posted on September 20, 2004 07:30:03 AM new
helen - Don't draw fenix into this. This is about YOUR continue criticism of EVERYTHING our country does in this war. You didn't want it to happen and you haven't stopped complaining about it even now. You were calling for our country to "admit defeat [your words] from the time we first step foot on Iraqi soil.
You keep saying this is creating MORE terrorism. But you would have allowed the terrorist community to grow by doing nothing to deal with it. Like clinton did in Afghanistan. Ignoring the growing threat of terrorism isn't going to help anything....they're fighting a religious battle....and they plan to win. This isn't some little game.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 20, 2004 07:36:43 AM new
Why are so afraid to answer my posts ,linda? Are you admitting that I'm right and you're wrong?
Have you read Georgie's flipflop record or can't you face the truth?
Clinton didn't ignore terrorism just because he didn't start a god-awful war that continues to grow!
Why do you like killing and violence so much?
You SOUND so tough but you aren't there and YOU haven't the guts to even answer a post in a chat room!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND, I refuse to tip-toe around linda's "tender" "feelings" as a widow.....death of others means nothing to linda so why should anyone care about a death close to HER???????
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 20, 2004 07:56 AM ]
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 20, 2004 08:34 AM ]
I'm not "bringing" fenix into anything. She made her statement and then I made mine...both very similar in content. YOU chose however to attack mine. As your remark on the previous page illustrates so well you reserve your attempts to carry on a decent conversation with only a couple of people here. Otherwise you use everyone else as a wall on which to bounce your fanatical and unreasoned ideas. I refuse to be a part of that nasty maneuver. I know you like a book and that book is becoming so boring and so tawdry.
posted on September 20, 2004 07:49:36 AM newYou keep saying this is creating MORE terrorism. But you would have allowed the terrorist community to grow by doing nothing to deal with it. Like clinton did in Afghanistan.
And like Bush was doing before 9/11. According to the 9/11 commission report, Bush was doing the excat same things that failed under Clinton Administration during his first 7 months in office......diplomatic measures. Did Bush think he would have a different result than Clinton. Once agains this is why I think Bush is ineffective commander in chief....why try the same failed stratagies over and over? It was only after 9/11 that he tried something else. If 9/11 did not happen I wonder what how long he would have kept trying the same things Clinton did.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 20, 2004 09:26:23 AM newUnderstanding why the continue to be the 'hub' of THE most violent terrorists in Iraq?
Some of us understand how this 'hub' was formed in Iraq so that's why we are critical.
And about Haliburton...... there were other companies from other parts of the world besides Haliburton that could have done the work but they were rejected...... the US wanted it all. Haliburton has even sold property that was legally Iraq's........ creating more hatred among the people in Iraq. They feel like they've been crapped on and rightfully so.
I don't understand why some of us are blasted for being critical of the way the war has played out. No negativity here....... I've reported the reality of the war since the beginning .... the looting, the lack of body armor for the troops, the unblocked roads, the greedy corporations, the possibility of civil war in the near future. Is it so painful to see the wrongdoings? Should we all remain silent about it and pretend it never happened? Freedom of speech.......... ya, only if we say good things about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq, right? Otherwise it's STFU.
posted on September 20, 2004 09:50:55 AM newAnd why in God's name would we go to "other companies in the world"?
Why not? Bush wants other countries to help fight the war and pay for it. Why should only Halliburton be involved in the rebuilding process. If countries are helping fight the war shouldn't they be also help in the rebuilding process? Or would you prefer that the Bush set the terms of the entire war and only have a monopoly in the rebuilding process?
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 20, 2004 09:58:46 AM new
My point is that Iraq should have been able to have some choices right from the beginning. The US treated it like it was a conquered country instead of a country that they brought freedom to. The rest of the world recognizes this....... was it a conquest by the US or was it freedom for the people there? People in Iraq aren't dumb and they should have been treated with respect and dignity if it was truly "freedom".
