Sirius99
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sirius99
-
-
?
Fox News doesn't inject their philosphy into the news broadcasts?
CNN is the most balanced news channel on the air. With Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck in Primetime and other voices throughout the day they show the most balance of any cable news channel. MSNBC can be very liberal and Fux Knus is very conservative. Sometimes playing with facts. Like identifying two different anti-war Republicans as Democrats.
Dunkin' Donuts pulled a television spot featuring talk show host and Food Network personality Rachael Ray this weekend after a Fox news commentator associated it with terrorists.
In the ad, Ray is wearing a scarf that Michelle Malkin said in her nationally syndicated column resembled a kiffiyeh, Middle Eastern garb that is "popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos."
Michelle Malkin is one of the craziest idiots in the world. It's hard to decide who's more nuts. Anne Coulter (aka: Andy Kaufman*) or Michelle Malkin.
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________
Steely, you're usually on the level, but if you don't think CNN has an agenda, you're not looking hard enough . . . Cincy is on the money with the 1 against 5 comment. Fox has an agenda just as CNN, MSNBC, anf the big 3 networks do . . . It's easier for you to spot Fox's agenda, cuz you don't agree with it, just as it's easier for those of us that lean right to see the blatant bias of the other 5 . . .
Forget Rachael Ray, who's the chick in your avatar...
-
Mandy Moore went to visit SnR in Seattle for her birthday.
-
The presumption there being that he doesn't share their ignorance. Just because he's a leader doesn't make him any less an idiot.
One could argue quite convincingly that "leaders" are often the biggest of the idiots.
-
No, the Patriot Act was passed for our national insecurity.
The gun ban, automobile ban, knife ban, alcohol ban, cigarette ban, dart ban, 30mg Sudafed ban, trans fat ban, cell phone ban, screwdriver ban, pencil ban.... These will be for our 'personal' insecurity. Motherment is good, ja?
As long as they don't ban Diet Coke, I'm golden.
-
You two are becoming an old married couple.
:) -
I dunno, but I volunteer to pole her to find out. :)
-
I'd call that a distiction without a difference.
Not sure what you mean, but there is a big difference between how Fallon favors handling counter-insurgencies and how Petraeus does.
-
Not in the military...but my understanding of the joint commands is that they're intended to be run by an officer of any service, so it's probably not that big a deal.
Plus, in this case, I believe Dempsey was Fallon's deputy, so command falls naturally to him as Fallon leaves without an appointed successor, which would make it even more a non-issue.
Correct. Joint command billets rotate among services, and no full-time replacement has been named as yet for CENTCOM. This has been portrayed as a political move because of friction between Fallon and Bush/Gates, but I hear it is more due to disagreements between Petraeus and Fallon regarding how to handle counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afganistan. I guess Petraeus won.
-
!@#$ off! We're the Judean People's Front.
SPLITTERS!!!
-
Nope. Not registered, and rarely vote one party exclusively in an election. I am conservative not republican.
I'm registered with the People's Front of Judea.
-
Then why do trans-national terrorists exist? What, al-Qaeda's myriad statements and actions against the US are intended to achieve local political objectives in Afghanistan? The African embassy bombings were against the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi city governments? The USS Cole bombing was to promote shipping reform in Yemen?
Have I called you an idiot yet today? You're an idiot.
C'mon Tom, those are obviously exceptions to the rule.
-
Great, backed into a corner and you resort to name calling. Good job. Ok so terrorism is a crime to change local politics. I gave you four examples of terrorism and your response is that those are exceptions. How about roadside bombs in Iraq. Are those designed to change the local politics or are they designed to make a global statement? Are those even terrorist attacks or are they military strategies? What about car bombs in Iraq, are those to change Iraqi government or are they designed to make a global political statement.
Since he ignored my previous post, I considered trying to provide a more detailed description of the difference between tactics and strategy, but thought better of it when it became clear he doesn't have any genuine interest in the facts. I commend you for trying Chef.
-
Horsesh--. Terrorism is a tactic mostly perpetrated to achieve local political objectives
Golly, I just completed 9 graduate-level credit hours in National Security Studies from the USAF's Air University. I guess I should tell them all of their material was wrong because molson golden from TBD said so. They'll be so happy you've pointed out the errors of their ways...
And to think I thought DC Tom was an exaggerator.
-
But the unnamed WSJ editorialists know that, which is why they used the word "indicates" rather than something stronger like "concludes" or "clearly shows" or "PROVES!"
Intelligence doesn't work that way. It never "proves" anything. Intelligence analysis is an art which purports a "likelihood" or "confidence level" of a conclusion based on the information available at the time, which is always subjective at least in part.
-
I'm sorry, but the breathless idiocy behind this statement stunned me into silence yesterday. I just didn't know where to begin.
