KrustyKidd

It sure as hell is when dealing with junior soldiers going into battle. For example, forty paratroopers on an aircraft flying behind the lines to drop into enemy territory need to have the fact that they are bad asses reinforced over and over again until there is no other thought than victory and destructin of the enemy in their head. That is propaganda as they are not certain to win but, are part of a calculated move that will, if it all works, result in victory if not for them than for the mission or the front they are a small part of. However, to tell them that sets them up for failure so, the thinking and calculations are left to the higher ups ie Officers and senior NCOs etc. Those are given the most realistic and true information without bias and spin so they can properly prepare for the risks and threats. So, I will add to your quote as I'm sure you wanted to edit it afterwards but didn't have the time "Propaganda is an essential part of military operations." for junior soldiers.

Sending a pic to wifey is about it. Setting him up on a website is slanderous and without iron clad proof (penis in vagina) you have only circumstancial and could end up in a lot of hot water. Course, you could always post his pic on the web with said girls and then allow annonomous comments. Then direct hospital people to that site. All that though is a personal vendetta as it would have no influence on the trade itself and may in the end harm you greatly. Report an American sex tourist. is another possible outlet for you.

No. If another 911 occured say in France, it would legitimize a right wing backlash to some degree. If it were done with a dirty bomb or WMD material it would ensure a worldwide change to the right.

Oh yes, I certainly agree Black Dog. I also think that if they didn't have that, the world would be run by some pretty unsavory regimes and dictators. Far worse than what we have today. My point was that if another 911 occurs anywhere in the western world, the 'militaristic authoritarianism that permeates American society' today will seem quite tame compared to what follows.

Tin foil hat time. Publicly traded company risks all shareholders cash to make political statement. Ok, maybe not. You seem to hang ten with this one pretty good. Not a backlash but the way they have been all along and are losing big time. What I think you are driving at is an ivasion. That possibility is not on any table as it does nothing at all. You don't free people who are as you seem to understand very well, the actual basis of the governments problems in Iran. An ivasion would simply kill lots and lots of US soldiers and not gain one inch of holdable ground. That non reward, coupled with making any pro US people extremely anti US makes it unthinkable. Therefore, the unreality of that propostition leaves me wondering if that is what you meant in the first place. Iran is jockying for their survival as a government, nothing more. Of course, that jockying affects a lot of natins in the region as they carry a lot of political and economic weight but it is jockying nonetheless. They can't fight their way out of a paper bag beyond their own borders, Iraq has settled their government the best they could do so not much else to do but play a nuclear bluff game without nukes. Anything that gets the great powers to come to their table to talk. Of course, the clandestine powers they have with hit squads and puppet terrorist groups is a weapon but nothing strategic that changes the course of the world. Hence, they are left with their problem and their solution - talk big, show off to the home crowd and scare the Euros into putting pressure on the US to talk more nicely.

I wouldn't say bait and switch by any means. MWDs were definitely only an excuse but, a legal one that fitted the rationalization the best. It certainly beat the other cases like non repatriation of Kuwaiti or other foreign nationals, non reparations of war, non adherence to environmental damages, revamping human rights in Iraq (none of which Saddam even attempted to do and were equally importent to adhering to res 686) Point is, WMDs played really well for all audiences (danger and horror and all) and, everybody KNEW he had them. Everybody. So, it seems pretty easy to just answer 'all over the place, around here, there, heck, everywhere' when asked exactly where they were? I mean, the entire planet was certain they were all there so the US would be certain to find them all over the place once they invaded right? To just provide an example of an anti war type who was at the heart of the matter, Blix, at the writing of his book, 'Disarming Iraq,' could not say that they were or were not there. So, since you are going in anyhow, and, like the rest of the world, are confident he has them, there is no need to cherry pick anything as you know you are going to find them. Not finding them never entered into anybody's mind so there was no need to cherry pick anything.

No. Simply by not empowering their government to pretend they are a first world power to their people. If they wish to be competitive on the world stage with all the perks and push, they have to allow their people to have power as well rather than treat them as morons. The Iranian people already know this and are placing tremndous pressure on the ruling council hence, the big stab at the dress code and such to show them all how they have wandeered from the true path of Islam. Nothing wrong with the council though, they equals big time hip. Nothing like threatening the guys you trade with either (Israel) even after they saved your ass a decade before. Better to get in line with Islamic thinking to show them all how you really are an Islamic thinking governmnet before the masses figure out that you are just medieval minded morons trying to keep some sort of relevence in an ever modernizing world. A spade is a spade and the people of Iran know their government is a sham. To cave into demands of any kind legitimizes that government's propaganda and stalls changes that are inevitable. Hope that helps.