Go back a few days and read that long article that Bunni posted here. It's an eye-opener and should be read by all.
posted on September 20, 2004 07:25:03 PM new
Oh yes, we shouldn't be so greedy to give Americans nor American companies, who are paying for this war, who are fighting in this war, the benefit of any jobs that may be created. That just wouldn't be fair to all those other countries that haven't done a darn thing to help in Iraq.
But..hey..we should reward them anyway because a Canadian thinks that's only fair.
---------------------
Clinton's use of Halliburton....they must have been working to line the pockets of Halliburton too.
---
The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the US peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream.
According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.
So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton?
That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now.
Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the US corporation charged with helping repair it. (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003)
Under the Clinton administration, Halliburton received hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction contracts for rebuilding efforts in Kosovo and Haiti.
In a deal cut in June 2000 under President Clinton, the New York Post reports that Halliburton won 11 Navy contracts worth $110 million to build jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 20, 2004 07:59:36 PM new
Linda, the talking (it's called diplomacy)should have been done BEFORE we invaded Iraq. And your solution of going in and killing everyone in Iraq.....what does that accomplish?
I still say if these people were white , YOU'D be singing a different tune.
You are brutal and violent but that shouldn't be what MY country stands for!
Haliburton under Clinton was not profiting on a WAR.
And if it was wrong THEN....it's STILL wrong , linda!
Are you saying if Clinton did it it's alright!????????????
Make up your mind!
Have you had the backbone to read my post on bush and his flip-flopping or are you just going to keep up your chant that Kerry flip-flops and hope that it sticks....like a two-year-old learning the alphabet?
Logan'sdad, "But Gore was not employed by Halliburton like Chaney was. That is where the difference ends and the main reason behind the uproar."
So Clinton really did a lot for our military....just the opposite of what you've been saying.
Now, little miss bravery, did you read my post on bush and his flip-flopping...or no backbone.
posted on September 20, 2004 08:37:27 PM new
If this election was held world wide in 35 of 36 countries CNN poled Kerry would win big time. What's that tell us all about the worlds opinion of the failed U.S. leaders Bush Cheney.
Come on Linda_K lets hear your twisted spin on that fact. I hope you are not to busy counting your money to answer.
posted on September 20, 2004 08:41:28 PM new
Brain dead poster says,"Oh yes, we shouldn't be so greedy to give Americans nor American companies, who are paying for this war, who are fighting in this war, the benefit of any jobs that may be created. "
Uh, we should be giving jobs to IRAQIS FIRST.
Ya, see, stupid, it really is THEIR country.
posted on September 20, 2004 08:47:17 PM new
" Come on Linda_K lets hear your twisted spin on that fact."
If it keeps you wacko "citizens of the world" up at night, more power to you. Since I live here and most of the world is a dung heap, I'll see it as a positive sign.
posted on September 20, 2004 08:52:21 PM new
repeat post -
posted on September 20, 2004 08:11:49 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reported 30 out of 35 countries...not 35 out of 36.
Then there are approximately 185-190 countries in the world.
Then:
Who's Alienating Our Allies?
Inasmuch as John Kerry has anything at all to say about Iraq, it is that as president he would somehow expand the U.S.-led alliance by winning over unspecified "foreign leaders" who are supposedly his confidantes. But look how the Kerry campaign treats America's actual allies. The candidate himself has insulted them by calling them "a fraudulent coalition" and "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
But it gets even worse. Check out this report from the Weekend Australian newspaper:
John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.
Yep, kerry's on OUR side alright....NOT!!!
Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.
"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.
Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta--I would have to say that."
Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad--including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.
Well, first of all, let's give Diana Kerry a history lesson. The Bali bombing occurred in October 2002, five months before the liberation of Iraq began. Back then, Diana's brother supported the liberation of Iraq; this was before he opposed it before supporting it and then later opposing it again, etc.
In any case, here we have Diana Kerry, campaigning on her brother's behalf, telling America's staunchest ally that the way to be safe from terrorism is to betray America.
Does John Kerry agree?
---------
Good question to ask him. Maybe their whole family want other countries to turn against us too.
[taken from WSJ today]
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 20, 2004 09:25:25 PM new
Linda what does your post have to do with this thread?
Linda, the talking (it's called diplomacy)should have been done BEFORE we invaded Iraq. And your solution of going in and killing everyone in Iraq.....what does that accomplish?
I still say if these people were white , YOU'D be singing a different tune.
You are brutal and violent but that shouldn't be what MY country stands for!
Haliburton under Clinton was not profiting on a WAR.
And if it was wrong THEN....it's STILL wrong , linda!
Are you saying if Clinton did it it's alright!????????????
Make up your mind!
Have you had the backbone to read my post on bush and his flip-flopping or are you just going to keep up your chant that Kerry flip-flops and hope that it sticks....like a two-year-old learning the alphabet?
Logan'sdad, "But Gore was not employed by Halliburton like Chaney was. That is where the difference ends and the main reason behind the uproar."
So Clinton really did a lot for our military....just the opposite of what you've been saying
posted on September 20, 2004 09:27:08 PM new
Linda what does your post have to do with this thread? You're sure losing ammunition if you have to drag up Kerry's sister, last time i looked SHE wasn't running for president.
Linda, the talking (it's called diplomacy)should have been done BEFORE we invaded Iraq. And your solution of going in and killing everyone in Iraq.....what does that accomplish?
I still say if these people were white , YOU'D be singing a different tune.
You are brutal and violent but that shouldn't be what MY country stands for!
Haliburton under Clinton was not profiting on a WAR.
And if it was wrong THEN....it's STILL wrong , linda!
Are you saying if Clinton did it it's alright!????????????
Make up your mind!
Have you had the backbone to read my post on bush and his flip-flopping or are you just going to keep up your chant that Kerry flip-flops and hope that it sticks....like a two-year-old learning the alphabet?
Logan'sdad, "But Gore was not employed by Halliburton like Chaney was. That is where the difference ends and the main reason behind the uproar."
So Clinton really did a lot for our military....just the opposite of what you've been saying.
posted on September 20, 2004 09:51:34 PM newIf this election was held world wide in 35 of 36 countries CNN poled Kerry would win big time. What's that tell us all about the worlds opinion of the failed U.S. leaders Bush Cheney.
That has to be the most asinine, irrelevant, idiotic poll taken. But then I can see why you libs would love it.
TERRORISTS SUPPORT KERRY FOR WORLD PRESIDENT
Terrorists Cheer Kerry's Rhetoric
Exploiting the liberties of free societies, terrorists are using the mass media to sow divisions among and within the democracies, terrorism experts report. The March bombing of the Madrid subway proved that low-budget terrorist attacks could be used to influence democratic elections and, by virtue of Spain's sudden military withdrawal from Iraq, to drive wedges between the staunchest allies in the international antiterrorism coalition. Senior Spanish and U.S. officials now believe al-Qaeda will plan more attacks in the United States to try to force President George W. Bush from office.
Playing directly into the terrorists' hands is Bush's increasingly shrill challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Democracies long have been vulnerable to manipulation by hostile foreign powers. President George Washington foresaw this in his Farewell Address of 1796. Though the popular notion is that the main point of the address was to warn against entangling alliances, the most persistent theme of Washington's speech was to warn against foreign subversion of America's democratic process. In his words, "It is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed," to undermine the national identity and sense of purpose. Specifically, Washington feared that foreign adversaries would use the new democratic system to turn Americans against themselves.
