My musician channel. Here's where you can find original songs, cover songs, or just random singing or playing performances. I may even drop in and talk every once in a while, who knows. This site was originally my home video moments as well so there may be a few stragglers still out there. Either way enjoy and I'm happy to hear what you think.
This is one of the best covers for this song I have heard, but it misses the mark by JUST a smidge. The lines "No weapon in my hand" and "In the service of my friends" are meant to be sang staccato (I think that's what it's called?). By that I mean that "Each.Syl.Able.Should.Have.A.Hard.Stop". It adds a PUNCH to the lines. But still, well done. Like I said, it's the best cover I've heard, and I've listened to a LOT of them trying to find a clean version of the song. Also, the vocals need to be louder. They're being drowned out by the instruments. Instruments are the backing, not the feature.
I believe the story was originally going to be the journal of the whills. The temple in Rogue One was a temple of the whills. I believe they made an appearance in Clone Wars in Season 6.
@@derekbates4316They are energy beings of a higher existence. They document everything, and wrote it all down in various journals. They are told all the events from people including R2-D2 recounting it to them at the end of it all. And some people worship them in temples. Other then that not much is known about them. Then long long in the future far far away from the star wars galaxy, they leave a copies of their journals on the desk of george lucas and he makes feature films based on his interpretation of the events in the book. Hope that helps
I appreciate your comment. The key is definitely a little lower than the original which is in between keys. A lot of songs were slightly sped up to add "excitement" back then. Otherwise, yeah it's off in some spots. I appreciate your incite.
Hi Loney, can you write the lyrics of this video game song please help me, it's called Audition - Dance Fish ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ydAoWFyzAXU.html
I love how Cheney, in 15 seconds, summed up the exact objective in taking down Iraq which today has become manifest. Indeed pieces have gone flying everywhere as he worded it . . . and the Kurds from the Turkish view are an existential threat as the ability for them to link up and then mount a potential insurgency in Turkey proper now exists. It is insane to think he understood perfectly well that this was a certain result of ousting Saddam but went ahead and pushed for it before 9/11 could have even been twisted into a pretext for it. His exact words for what would happen to Turkey, a NATO power of course, is that its territorial integrity would be threatened and that it would be a quagmire. When a NATO power is forced to act, then all are forced to act. Maybe not at first, as Turkey has done all manner of shady things officially of its own volition during the Syrian Civil War. Nonetheless, eventually the Kurds will be free of ISIS and unless they have to fight Assad or the Shia Baghdad govt. - and both would be stupid to antagonize them - they will have a free hand to act. Assad has needed them badly to seal the border and they are accomplishing that as I write, at the end of the Summer 2016. Baghdad also has to choose, either the Kurds (Peshmerga) are going to have more power than before with the trade-off that they keep Sunni Arabs in the North in check, or they can kiss the country goodbye; at least the Sunni portion of it in the north and west. After all, remember Saddam used a similar strategy to the Assads, cultivating the minority religious group(s) against a resentful but fearful majority. Toppling him with no credible alternative allowed for the Shia majority to gain control and build a relationship with Iran. One that Cheney also foresaw as a factor in the difficulty of affecting regime change. So what started in 2003 spilled over into Syria and now today (2016) is pressuring a NATO member with the 2nd largest military force in the alliance into a position it cannot back down from. That is it must increase its entanglement in the affairs of Syria and Iraq to deal with any issues of Kurdish nationalism. I'm not excusing Erdogan who I find to be a pretty reprehensible character. He has been a willing aggressor and supporter of Islamist groups in the Syrian Civil War and unilaterally bombed Kurds on the Iraqi side of the border. Nevertheless he is forced into a triangulation between the growing Iranian/Shia influence to his immediate South, a resurgent Russia to the North and the NATO alliance. The last of which hasn't really been paying off for Turkey, when one considers they have facilitated the proxy war against Assad, maintained a bellicose posture against Russia and generally taken most of the blowback from the near proximity of terror groups. The latter issue is something Erdogan brought upon himself but his complicity with Saudi Arabia and Qatar seems like a logical if Machiavellian act without a strong Iraq to suppress the Kurds to the south. So in 1994 Cheney could clearly articulate that the final result of an invasion of Iraq without Arab support would be the cleavage of Iraq into pieces with new geopolitical centers of gravity, resulting in all of the county's neighbors either being pulling in or threatened by events within that nation as it underwent disintegration. Most damnable, is that he knew that Turkey would ultimately face a threat to its current borders in the form of Kurdish separatism. Which for the first time has had credibility to act with force. Nearly the entire Turkish border is controlled by the Kurds; from the edge of the Affrin Canton in northwest Syria to the northern-most Iraqi goverates. Moreover, they have weapons and experience in a plethora of situations which constitute real military accomplishment. The equivalent of what any nation state gets from success in a protracted conflict. Particularity, a well seasoned officer corps and frontline fighting force. Now to add insult to injury they are even supplied by America with weapons, advisors, special forces and worst of all from the Turkish perspective: air-support. Westerners are sympathetic to the Kurdish cause in a manner that has never before been possible. The most we knew of them pertained to the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War and how Saddam viewed them as fifth column in support of Iran. They had no military position and no means of mobilizing an uprising in Turkey; a possibility that now exists and should be understood as a major issue for the NATO alliance going forward. Iran and the states of the so called Shia Crescent must to some extent rely upon Kurdish help, even after Raqqa and Mosul finally fall,which they surely will now that American air-power is heavily committed. The YPG and allies are now rebranded as the SDF. Western media has increasingly reported upon the 40% Arab coalition as Free Syrian Arabs; recently for example with the capture of Manbj. They were described in that manner despite the dominant Kurdish position and tribal ties to the Kurds of many Arab groups who fight alongside them. The Americans are attempting to create the impression, with some success apparent even at this early date, that the Democratic forces fighting in Syria have all along been a coalition of Arabs and Kurds. Quietly the narrative around the FSA is being supplanted by a new one. The Islamist groups, some "moderate," that have been fighting for Aleppo and so on are pretty much done for it seems. It may take a while, no crystal ball here, but if the Turks do seal the border as they claim they are doing then they cannot be resupplied. The largest pocket, in Idlib goverate, will be starved of supplies and with the Russians pounding away they will sooner or later capitulate and/or possibly flee the warzone as they will be marked men. This is sadly reminiscent of how Al-Qaeda was created and battle tested against a conventional foe - the USSR - then went on to do asymmetrical attacks. I don't even have time for Al Gore. But I will say, if anyone read this far - just imagine how easily Gore could have made a convincing war hawk as president in 2001. Indeed with a strong hawk like Lieberman as VP, the two tickets don't seem so different with regard to foreign policy objectives, despite all that recount political theater. Of course these people are vain liars as we can see, they genuinely all wanted power, but it was theater in the sense that the outcome was not as Michael Moore would have had us believe, epoch shaping, but rather a simple fight between two different strategies in competition to similar ends. Namely the extension of "Pax Americana" well into the 21st Century through the manipulation of the balance of terror. Ahem, I meant power.