Thanks for the links Geoffrey but I'll wait for the Post to run it so I'll know it's true.

I don't have in depth knowledge of this subject so just tend to stay on the sidelines and read, try to learn more type of thing and never noticed that Betsy. He never did give an opinion or information on this subject, at least on this thread. Very strange. Possibly this is all a throwback to another thread or something where Gerry did provide his opinion, if so, he should provide a link.

Cut and run when the enemy attacks. That inspires confidence and deters attack. What military school did you learn that brilliant tactic at? When the enemy consolidates and threatens the peace we are trying to keep. 'Peacekeeper' is a forceful name designating somebody who keeps the peace. 'Peace Cub Scouts' I think is what you must have thought Canada was sending over.

The peace crowd loves WWII because it is in the past and, they know that such an event is unlikely to be repeated thus enabling them to safely compare all other conflicts to it. While approving of the USA's actions during it, they forget that they were not only responsible for giving Hitler permission ala Chaimberlain but also keeping the US out of the war by providing Rosevelt the excuse to wait until Russia drained the German military by sacrificing millions of Russian kids lives. Viet Nam was the first truely modern war in the sense of media accesability and in which the US military was hampered by it's own people back home from carrying out it's mission. Probably the biggest effect that Viet nam had was to pave the way for American failure in the future. Right up to this day the US has suffered from having to fight two conflicts whenever they do battle - one at home with the anti war crowd and the other with the actual enemy. It is a common fact that prior to Iraqi Freedom, the US always cut and ran whenever they took casualties to pander to this group. While not actually wishing the US failed in Viet Nam, the effect of the peace movement was the same. And, with all losses being for nothing, there was now a feather in their cap showing how war means nothing to use for all future conflicts and, along with WWII, unlikely to be a repeat, they were safe to pander to whatever cause they wished. They began to be infiltrated by Greens, Reds, anarchists and whatever else, all bent on deriding any military activity the US carried out with the subversive element being the destruction of the USA itself. What also changed at this pont was the nature of active western warfare. No longer was it vast armies spread out and engaged across endless battlefeilds but rather politicaly subversive, intent on propaganda victories coupled with ever present threat. Into this atmosphere, suddenly, every conflict was wrong and, the US was at fault. The anti war crowd, now infiltrated and rotten to the core with socialists, communists and anarchists made it a point to omit any dictator backed by the east and concentrated only on the US. Now we find ourselves at the beggining of a new type of war. Where the enemy is a collective of people with a common dream that has simmered for centuries. They don't meet us on the battlefeilds, they choose their own time and place to act and when they do, the target is not our military but rather the people themselves. Through the media, a recent phenomina, they show their strength to those who would join them and our weaknesses as they take out whatever target will suit their purposes. What hasn't changed is the anti war movement. They are still stuck in the era of an identifiable enemy and safe ground at home. All the whiule, the intent of the enemy is to eventually take this battle directly to us.

But Kiljoy, the Russians couldn't occupy the country with ten times as many troops.

Beat me to it. I'll take the rest though. The authority is with the Afgan government. More Your second link was a rummage sale of ionformation, what exactly supports your point? The third was a rant.

Well, I'm sure now they are either doing the smart thing by looking at other papers as this one has erred or they will continue to look at this one because they are too stupid to figure out that a newspaper in a capitalistic democratic country is not the 'Voice' of that country. In any case, if anybody out there wants to know the true skinny on what Canada is all about, consider me the 'voice of the country.' Just talk to ol' uncle Krusty.

Well here is where we go our separate ways Gerry. The NP is a single paper and, intelligent people don't rely on one paper for their information as they are often following the wrong source or are opinionated hence, any moron that sees the NP as the national Voice of Canada needs a brain transplant. See, the whole thing works on scores for smart people. IE; publications get marks for being less opinionated than others. USA today is slightly left, the Guardian is very left, the Sun series is right, the NP is right, the Globe is left, the TS is left and on and on and on. You have to read them all to get the facts of any story to a degree where you can see what was ommited and thrown in. Or, better yet, go to other countries papers to get the hash from a diffeerent spin and then make your decision. I took out a membership in an intelligence service to get a different slant on things to compliment all of this. Even bloggers that see the event cannot be trusted as they are often the most biased so one is left to getting the info from as many sources as possible. So, rreally, if the NP has discredited Canada in any form, it is with the idiots that only use one single source to get information from. Their disappointment I can live with. I suppose what I'm saying is that the NP is as unrelieble as all of them.