Even now, external enemies are attacking the political fortress of the United States and its democratic allies through propaganda by word and deed. In his taped statement aired on the Wahhabi satellite TV network Al-Jazeera on April 15, Osama bin Laden not only sought to divide Europe from the United States by offering a "truce" with European countries that pull out of the coalition in Iraq, the al-Qaeda leader also explicitly feasted on the feeding frenzy among bickering American politicians about whether President Bush was to blame for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Good propagandists will turn their enemies' words against them, and the best will sow suspicion and division among them. This is happening now in the United States, where the terrorist enemy and its allies are using the rhetoric of the current presidential campaign in their jihad against the nation. Previous cautions against rash campaign words that provide aid and comfort to the enemy were thrown out the window long ago. Kerry steadily has become more and more shrill in his denunciations of the president as a leader, a man and a politician. Straying from legitimate policy differences with Bush or a healthy national debate about how best to fight the terrorist enemy, the Democratic nominee in waiting has yanked off the safety and fired full auto at the president.
Al-Jazeera and other anti-U.S. propaganda outlets have been quick to magnify whatever Kerry says in an attempt to show what a failure the United States has become under the Bush presidency. Kerry's increasingly strident and careless statements on the campaign trail reverberate abroad. His foul-mouthed interview with Rolling Stone became part of an Al-Jazeera feature on March 16. Although Kerry voted to let the Iraq war go forward, the Wahhabi-owned TV network noted, "He has suggested Bush's handling of the campaign is 'f-ed up.'"
"Bush misled Americans on the degree Iraq posed a threat," Kerry said in the Al-Jazeera broadcast, and the president is not "working closely enough with the international community." Bush's exclusion of France and Germany from competition for U.S. taxpayer-funded contracts to rebuild Iraq, Kerry said, was "dumb and insulting." Al-Jazeera rebroadcast, in Arabic, Kerry's allegation that in combating terrorist structures inside the United States, Bush and the Department of Justice have smeared "innocent Muslims and Arabs who pose no danger."
Such words, one of Kerry's former Senate colleagues says, grind down the image of the United States abroad and damage Washington's efforts to maintain allies and supporters in the Arabic-speaking world. With near-daily doses of extreme and careless quotations from the anti-Bush camp, Arab audiences are led to believe the worst about U.S. intentions and policies in the war on terrorism. Rather than helping the war effort with positive alternatives to counterterrorist policies they consider flawed, Kerry and other politicians are fanning the flames of hostility in the Islamic world.
The government-controlled press in Syria generally ignored President Bush's State of the Union address in January, "but on its front pages highlighted criticism that came in its wake, particularly Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's calling Bush's [foreign] policy 'arrogant and inept,'" according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which monitors Middle Eastern news and propaganda organizations and publishes translations and analyses in English. Even in Jordan, an Arab kingdom that has been an ally in the war against the terrorists, the editor of the Al-Arab Al-Yaum newspaper commented, "When President Bush gave his address, to hearty applause by his party in Congress, the Democrats shook their heads in condemnation."
The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is reported to have e-mailed messages to foreign media outlets, pledging to "repair the damage" that President Bush allegedly has inflicted on the world. The Tehran Times, an English-language newspaper in the Iranian capital, reported Feb. 8 that unnamed Kerry staffers sent an e-mail to the Tehran-based Mehr News Agency apologizing for the conduct of the United States in the war on terrorism and saying that Kerry is the man to make things new again. "Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics but to the man and woman on the street as well," the message said. "We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure and more stable world."
The Kerry campaign has claimed that all of this was the work of overseas Democrats and cannot be laid at the door of its candidate.
But recent statements from Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr, the extremist Iran-backed Shiite cleric whose guerrilla army has been killing U.S. soldiers and Marines, appear to echo this and some of Bush's other Democratic critics. Within 48 hours of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D-Mass.) first major characterization of Iraq as "another Vietnam," al-Sadr picked up the theme.
Soon after Kerry denounced Halliburton, the oil company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, bin Laden singled out the firm. "I stopped briefly at a gas station," Kerry said on March 30. "If prices stay that high, Dick Cheney and President Bush are going to have to carpool to work. Those aren't Exxon prices, they are Halliburton prices." In his recording released two weeks later, according to a MEMRI translation, bin Laden denounced major corporations but named only Halliburton: "This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies."
