I get on with reading the times......... why? I am not quite sure perhaps it is something to do with picking holes in their childish reportage and woefully undergraduate editorial.
I've picked out this one from yesterdays effort: "How domination of the skies helped spell end for regime" byline, Deborah Haynes under the grand title of..... Defence Editor.
A line from her article went..........
"It also demonstrates the effectiveness of air power - a concept that was almost forgotten during a decade of ground war in Afghanistan and Iraq."
I have no doubt that in Libya, the west's bombing did yield results but to conflate this spat, with a determined taliban in Afghanistan is not a comparison that can be made. In the original prosecution of the Iraq war, Saddam's [what was left of it after the 1st Gulf War] ragtags were straffed, stuffed and served up by allied air superiority, during the later insurgency, massive airpower was made less significant [though useful in certain ops and situations].
That the Times is a corporatist mirror for selling the 'joys' of corporatism and all their mates in industry and politics is a given, little attempt at disguising their obvious bias is ever made. Indeed, this shows up really well in their constant 'banging the drum' for green energy boondoggles, wind farms are great and domestic solar roof panels are super! CCS is still raved [so too MMGlobal warming and the EU/UN/IPCC emissions targets blah bloody blah] about and everything in the Times-Green-World is groovy!!
Why do I read it? Someone from the 'other side living' in the real world has to, we can't let the yuppies go on preening their egos and lovely bubble lives in isolation in Cameron-lalaland. God, when the EU goes tits up, there will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst this lot.
But maybe, Mr. Murdoch is willing it, a little sooner for some.