

Who besides the US seems to want to?

Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.

I don't see how this matters, but okay.

The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable.

I don't see anything to laugh at. The Chinese appear to be dead serious about the issue, and since the entire affair isn't any of our business, why be so concerned? That we're selling weapons to the Taiwanese isn't surpising though. The US is the worlds largest arms dealer, and the sale has the added benefit of poking China in the eye.

It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.

Again, not worth the effort and potential strife. If we as a nation don't learn to limit our score, reality will do it for us.

First off, I?d like to complement you on the backhanded insinuation that I often visit pro-war right wing news/opinion sites (as far off the mark as this may be from reality).

We aren't forcing people to be our friends in the region at the point of a gun and they are lining up even closer to the US as it is clear China intends to project their growing economic and military power in the region. China has relatively little to offer its closest neighbors besides intimidation and competition, while we have much to offer.

I see no compelling reason why we should lay down economically or militarily for China.
Would it be fair to say that I prefer that the US is the dominant economic and military power in the world? Yes, it would. How far should we go? Iraq far is too far IMO.

The military isn?t trying to goad us into a conflict, they are planning for the consequences of one arising (as it is their job to do so).

The Chinese are dead set on Taiwan not having advanced weapons to defend themselves in the event the PRC decides they are tired of talking and decides to invade. I don?t support the foreign military overthrow of democratic nations (except under certain very limited conditions: mass genocide, etc...) and it should be prevented, especially one that has been an ally and trade partner. We have the means to do this even without committing American lives to the effort and we already extend the same purchasing ability to our other Asian allies.

the american gov't is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. we go charging around the world waving this flag of democracy, yet Bush says he does not agree with Taiwanese independence. If he does not agree with Taiwanese independence, then he does not agree with democracy. China cannot be trusted when it comes to reunification. Taiwanese democracy will be DEAD when that happens. Why do we try so hard to please China, why do we invade sovereign nations all under the pretense of democracy. It's all a sham. If we had a good education system in ths country people would see a rat for what it is, a RAT.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,702
46,451
136
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

I don't see this as a Bush issue, not really. He's proven himself malleable to lofty rhetoric that doesn't necessarily pass the reality test. Case in point: Bush's fascination with Natan Sharansky. As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary? In other words, let?s leave this for another discussion.

I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states.

I'd image, considering current events, that lots of states are itchy about potential vasslhood, and not all of then are looking warily at China. As to whether this approach to foreign relations is correct, I'll ask you, does it matter that it can't/won't work? The fact that the fed is trying to pull it off under cover of "humanitarian" intervention just makes the whole enterprise even more dubious, and leads to us justfiably being labeled arrogant hypocrites. Contrary to popular American opinion, the rest of the world isn't peopled by mouth-breathing morons who'll just give us our way, to the exclusion of what they want. We just don't have the resources to bribe\bully\bomb everyone who refuses to play our game. The national debt ceiling is at $9 trillion, and the debt is close to that.

Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.

That doesn't mean they approve of us, or that they disapprove of China. I'd image that they're hedging all their bets, which is the prudent thing to do.

I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion.

That's a matter of opinion. Besides, how do you overheat the stated goal of one nation to assure its economic and military supremacy, FOR-EVER? That's pretty heady stuff all by itself.

That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected.

But actively trying to goad them into a conflict isn't predictable, expected or sane.

Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war?

Who besides the US seems to want to?

Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.

I don't see how this matters, but okay.

The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable.

I don't see anything to laugh at. The Chinese appear to be dead serious about the issue, and since the entire affair isn't any of our business, why be so concerned? That we're selling weapons to the Taiwanese isn't surpising though. The US is the worlds largest arms dealer, and the sale has the added benefit of poking China in the eye.

It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.

Again, not worth the effort and potential strife. If we as a nation don't learn to limit our score, reality will do it for us.

First off, I?d like to complement you on the backhanded insinuation that I often visit pro-war right wing news/opinion sites (as far off the mark as this may be from reality).

We aren't forcing people to be our friends in the region at the point of a gun and they are lining up even closer to the US as it is clear China intends to project their growing economic and military power in the region. China has relatively little to offer its closest neighbors besides intimidation and competition, while we have much to offer.