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) observed in a recent Washington Post commentary: "Instead of trying to chart a path of progress, many of the president's critics have devoted themselves to fomenting public despair over a war, which they keep repeating, should never have been fought. At the same time critics of the Bush administration insist it should have done more to combat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before Sept 11." Thompson added, "They miss the more profound lesson that national tragedy should have instilled: that the only deterrent to terrorism is strength and that weakness - real and perceived - is an incitement to further attacks."
The steady, daily attacks on the war and the motivations behind it, Thompson warns, risk undermining the strong international position of the United States and turning it into one of weakness.
"Weakness is when America's leaders compare Iraq to Vietnam, announcing to the world a faltering resolve to see our mission through." This signal, Thompson argues, causes wartime allies to lose heart. "To our allies in the Middle East and beyond, these predictions of defeat send a clear and chilling message to hedge their bets, because the United States cannot be counted on. And to our enemies, they can send an equally clear message: You can win."
Neither Kerry nor his ally Kennedy seems to have learned from his own Vietnam experiences, say critics, when both used extremist rhetoric to sow defeatism at home even though U.S. and South Vietnamese forces were destroying the communist enemy on the ground.
As in Vietnam, the Kerry camp seems not to care. The very day bin Laden's tape was broadcast, Kerry stood in East Rutherford, N.J., accusing the president of manipulating the war for personal political gain. "Everything he did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined," Kerry said.
Islamist forces are not alone in using Kerry's words against the United States. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, whose regime is on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, also favors a new American president. The regime's mouthpieces, including the Communist Party daily Rodong Sinmun, have been using Kerry's statements as propaganda to discredit the U.S. government.
"North Korea has been paying keen attention to the U.S. presidential election in recent weeks, reporting Democratic presidential primaries and various opinion polls through its state media," the English-language Korea Times, published in Seoul, reported in February. "Most of the reports are focusing on the criticism against Bush and Sen. John Kerry's surge as viable presidential candidate." Rebecca MacKinnon, former Beijing bureau chief for CNN and now a media fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, says that North Korea's state-controlled media have been portraying Kerry "in a positive light."
As the Financial Times reported in February, "In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency [KCNA], the official mouthpiece of Mr. Kim's communist regime. ... 'Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party, sharply criticized President Bush, saying it was an ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea,' said the news agency. ... Pyongyang's friendly attitude toward Mr. Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric."
Like other wartime enemies of the United States, al-Qaeda is relying on presumably unwitting allies in the international peace movements. In his April 15 tape, bin Laden called the antiwar demonstrations a "positive interaction" and cited "opinion polls which indicate that most European people want peace." He appeared to view the Spanish public's ouster of conservative Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in favor of an anti-U.S. socialist, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as a sign of weakness in the West.
That component of strategy is nothing new. The North Vietnamese regime relied heavily on American antiwar protesters to undermine the national will and defeat the U.S. military through political means, in ways that Hanoi could not win on the battlefield. The present North Korean regime is following suit, propaganda specialists say. Providing the ideological inspiration for a strong section of the antiwar movement through its loyal political allies in the United States and elsewhere, the regime of Kim Jong-il continues to use the old Soviet active-measures model of international political warfare. The Workers World Party (WWP), a small, numerically insignificant but organizationally superior group based in New York City, slavishly supports the policies of the North Korean government, and its leaders frequently visit Pyongyang. One of its front groups, International ANSWER, coordinates the largest peace protests in the United States [see "Marching for Saddam," March 4-17, 2003].
Pyongyang continually exhorts the peace movement around the world. On Feb. 4 the official North Korean Communist Party paper Rodong Sinmun said, "The antiwar struggle is the main form of the struggle for world peace at present and its principal target is the United States."