Gerry, for once you have a one hundred percent bonafide point. It is bullshit that they don't retract it and appoligize for not doing it sooner. There is no defence for it other than shoddy research and all. However, let's put this into perspective. To me, this is atune to the Dan Rathergate affair with the doctored evidence he was so egar to jump on for his story, nothing more. Hardly a conspiracy or movement to do anything other than be the first with the news. I hope they learned from this but, without a retraction, they prove they haven't.

Bull. If one hundred thousand could not occupy it, then how are eight able to do it? They can't. Therefore, nobody except morons, idiots, socialists, terorist supporters and generally those who are too stupid to know they are supporting them say that it is. You must have read the post wrong or something as I know you are none of those.

Good point. Hence, it is an occupation only in the minds and rhetoric of those with other agenda. And, those who are too stupid to know they are 'useful idiots.'

Yes, quite the occupation. One foreign soldier for every fifteen hundred people. In order to keep this on a track of reality, let's try just calling it what it is; helping prop up a democraticly elected government in the face of non democratic forces. In short, the government occupies the country and, that government is at risk of being destroyed by non democratic forces. Hence, the requesed and given aid in the form of support from outside forces such as ours and others. As for your Mobilization Against War and Occupation crew, try plugging in that name along with the keywords 'socialist' and 'terrorist' to see what kind of interesting hits you get. From the article; So, they are a pro Taliban organization it seems. If they don't view Taliban as 'destestable murderers and scumbags' then they must feel that democracy is not as good as what the Taliban wish to instill again. Hence, they are anti democracy groups and it is no wonder they are against all of this support. Why though? Easy, they are socialists and in order for socialism to work, capitalism and democracy have to fail. Take a look at any steering comittee on any anti war group. The heads are all the same; Socialists and socialist connected.

Because that wasn't the point nor the target of the action. It was only designed to get a reaction to aid the cause of the organization called Al Qaeda that is one of many who all strive for the same objective - to restore the former Islamic state of the Caliphate. Black Dog nailed it down pretty good with.... So correct. And, you will notice that the terrorist attacks occuring across the former Caliphate are all done by different groups. All with connections and all without a hard line of communications yet, they are all targeting the same thing - governments that are weak and stand a good chance of failing if a final push is given. It's a chipping action, almost like they were waiting for a caticlyism of sorts to push it all over the edge.

Are you referring to the democracy of Saddam or the democracy of Qatar's Emir? The US is killing a thousand less of them a month than Saddam was so it seems you are wrong about those gaols being contradictary.

I was. The raid is a complete indication of the failure of the Liberal side trackng device. A divice instigated to draw our attention from the true failures Cretien employed to prop up his weak government, The Emproer had no clothes but we didn't notice it as the horses covered so well during the parade.

Well, sadly we go back to this then; Yes, the 401 is equally dangerous to a child on a tricycle as Mary Street in Pemborke is. Why don't you equalize the danger between Fiji and Iran while you are at it? Or, the danger Nelson Mandela and Kim Jong pose to world peace? I mean, both are just ...... people right? All streets the same, all offenders the same, all leaders the same. I don't know how else to pose this other than just go into the extreme analogies but you are wrong as far as I can tell. Oh, hang on, here is more. Al Qaeda is an organization and all organizxations are equally dangerous. Hence, AA, Al Qaeda and the Girl Guides are to be shot on sight. The NRA however may be classed in the same catagory as Al Qadea as they shoot back but, that is of no concern to those who belive that all things are equally dangerous as once classified as an object or thing, they are all neatly put in their place right?

I can name a whole bunch Geoffrey. Today, 600 cops in Toronto raided somethng like a hundred gang members residences in a pre dawn raid and confiscated 78 weapons. 78 GUNS!!!!!!!! Now, how do you think they knew where those registered guns were? From the registry of course! They didn't go raid farmers houses in Alberta or Saskatchewan, they went to where they knew where the guns were. And, how did they know the guns were there? Thank the Liberal gun registry. Moderator, close the thread please.

Exactly!! That's correct in my belief as well. Hence, having the neighborhood where they are living aprasied of the enhanced threat that is within their environment. You can equate it to being like how children shold look both ways before crossing the street, but it is very prudent to apraise them of a particular street where the traffic is more dangerous than normal. In the same vein, if parents do not know which street is more dangerous, they cannot inform the children.