I see no compelling reason why we should lay down economically or militarily for China.
Would it be fair to say that I prefer that the US is the dominant economic and military power in the world? Yes, it would. How far should we go? Iraq far is too far IMO.

The military isn?t trying to goad us into a conflict, they are planning for the consequences of one arising (as it is their job to do so).

The Chinese are dead set on Taiwan not having advanced weapons to defend themselves in the event the PRC decides they are tired of talking and decides to invade. I don?t support the foreign military overthrow of democratic nations (except under certain very limited conditions: mass genocide, etc...) and it should be prevented, especially one that has been an ally and trade partner. We have the means to do this even without committing American lives to the effort and we already extend the same purchasing ability to our other Asian allies.

the american gov't is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. we go charging around the world waving this flag of democracy, yet Bush says he does not agree with Taiwanese independence. If he does not agree with Taiwanese independence, then he does not agree with democracy. China cannot be trusted when it comes to reunification. Taiwanese democracy will be DEAD when that happens. Why do we try so hard to please China, why do we invade sovereign nations all under the pretense of democracy. It's all a sham. If we had a good education system in ths country people would see a rat for what it is, a RAT.

Of course our government is full of hypocrites, they are all politicians. Expecting anything different is like not expecting rain to be wet.

I generally see nothing I disagree with here.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

I don't see this as a Bush issue, not really. He's proven himself malleable to lofty rhetoric that doesn't necessarily pass the reality test. Case in point: Bush's fascination with Natan Sharansky. As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary? In other words, let?s leave this for another discussion.

I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states.

I'd image, considering current events, that lots of states are itchy about potential vasslhood, and not all of then are looking warily at China. As to whether this approach to foreign relations is correct, I'll ask you, does it matter that it can't/won't work? The fact that the fed is trying to pull it off under cover of "humanitarian" intervention just makes the whole enterprise even more dubious, and leads to us justfiably being labeled arrogant hypocrites. Contrary to popular American opinion, the rest of the world isn't peopled by mouth-breathing morons who'll just give us our way, to the exclusion of what they want. We just don't have the resources to bribe\bully\bomb everyone who refuses to play our game. The national debt ceiling is at $9 trillion, and the debt is close to that.

Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.

That doesn't mean they approve of us, or that they disapprove of China. I'd image that they're hedging all their bets, which is the prudent thing to do.

I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion.

That's a matter of opinion. Besides, how do you overheat the stated goal of one nation to assure its economic and military supremacy, FOR-EVER? That's pretty heady stuff all by itself.

That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected.

But actively trying to goad them into a conflict isn't predictable, expected or sane.

Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war?

Who besides the US seems to want to?

Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.

I don't see how this matters, but okay.

The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable.

I don't see anything to laugh at. The Chinese appear to be dead serious about the issue, and since the entire affair isn't any of our business, why be so concerned? That we're selling weapons to the Taiwanese isn't surpising though. The US is the worlds largest arms dealer, and the sale has the added benefit of poking China in the eye.

It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.

Again, not worth the effort and potential strife. If we as a nation don't learn to limit our score, reality will do it for us.

First off, I?d like to complement you on the backhanded insinuation that I often visit pro-war right wing news/opinion sites (as far off the mark as this may be from reality).

We aren't forcing people to be our friends in the region at the point of a gun and they are lining up even closer to the US as it is clear China intends to project their growing economic and military power in the region. China has relatively little to offer its closest neighbors besides intimidation and competition, while we have much to offer.

I see no compelling reason why we should lay down economically or militarily for China.
Would it be fair to say that I prefer that the US is the dominant economic and military power in the world? Yes, it would. How far should we go? Iraq far is too far IMO.

The military isn?t trying to goad us into a conflict, they are planning for the consequences of one arising (as it is their job to do so).

The Chinese are dead set on Taiwan not having advanced weapons to defend themselves in the event the PRC decides they are tired of talking and decides to invade. I don?t support the foreign military overthrow of democratic nations (except under certain very limited conditions: mass genocide, etc...) and it should be prevented, especially one that has been an ally and trade partner. We have the means to do this even without committing American lives to the effort and we already extend the same purchasing ability to our other Asian allies.

the american gov't is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. we go charging around the world waving this flag of democracy, yet Bush says he does not agree with Taiwanese independence. If he does not agree with Taiwanese independence, then he does not agree with democracy. China cannot be trusted when it comes to reunification. Taiwanese democracy will be DEAD when that happens. Why do we try so hard to please China, why do we invade sovereign nations all under the pretense of democracy. It's all a sham. If we had a good education system in ths country people would see a rat for what it is, a RAT.

Of course our government is full of hypocrites, they are all politicians. Expecting anything different is like not expecting rain to be wet.

I generally see nothing I disagree with here.


our dealing with China will some day come back to bite us in the Azz. how prepared are you, as well the average american? I hate the way we tippy-toe around them commies. We need to start another social program in this country that communism is BAD.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
First off, I?d like to complement you on the backhanded insinuation that I often visit pro-war right wing news/opinion sites (as far off the mark as this may be from reality).

I neither said nor insinuated any such thing. I do, however, note your sensitivity on the issue. Thanks for the exchange.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: rickn
our dealing with China will some day come back to bite us in the Azz. how prepared are you, as well the average american? I hate the way we tippy-toe around them commies. We need to start another social program in this country that communism is BAD.

Is this sarcasm?

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,702
46,451
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
First off, I?d like to complement you on the backhanded insinuation that I often visit pro-war right wing news/opinion sites (as far off the mark as this may be from reality).

I neither said nor insinuated any such thing. I do, however, note your sensitivity on the issue. Thanks for the exchange.

As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary?

I'd argue that you did (I never used the word "distasteful" btw). I find considering the bias of sources to be prudent.

Thank you as well.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

Being "wary" of something indicates quite a bit. I chose "distasteful" to describe your reaction, and I stick by it.

I find considering the bias of sources to be prudent.

I can't say I'd react the same way to a link you posted. I'd be far more concerned with the veracity of the actual content. BTW, the writers and contributors at antiwar.com accurately reported most, if not all of the BS that Bush was pulling long before it was fashionable to do so. I?d suggest them to anyone who doesn't want to depend on the cowed, complicit mainstream "media." Is there a link you?d like to offer? I?d very much like to see one.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,702
46,451
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.

Being "wary" of something indicates quite a bit. I chose "distasteful" to describe your reaction, and I stick by it.

I find considering the bias of sources to be prudent.

I can't say I'd react the same way to a link you posted. I'd be far more concerned with the veracity of the actual content. BTW, the writers and contributors at antiwar.com accurately reported most, if not all of the BS that Bush was pulling long before it was fashionable to do so. I?d suggest them to anyone who doesn't want to depend on the cowed, complicit mainstream "media." Is there a link you?d like to offer? I?d very much like to see one.

wary
One entry found for wary.


Main Entry: wary
Pronunciation: 'war-E, 'wer-
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): war·i·er; -est
Etymology: 1ware, from Middle English war, ware, from Old English wær careful, aware, wary; akin to Old High German giwar aware, attentive, Latin vereri to fear, Greek horan to see
: marked by keen caution, cunning, and watchful prudence especially in detecting and escaping danger
synonym see CAUTIOUS
- war·i·ly /'war-&-lE, 'wer-/ adverb
- war·i·ness /'war-E-n&s, 'wer-/ noun

distasteful
One entry found for distasteful.

Main Entry: dis·taste·ful
Pronunciation: (")dis-'tAst-f&l
Function: adjective
1 : objectionable because offensive to one's personal taste : DISAGREEABLE
2 : unpleasant to the taste : LOATHSOME
- dis·taste·ful·ly /-f&-lE/ adverb
- dis·taste·ful·ness noun

I don't find the information presented in your link distasteful, I find it to be a likely skewed presentation of the facts (hence my caution). I also shouldn't have to explain the concept of slant it someone as clearly intelligent as you.

Most of the non MSM stuff I see is actually links from P&N (usually left leaning, though there are a few hardcore righties here). I have no link to provide, but when I see a site clearly heavily to one side or the other I think it is important to keep in mind that everything might not be exactly presented in the most objective of ways (even if portions of it are factually correct). More a disagreement with their conclusions drawn from the facts at hand.