The paper continued, "It is impossible to avert a war and achieve the world peace without a struggle against the U.S. imperialists. ... The people of all countries of the world should lift their antiwar, anti-U.S. voices and bind Yankees hand and foot to keep them from starting a war." Later in February, in a more subdued tone, Rodong Sinmun cited Kerry as a more preferable leader than Bush. U.S. national-security leaders have long recognized how the terrorists exploit our democratic system, but have been slow to counter it effectively. Insight obtained a copy of a U.S. Army intelligence briefing titled Al-Qaeda's Use of the Mass Media in Infowar/Netwar. Referring to information warfare (IW) - the use of information and information systems as instruments of conflict - and the social or societal IW medium called netwar, the Army report is based on two years of assessments of more than 200 documents.
Little secret intelligence is needed to understand al-Qaeda's strategy. Open-source information can meet up to 85 percent of the terrorists' intelligence-information needs, according to the report. Public information "provides understanding of strategic plans and intentions [and is] especially useful in forecasting cultural turmoil and societal upheavals, and in planning/conducting IW operations," according to the Army briefing. "AQ [al-Qaeda] is familiar with the art of war, but U.S. military has ignored past lessons in favor of technology, and is ignorant of its current foe," the report says.
Part of al-Qaeda's "counterpropaganda strategy," according to the Army report, is to "turn people's eyes toward their leaders to put enemy [U.S. and coalition partners] on defensive, and take the initiative to affect public opinion."
That is nothing new to students of history and statecraft. George Washington devoted much of his Farewell Address to the need to defend the country against foreign subversion designed to corrupt the national identity. He recognized the difficult situation that "real patriots" who resist foreign intrigues "are liable to become suspected and odious," while those espousing "pretended patriotism" - what he called "tools and dupes" of foreign interests - "usurp[ed] the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
[ edited by Bear1949 on Sep 20, 2004 09:56 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2004 10:10:45 PM new
logansdad says: But Gore was not employed by Halliburton like Chaney was. That is where the difference ends and the main reason behind the uproar.
Liberal logic seems as$ backwards to me.
Let's see....Cheney worked as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 - 2000....under clinton/gore's administration. The clinton administration was awarding Halliburton no bid contracts....thereby putting money in Cheney's pocket during those 5 years.
That was okay with the lefties. Didn't bother them that Cheney's company was awarded these contracts.
Then in 2000 Cheney leaves Halliburton....is required to sever ties UNDER OUR LAWS. Then later the Bush administration uses Halliburton because they are one of four-five companies in the whole world who do this type of work. It would have taken MONTHS to negoticate a contract with someone else....when we already had one with Halliburton.
But the dems appear to think we should have waited those months...let the whole world know when we were going to war so we could have an initial open bidding process. OR...another possible senario...had they tried to do so and keep it under wraps...the dems would still be screaming about secrecy in this administration.
To summarize what I see the dems claiming:
It's okay that Cheney made a ton of money when clinton was in office. Made possible by the clinton administration using their company.
But it's not okay when Cheney no longer works for Halliburton for that same company to be awarded contracts to help our military too.
ugh-huh.....makes absolutely no sense to me. But hey....I'm not a democrat.
posted on September 20, 2004 10:27:16 PM new
kerry's doing now, with all the BS he sprews [wrong war-wrong time - wrong everything], exactly what he did during the VN war.....aiding and abetting our enemies. Forming public opinion against what our soldiers are fighting and dying for....what our nation is working to accomplish in the ME.
We are at war. Our soldiers are dying and he's encouraging our enemies to fight a little harder because maybe he will soon be in charge and they can count on him to be more the way they want a US president to be [have the ability to be manipulated to their way of thinking/doing things]. A true Internationalist.
I pray to God he's not elected and the American people can see what he was and what he still is....a sell-out to our Nation.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 20, 2004 10:39:05 PM new
Thanks fenix for sharing your story. I always try and listen to other viewpoints if they are sensible, calm and no shouting. I think we all our entitled to them. Since I haven't listened to only a few Kerry speeches I have wondered what his plan is.
Friday I have a ticket to see Pres. Bush. Since our 2nd car broke down it is going to be difficult to get there. Not to far away though. I want to listen to what his plan is. My husband is campaigning for a Democratic candidate that day so it is going to be tough for him to drive me and pick me up. I sure hope I can go as I would hate to miss an opportunity like that. Yes we are a house divided.
We all have choices in our lives and how we chose to use them is up to us. Debating is good until it gets to the point when the name calling begins then it is time to leave the thread and move on.
October is going to be a tough month for the Presidential Campaign. It has already started so maybe it would be a good time to just sit back relax and list all my inventory on eBay to keep me busy.
posted on September 20, 2004 10:39:50 PM new
"Congrats Fred. You are officially hired as head of recruitment for the Arab Peninsula headquarters of Terrorist Temps. Your solution show that you have a clear understanding of the proper way to support and even spread the radical Muslim message that America is evil and wishes the death and destruction of all Arabs"
Arabs have hated America sense the early 50's. Iraq is a good place to turn the tables.
John McCain said he would increase troops in Iraq by 40,000 and use them to clean out Fallujah and other troubled cities. kerry says he will increase special forces and use them to clean up Iraq. and withdraw troops after 4 months If he is elected. In 4yrs all American Troops will be out of Iraq said dipstick kerry.
McCain wants to do it the hard way. john flipflop kerry(jfk)is dreaming. The estimate cost to clean out Fallujah would be 300 to 600 American lives.
My way is text book operation to take a city like Fallujah. The cost 0 American lives..
I like being put in the same company as Linda and Twelvepole.
Ever wonder what canada, france, china, russia and germany have in common. All took money under the table in the UN oil for food program in Iraq...
posted on September 21, 2004 07:02:18 AM new
Linda Ha! You got your asp kicked in this thread and your pathetic responses are to post something about Kerry's sister which had no point whatsoever and to defend Halliburton!
Linda DICK cheney still gets money from Halliburton. It's a well-known fact.
Your statement,
"We are at war. Our soldiers are dying and he's encouraging our enemies to fight a little harder"
BOY OH BOY LINDA! NOW will you deny BUSH 's statement , "BRING IT ON!"
I suppose you'll deny he ever said that, right linduh?
HIS WHOLE policy has been to encourage terrorists! If he would not have charged into Iraq with no plan, not enough troops, and NO PLAN whatsoever for the aftermath...WE WOULD NOT HAVE 1,000 DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS and COUNTLESS DEAD IRAQI's!
And p-lease don't ACT like you care how many died , you don't. You have stated over and over how war is the answer , you don't care who or how many die. That's why I have no sympathy for you...how does it feel?
You say Kerry will be ....
"A true Internationalist. "
Well, you ignoramous, lets'HOPE so.
WE, linda, do not rule the world! We are only one nation SHARING a world. What can't you understand about that?
You refuse to answer my posts and we both know why. but please when you're losing an argument don't bring in Clinton, Kerry's sister, or his hair cut, it makes you lok more pathetic than normal.
posted on September 21, 2004 08:08:43 AM new
Okay...first we have kerry discounting/demeaning our allies by insulting them. Then his sister, representing his campaign, trying to discourage our ally Australia from supporting us in Iraq...and now...the kerry campaign dealing with S. Korean intelligent agents? Oh brother....
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP)
-- A South Korean man who met with John Kerry's fund-raisers to discuss creating a new political group for Korean-Americans was an intelligence agent for his country, raising concerns among some U.S. officials that either he or his government may have tried to influence this fall's election[i].
South Korean officials and U.S. officials told The Associated Press that Chung Byung-Man, a consular officer in Los Angeles, actually worked for South Korea's National Intelligence Service.