First off, terrorism is a tactic, as I'm sure you know. So a war on "it" doesn't make any sense at all. Secondly, how do you define what a terrorist act is? Just because it's low tech? More likely because its used again those we don't want it to be, Israelis for instance. Your statement opens us up to become involved in every single little grievence the world over. I think most Americans would want us to concentrate on getting those behind 9-11. That would be fine and dandy, to most people here, instead of launching a crusade against the crime of blowing things up. Tht's why Bush worked so hard to convince America that Saddam was behind 9-11. What would have been wrong with just focusing on the ones that attacked us? Why does the Palistinian/Israeli conflict necessarily have to be our problem? Most terrorism is local. 9-11 was an exception to that rule. Your "Global War on Terrorism" if carried out to take on all "terrorism" would take us to every part of the world and committ us to something we are in no way capable of handling.
No, terrorism is a strategy, not a tactic. The use of IEDs would be an example of a tactic to support the strategy. The terrorism definition is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.
Given all of this information, it should be quite clear that terrorism is virtually never "local", unless you mean the target is the politics of one nation, which it sometimes is.
-
I could (and would, in fact) argue that the deficit spending on the Iraq occupation has no small contribution to the falling dollar...and hence, the Iraq war does in fact contribute significantly to oil prices.
Interesting point, but I'd have to see the detailed numbers before I could agree or disagree.
But given all the OTHER wasteful deficit spending this government indulges, I have a hard time taking that excuse too seriously.Well, government spending = wasteful is a tautology, no?
-
Iraq is a tiny blip on the radar as far as oil prices go. But don't let your oversimplification of such a complex issue get in the way of reality.
Darin, Darin, where are your math skills? Don't you know it's quite easy to see that blowing up a coutry that provides less than 5% of our crude oil has directly resulted in the increase in oil prices by 250% over the last five years? Maybe you need a refesher course on "new math".
-
You also realize that the cost of the "Iraq War" includes a large chuck of DOD money that would have been spent on DOD, regardless, and therefore the "cost savings" are not nearly as much as you believe.
True. We had approximately 60000 troops in the area for Operation Southern Watch et. al., and I've never seen those accounted for in the "cost" of the war. Still expensive no doubt, but it would be nice to see a breakout including estimates of what we would have spent anyway, which is the only way to see what the decision to invade has truly cost.
-
Not my point at all. I don't know that I would draw a straight line from Obama being politically incorrect with the grandmother comment to him being culturally insensitive to foreigners. If anything, he's the only candidate who's spent a significant amount of time abroad living with ordinary people in their country. So, he probably would be more attuned to the pitfalls of the ugly American stereotype that you speak of.
This is why his speech was so important. Because he framed the argument from both sides, and is uniquely positioned to speak from both sides, hopefully people will start looking at racial relations in their true shade of gray, instead of black & white absolutisms.
It surely smacks me hypocritical that he was among the more high profile people calling for Imus's ouster and then made a comment that made white people cringe. But he was telling things like they are about his grandmother, and probably next time, he, nor others in his position would be as cavalier to call out someone for a wayward offhand remark.
Maybe, but he could have told things like they are without phrasing it the way he did. To me, if he doesn't understand his own culture of political correctness, then that brings into qustion his ability to understand other cultures re: what to say and what not to say. Straight line? Maybe not, and maybe truly a mole hill. But with his strength in oratory, an unexpected mistake IMO.
-
Thanks. Good response. And maybe I am not articulating myself and POV well. When I talk about culture differences we don't understand, in addition to the military ones you speak of, I am really talking about America and Americans as a whole, and not necessarily our government, and not necessarily just in the Middle East or with our enemies. I think its endemic to our culture and kind of an Alexis De Tocqueville-sized trait of our citizens. Because of our successes we just have this arrogance and superiority complex than our way is the right way if not the only way, and if everyone else just stopped for a second and realized it, they would see it, too. When regular American Joes visit other countries they don't bother to understand anything about it and just "act American". We think we're the best in everything. Sure it's a sweeping generalization but I believe it to be true.
Agreed, but I don't believe the average American citizen will ever develop that sort of understanding.
And believe me, I think we earned this arrogance, this isn't America hating, but think we should keep it to ourselves and our borders. We should be Thurman Thomas just tossing the ball to the referee and not Randy Moss holding his arms up to the Gods. We need to be more humble and understanding that there are a lot of peoples and cultures and countries that just don't agree with us and our way. A lot of it may be from jealousy because they're not lucky enough to have all the opportunity we do. But it doesn't matter where it comes from. And I think our military and government is very indicative of that pervasive attitude. That's why I made the McCain "emblematic and microcosm" comment.I sort of agree, but what international resposibilities do we have due to our diplomatic, economic, and military strength? Certainly a dose of humility would be good especially after this administration's FU attitude, but I believe we have a responsibility to address international issues such as oppression. The question is how to do that without being perceived as imperialists.
-
Jerk.
Dipsh-t.
Hey, you're right, I feel very constructive now!
