Fint, you're so reliable. You're actually proving my point again.

The helicopter was shot down by the Taliban -- you know, in that uncontrolled 85% of the country. I guess you could call that the 'red state' area of Afghanistan.

Oh, and guess what? the same day, U.S. forces killed 17 civilians in an event so similar to the '02 wedding party massacre that the Afghani government protested. But your sources didnt tell you that, did they?

Talk about honesty....Weenie says I have sole occupancy on his ignore list yet answers every post I make. LOL

EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Tech! .... have you been drinking early today?

So are those the terrorists that you claim are not there or are those the non-terrorist guys with RPGs that shoot down helicopters?

Interestingly enough, that is twice this weekend he has referenced a post from almost a year ago regarding the power shortages in CA. Apparently he thinks I was wrong and he was right once in the last five years (and over 4200 posts) and is gloating...Now that is sad.

At least he is trying...listening to Limbaugh daily for ammunition...LOL
Now that is really taking one for the team! Personally, I rarely even listen to the radio...much less to Limbaugh. The one in my commuter SUV does not work and I don't have one in my apartment.
Perhaps if he listened to music instead ...he would not be so overwrought.

Well, I didn't want to say your argument is ridiculous - I didn't want to be that crass, and of course, it is your position - after all you offered it, so it must be your position. But that's beside the point to a large degree...

The point is that to a large extent, terrorists

have streamed into Iraq since we've invaded it. Not all, but some. So Bush's plan - if one can call it a "plan" has (luckily for him) worked to a degree. I'm only saying your idea is based on many, many conditions, many of which need to employ a certain willingness on the part of terrorists to come to the table. But as I have said, terrorists are fanatics; they are myopic. Crazed. You are giving them quite a bit of credit as level-headed persons in lieu of strapping explosives to themselves to blow up civilians.

Again, returning to Afghanistan would be a P.R. nightmare. It will show that we did not do what we set out to in that country, and abandon the vitriol that we would bring democracy in Iraq. Disasters on both accounts.

So...what to do...

My argument is not ridiculous.

I am not educated in cultural studies, I would hire experts in respective fields to help develop the plan.

And you're incorrect in your assumption that this plan requires terrorists to come to the table. I never said that, no one has ever said that. It requires muslims to come to the table to expel the terrorists and tear their camps down. This is one of the problems with some when trying to debate. When you say muslim, they automatically think "terrorist." They are two different things. I respectfully ask you keep that in mind when I write from now on. When I say terrorist, I mean terrorist. When I say muslim, I mean muslim. I do not think people such as Sharif or the House of Saud are terrorists. However, they certainly have lovely breeding grounds/camps, training, etc., in their lands. They need to expel same, without fear of takeover by the terrorists, which an ultimatum and world support would help facilitate.

And regarding Bush's plan, the number of terrorists now compared to pre-9/11 worldwide has sharply risen. So yes, some are coming to Iraq, we're actually worse off now than we were before. They're growing and training all over the world, and thinking they will all be destroyed in Iraq and it'll go away is IMO naive. We need to address the fact that this enemy is borderless and is located worldwide, and we need a plan that addresses that.

The fact that they can easily recruit so much and so quickly tells me the desparate need to get the PR going to turn it around. Only way to defeat terrorism...if they cannot recruit, there is no one to attack us. We cannot kill them all in Iraq, it's not logically possible. Conversely, if they have the propaganda to effectively recruit en masse, some go to Iraq, the rest plot for other attacks.

If anything's rediculous, it is the thought that attacking some small country will eradicate the problem of terrorists, terrorism/camps/training/funding, etc. worldwide.

Isn't it strange that the very folks who think that good PR is the answer are the liberals? Their party generates most of the negative PR and they assist by posting negative PR daily here and elsewhere?

So we're back to it being the media's fault. And the populace for buying the newspapers and watching the news. Oh yeah, and this is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy since everyone knows they control the media.

One of the cornerstones of democracy is a free press. You can argue that our media is flawed, but you can also argue that our democracy is flawed. It sounds to me like you are suggesting that the only time that the populace can speak is every four years when a president is elected.

