My Photo

Core topic

« Technical difficulties | Main | Back to our regularly scheduled programming »




I just wanted to also bring up that the "media" can directly affect the 'policies' for which some "Nation" can then adapt. One excellent example is where the "Spanish-American War" was foisted upon the American society by inflammatory 'statements' being printed up, and this coming from a supposedly FREE sort at that! Another is where completely fabricated "stories" are concocted, and then disseminated through those such as what happened at "Wounded Knee", the "Tonkin Gulf" incident, and even more recently, then what is currently ongoing. What were the 'motivations' for those all? To 'sell' ever the MORE "newspapers"? The "liberations" of those oppressed people, from what was perceived as such? If the underlying "agendas" were to LIBERATE everyone from what we ourselves then denote as being in this 'demeanor', then how come it is that WE just don't "GO" after each and every 'one' of anyplace seen as this? That would include our now "allied" types as well, since according to this 'criterion', then unless they're EXACTLY like we are supposed to then 'be', why they are NO better than any manner of "despotic" types that have existed previously. True, a 'selective' and seemingly never-ending 'process' is called for, yet those already in "power" are going to do whatever it takes to KEEP that! That is also the reason for where "revolutions" will take place, since in order for some stability to become maintained, there has to be a halt with those and emplace a defacto 'system' where it benefits the "society" in general. Considering the whole ways & means in which the USA was "conceived" from its inceptions, then you'd have thought that during the "Vietnam War" we would have applied those 'principles' for it all. It is verily true that when the "Government" itself actively puts out deceptive, inaccurate, or downright hostile 'memos' and the like, for whatever reasons are later postulated, why that doesn't make them 'seen' as anything less than how others in that "vein" have 'done' before them on this.

It brings to my mind the sad and oft repeated 'belief' of our "Military", where it was stated constantly to us within it that: "NO long-haired ARMY ever 'WON' a War!" Really? Perhaps then these same people ought to go BACK to their 'studies' within historical tomes, and gaze closely and long steadily at the pictures to witness our "founding fathers" coiffures, before making wholly inappropriate condemnations for something such as this. Sure, it doesn't truly matter much if anything about that, but when you begin a generalization with an idiotic premise such as this, then what others should be called into 'question' as well? This also would bring UP the 'fact', upon just where their viewpoints are concerned with regards to the outcome of that. Since how is it to then be looked over with in order to garner some valuable 'experiences' for any "lessons learned"? I've witnessed it plenty of times where people have proclaimed that "Armies 'ready' themselves to 'fight' the LAST War", but then that old 'saw' is tired AND overused. Mostly, it is so because unless these are taking PLACE in the same 'situations', then of course the next 'one' may NOT be undergone in this exact way. Considering that we had fought the last couple of our "Wars", within the specific 'region' of the World for which these took place, then yes they were almost alike. That's the execption in this 'case', while many believe that the first 'instance' only LED up to the later 'one' then. Depending on what others might have surmised should have been logically concluded with the initial "War of Liberation" way back at the time, then this latest 'fiasco' could have and should have been avoided entirely.

Stephan Rasmussen

The question that one has to ask itself is if George Bush and others within his administration should be prosecuted for lying and deceiving an entire world population to pursuit their own vendettas. Where are those weapons of mass destruction and where is the decline in teorism that George Bush and company said would be the reason for invading..

I guess when the only reason you ever got into power was by abusing a system and sucking up to the right people then there is no reason to change that tactic once you are in power even though it may have consequences that the rest of us must live with..

How could we ever be tricked into thinking a full blown invasion of Iraq would cause a decline in terrorism.. yes DECEPTION AND LIES.. and as Grognads correctly adds teh media has a role in this too as they think in money and not consequences

The comments to this entry are closed.