-
Culturally-sensitive foreign leaders, like Vincente Fox, who said that Mexicans are good for the US because they do work that blacks aren't willing to do?
Well I'm not a big fan of "I know you are but what am I" diplomacy.
-
I didn't even know I was arguing with you. If I did, I would have been a lot more combative. But now that I know it's you, I have a bigger problem. A guy I thought was so smart and informed is really getting old and making senior mistakes.
Anyway, when I was talking culture I was talking everything, way of life, politics, way we do things, etc., and in general terms not making them do everything we do. You're right, we're not forcing them into certain things but overall, from before the war until now, I strongly think we forced our culture on them, and to me it's inarguable. And it's not all bad. Some of it, like the military training is probably great. If democracy holds, which I doubt, that would be fabulous (although almost by definition I think it should be started by the will of the people and not another people's army but we won't go there). Pizza Hut, I have always hated and they could do much better.
I have always argued part of America's problem has been just ignoring other people's cultures when we go there. I think it was a lot more than a post war series of missteps. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld et al got better briefings than McCain and they sure didn't understand. You may be right about McCain, but if you are, it's way scarier.
I wasn't tongue-in-cheek about the payoffs, the reports I have seen from both good and bad sources are insane. It's likely a huge reason for a lot of the success of the surge, if you can call it that, but that's like saying a fixed boxing match win was a success.
I think both Democratic candidates, although I think Hillary has virtually no chance to gain the nomination barring catastrophe, will soften their stance once elected. They will consult with the generals and whomever they put in cabinet positions and other world leaders and re-evaluate, changing accordingly. It is the only thing to do and the same thing that McCain would do. I see no scenario that Obama gets elected, the majority of the military says we cannot get out as quick as you want, and he says we are anyway.
Well I can't log in to my Berg account since the "crash", and I haven't bothered trying to figure it out. But I thought I better 'fess up in case you were holding back
And by the way, nowadays it usually takes me at least two attempts to get right name when I'm addressing one of my three daughters, so I guess I'll have to just get used to more and more senior moments. Rest assured, though, I don't have any while I'm working on your national security assets. There's too much to type here, but it is certainly true that by the mere fact that we are there, some parts of our culture come with us. I don't think that is forcing culture on them, but I suppose the only ones who can really answer that are the Iraqis, and I suspect you'd get a variety of resposes there too, although it would be interesting to see that data.
The problem the US has had IMO has been a complete lack of cultural awareness at the national and strategic policy making level. It's not that they haven't tried, but their efforts have been mostly disatrous. One small example - I read that shortly after Baghdad fell, guards at prisons in Iraq were instructed to put prisoners in sexually humiliating situations because the dopes in charge thought they would be taking advantage of the Muslim attitudes toward sex and it would facilitate intelligence-gathering. Of course it failed miserably, but it is a case of trying to use cultural differences as an advantage but completely missing the mark.
So why is there so little cultural understanding? Mostly because the US govt does not employ anthropologists, who are the ones who really understand culture. The vast majority of anthropologists view working for the govt as selling out, and therefore have rejected any attempts by the govt to solicit their input. A sad statement, but unfortunately true. However, it is an issue that is now recognized, so in addition to the experience some are getting by actually being there an interacting with other cultures, there is now an emphasis on other types of cultural training. While that is no substitute for experience, it is at least a start.
Finally, there has been much criticism of Rumsfeld for a lack of post-war planning, and some of it is warranted. However, in the run up to 2003, there was NO agency with official responsibility for planning activities related to reconstruction and stabalization. It should have been State, but the Office for Reconstruction and Stabalization within State did not stand up until just prior to the invasion in March 2003. By then, it was way too late. Who's fault is that? Ultimately, the President, and it resulted in completely inaccurate assumptions of the post-conflict enviroment treated as facts. The main assumption was that all the US had to do was topple Sadaam and the rest of the government and military would remain in place, sans the Republican Guard and a few high-level Ba'athists. Ooops!
It is tragic to say the least that these lessons were learned in this manner and with this amount of loss of life, but there have been positive outcomes from the perspective of cultural awareness and counter-insurgency operations. Which is why the talk of war with Iran and NK ring hollow to me. Too many people have been burned by this even if they would never admit it in public.
You are probably right that reality will trump rhetoric no matter who wins POTUS, but boy wouldn't it be nice to cut through all that prior to Nov?
-
I would say that any ruffled feathers that result from honest and forthright speech are more beneficial than any ruffled feathers that result from us pointlessly chucking cruise missiles into densely populated foreign cities.
But that's just me. Maybe you prefer the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians to a good argument, but I think the argument might be refreshing and beneficial.
Actually, I prefer a culturally-sensitive dialog resulting in a mutually beneficial compromise. But I do see how you love to argue, facts nonwithstanding.
Rachael Ray a terrorist
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
If you want the best as far as SA, watch Fox. Not the editorial shows, but the actual news coverage.