Of course the media has sensationalized and made mistakes. In both directions. How much positive coverage did the beginning of the war get? "Shock and awe" was 24/7 on CNN, and they were celebrating US might. As for all the "negative", that seems to be what is "selling" right now. Both sides seem to think that there is a huge conspiracy when the media winds are blowing in the opposite direction. While I believe that certain outlets have certain biases, the bottom line is ratings, and they are going to put out what people want to consume (or what the media thinks they want to consume). So maybe the population is not happy with the war and wants validation for their view.

But there also is something to be said for self-fufilling prophecies. The wild card here though are the non-traditional outlets. We're back again to soft power. Maybe we are just getting an more informed electorate? Actually, I think that a subset is becoming much more informed and involved...but largely that is a left-leaning group at this point.

This is what I see to be a big problem with some of the adament right (and left) wingers on the board. They are totally unable to see *any* validity to view points outside of theirs. Everything is black and white, right and wrong. Yes, the media has been "wrong", but they've also been "right" (and "left"). Black and white thinking is one of the most dangerous things in our world right now. While it is nice to have a simple world view, it doesn't work in a big, gray connected global society.

We had "free press" in WW2 and they did not consider us their enemy....nor thier duty to negatively effect the outcome.
Are we getting a more informed electorate?...If this BBS is any indication, it is just more misinformed....
As far as your assertion that the left is the group that is becoming more informed...they are by far the most misinformed and the jingoistic group in history...Unfortunately they are so sure that they are experts on every topic...because they saw it on a blog....They are so jaded and misinformed that even things they see with their own eyes and subjects that would pose no problem for even the simplest of men...elude them. Fortunately the majority of US citizens see that and recoil...so their candidates are unelectable.

WWII press coverage was slow and filtered (censored). With satellite coverage and "news" being big business today, "if it bleeds it leads". On TV right now, every cable station is blathering on about the hurricane. Is that kind of over coverage actually necessary? God protect the people in that area, but does all this "news coverage" help?

fint..both ends of the spectrum have their favorite sources. And both have bias. And the bias exists because there is money to be made by preaching to the choir. I would not consider FOX news an unbiased source.

Even so, Each newspaper and network has management to ensure that they do not get out-of-hand....which they have.

I think the actual "Fox news" is much less biased than most other news outlets..however, I would be the first to agree that many of the talk show hosts on Fox (at least the more skilled like Hannity, etc) are somewhat conservative....and far more conservative than the liberal talk show commentators who masquerade as news anchors on other networks. I see the major difference as the more conservative radio and TV personalities to not pass themselves as news...but rather as commentators or entertainers.

Actually, I was giving you a second chance so show some integrity. Since it's now a matter of public record, I thought maybe you'd admit the CA power crisis was artificially created. But I guess your favortie columnists haven't covered that.

TECH!


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1121018270.jpg


tho' really, that should read; " .last year+"

I mean, c'mon, tech ...let it go.

This isn't WWII, and this isn't the 1940's. You keep missing the main point I keep hammering on...IT IS A DIFFERENT WORLD NOW.

The genie is out of the bottle. The government can no longer control the tide of information (or misinformation) that flows every second.

And the left is jingoistic? Ummm...you might want to check your definition:

jingoism |?ji ng g??iz?m| noun (chiefly derogatory) extreme patriotism, esp. in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

FOX isn't leaning far right? Hannity skilled?


HOO HAH!!!

THanks..

I neede a geed laugh this morning....

Of course I was referring to the mindless loyalty/attack dog antics of liberals to the dem/liberal cause....certainly not loyalty/patriotism to their country

It just shows how far left you have gone when you see the bulk of the country as far right.

That is a dichotomy.

If, as you imply, the country is moving far right, how come the "media" is looked upon as left leaning? Wouldn't public opinion change that over time? Seems as if the media could not continue to be profitable if it didn't reflect popular beliefs (opinions)

I personally do think that most people are "right" (not far right) on many issues, but not all issues. That being said, it stands to reason that there are issues on which most people are more "liberal" than the right would lead us to believe.

I marvel at people who, no matter what their philosophy, continually turn only to sources that strengthen their beliefs and avoid any opposing views that may, in some instances, actually have merit. We need both ends of the political spectrum like a person needs two legs. Both have their function and are complimentary in reality. Without them both, the system becomes a cripple.

it's like stadium seating . .. you're not going to sit down until the jerk infront of you (and to the left:D) sits down.