A spokesman for the South Korean consulate office said Chung was sent home in May amid "speculation" he became involved with the Kerry campaign and Democratic Party through contacts with fund-raiser Rick Yi and that his identity couldn't be discussed further[/i].
"According to international tradition, we cannot identify, we cannot say who he is, because he is intelligence people," spokesman Min Ryu said.
Looks like kerry might consider selling us out again. clinton had his 'Chinagate' now kerry's side is connecting to S. Korean intelligent agents to help his election chances out?
Bear, I think you button slogans are more on target than people want to admit.
No wonder 30 countries would rather see kerry elected. He'll do whatever it takes to get elected it appears.
posted on September 21, 2004 08:40:49 AM new
Ha! Linda what are you going to bring up next? Kerry eats the wrong kind of candy bar?
Just grasping for anything to ignore the bushy flip-flop post
""Well, linda's biggest problem is her tunnel vision brain.
She AGAIN says Kerry is not consistant. Obviously reading is a big problem for her, too. Just couldn't read a post that might upset her tight little apple cart.
She just can't admit that bushy changes, too!
What a stubborn , and rather stupid stance.
But we knew she wasn't a thinker, just a C&P-er and a chanter, saying the same thing over and over again and then it becomes her "truth".
posted on September 21, 2004 08:46:54 AM new
Can't defend the spineless, flip-flopping, no tax for the rich, stubborn, illiterate, slob who aided the enemy by being too yellow to fight, who has encouraged terrorists by giving them more reason to hate us by yelling like a psycho idiot,"Bring it on", who has destroyed our standing in the world by ignoring it's opinions(although I see now he's crawling to the U.N. for help), who has earned us more enemies than Al Qaeda, who has ignored the problems in his own country to great detriment.
But all the Republicans CAN do is attack Kerry (even his haircut! Ha!)....they have NOTHING good to say about bush that can't be refuted so all they do is pick on Kerry's sister
posted on September 21, 2004 08:51:26 AM new
Linda_K, you are the true personification of the "ugly american" with your arrogance and hate speech and disregard of everyone else worldwide.
And one other note........ when I introduced a certain word when I referred to you ....... well, I can't help but notice you now use it frequently with one little error which makes me smile.
with all the BS he sprews
sprew
noun
starling: a starling of southern Africa. Family Sturnidae.
spew
transitive and intransitive verb
1. vomit something: to vomit something that has been eaten
(referring to when you digest Rev Moonie's site and then spew it back to us)
2. pour or flow out forcefully: to flow out forcefully, or force something out in a stream
(referring to when you go on and on and spew your same agenda against Clinton and others and use your relentless C&Ps)
3. say forcefully: to utter something in an angry, forceful, or relentless way
(referring to how you spew out your thoughts and disregard for the people of the rest of the world)
posted on September 21, 2004 09:12:13 AM new
LOL - Just popping in for another couple of insults are you, kiara? LOL Your usual MO...not posting on the subject....you just have to make it all personal again. Like I care what you think.
Linda_K, you are the true personification of the "ugly american" with your arrogance and hate speech and disregard of everyone else worldwide.
You just haven't noticed me praising the countries that HAVE supported the US in this war on terror. You haven't noticed me being thankful to all the nations that were brave enough to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done...go after these terrorist groups.
You obviously haven't read all the other threads where I've agreed with how well we do at being 'givers' to the countries that need help. I haven't said we shouldn't.
What you only choose to focus on is the distain I have for our supposed allies who wouldn't join on this war on terror because [b]they had their own special interests/economic benefits in place that were more important to them than dealing with terrorist.
I don't hate Canada...I think we've worked well on hundreds of issues that benefit both our countries. It's YOUR views I don't agree with. It's your siding against my countries polities I don't agree with.
Get used to it...that won't change. We're at war and I want the US to win....not admit defeat....not give up like so many of you lefties want us to do.
It's NOT personal kiara...although you continue to preceive it that way. It's politics....different views...
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
