Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
IIRC, you said you thought
Afghanistan was a war of necessity.

You do not remember correctly. Leastwise I don't remember saying that.

Joe F.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
...

surfaced of Paris Hilton getting thrown a bone from some (or several)
St. Louis player(s)

How about getting your current events straight? Ms. Hilton was getting the
bone from an Arizona Cardinal, not a St. Louis Cardinal. The latter is into
giving baseball experts the finger at the present time.

Come to think of it, maybe y'all should give each other the finger and a
"bite me" and resume whatever passes for y'alls real life?

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message

I didn't know that it was. AFAIK, this is simply another example
(non-partisan) of "the power of modern media."

Why, in your opinion, is it wrong?

TC,
R

trust me, Rick.......you have to be at least the tenth person to draw this
analogy since Labor Day, in my readings.
It is wrong insofar as it pre-supposes that Cronkite, and especially the
more diffuse current media sources, drive the opinion. IMO, they trail
developing undercurrents, and you would have seen the end result no matter
what.
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:38:28 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message

Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

my guess is that the battlefield officers are of as diverse a range of
opinions from branch to branch, unit to unit, as the rest of us. Maybe more
informed about some things, less about others. Why the **** should we be
fighting a war in Iraq,

If the US is going to have combat troops anywhere, they need to be able
(as in, generally speaking and within certain guidelines, "authorized")
to fight a war, not referee religious gangsterism. If you mean why did
Saddam need to be gotten rid of _then_, a message needed to be sent, and
Afghanistan wasn't capable of sending it. And since Saddam was an
actual and ongoing danger to the region and potentially, the world, he
was the obvious choice. And it has apparently partially worked. Gaddafi
shut the flock up and while Ahmadinejad might be doing the whole "Great
Satan" shtick, he and his crew aren't really doing more than testing the
waters, particularly in Iraq. Which is among the reasons we need to be
there AND need to start getting much more proactive about this thing or
get the hell out and hope for the best.

and what on earth does it gain us, long-term?

Define "long-term."


Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Tell me we aren't going to get the Walter Cronkite/Tet Offensive reporting
analogies going.....please.

I wasn't planning on it. Simply offering it up as something of
potential interest for anyone who wished to look into it.

TC,
R

Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
If the US is going to have combat troops anywhere, they need to be able
(as in, generally speaking and within certain guidelines, "authorized")
to fight a war, not referee religious gangsterism.
agree with this part

If you mean why did
Saddam need to be gotten rid of _then_, a message needed to be sent, and
Afghanistan wasn't capable of sending it.
I hate to disagree completely, but I do. Afghanistan sent a very clear
message, which would have stayed crystal clear if we had stayed and rebuilt
the infrastructure and aggressively acted to keep the Taliban out for a
longer period of time. Going to Iraq actually muddied things, long term,
insofar as the vast Muslim world is concerned.

And since Saddam was an
actual and ongoing danger to the region and potentially, the world, he
was the obvious choice.
but, he really hadn't been for a decade or so.

And it has apparently partially worked. Gaddafi
shut the flock up
and world economic pressure and an aging oil infrastructure didn't play as
much into that as Iraq?

Which is among the reasons we need to be
there AND need to start getting much more proactive about this thing or
get the hell out and hope for the best.
I'll choose the latter, personally.
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:58:44 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
LOL !! You're so full of **** you're almost endearing.

And you don't even begin to have slightest idea of what you speak.

Oh, yes I do. You're not really gonna try to claim you're
not full of ****, are you ? Too late for that, Richard.
There's Google, ya know.

Don't really care if this helps or not,

Nah, not so much. But perhaps you can help if you're so
inclined. I have some crab cakes I'm about to serve over
a bed of mixed greens. I was going to make a remoulade but
discovered too late that I have no creole mustard. Can't
make a remoulade without creole mustard. So then I'm thinking
maybe Caesar dressing, I have anchovies, parmesan, eggs etc.
but I'm using mixed greens from Saturday's Farmer's Market
while they're still good and Caesar is really better with
romaine not mixed greens. So, if you had crab cakes you wanted
to serve over mixed greens and remoulade was a no go, what
would you do ?

Good Lord, you are insane! Creole remoulade on crab cakes, served on a
salad? I'd not do it. OTOH, are you talking about crab
"patties"/"dressing?" If so, a little _real_ mayo, bottled or fresh,
finely minced onions, parsley if you've got it, fresh or dried, a little
horseradish, knife-pureed garlic and salt, black pepper, a little Lea
and Perrin, a coupla drops of Tabasco or Crystal, a coupla drops of
sherry if the mayo was bottled, and some Tony's or Old Bay. A light
vinaigrette on the greens, add the patty, and top it with a dollop of
the sauce.

HTH,
R

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion.

Have you considered the possibility that what may have
been true in 2000 was no longer true in 2003 ? And that
US intelligence knew it was no longer true but spread
misinformation anyway ?

Do you have any reason to believe so? Other than
party of the President switching to one you dislike,
is there some other reason?
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:19:40 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message

I didn't know that it was. AFAIK, this is simply another example
(non-partisan) of "the power of modern media."

Why, in your opinion, is it wrong?

TC,
R

trust me, Rick.......you have to be at least the tenth person to draw this
analogy since Labor Day, in my readings.

I don't regularly read any other groups like ROFF, so I'll take your
word for it.

It is wrong insofar as it pre-supposes that Cronkite, and especially the
more diffuse current media sources, drive the opinion. IMO, they trail
developing undercurrents, and you would have seen the end result no matter
what.

Actually, in the case of Cronkite, etc., in 1968, no, it isn't "wrong."
As to current media sources, that's much more debatable - IMO, it's more
of a chicken-or-the-egg thing, with both sometimes coming first. IAC,
as to the Tet reporting, while it is certainly up for limited debate,
such as the degree in which the North forces "lost" and the South and US
forces "won," but otherwise, Cronkite's (and others contemporary to, and
immediately after, his) reporting was at least highly inaccurate. And
the public generally accepted it as the "truth," ignoring the facts, and
reacted to the inaccurate reporting - it did drive opinion.

I guess there could be debate as to whether it was purposefully
inaccurate, or even fraudulent, but as to the discussion on the effects,
any motive behind it really isn't material. But for what it is worth,
IMO, Cronkite was generally a decent enough journalist and person, and
if he did do it intentionally and barring any additional info, I'll
choose to believe his motives were pure if his journalistic ethics
weren't - if he did what his soul told him to do, I can respect that.

But what it has done is put military management in fear of similar
"mis-reporting," and as a consequence, oft-times, "what will the press
report?" gets figured into things in which it has no business. I don't
know what you've seen, so I can't comment, but if you care to, do some
looking around at objective sources (apparently, without reference to
Iraq) written before 2003.

TC,
R
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying