HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WAR ON TERROR?
On a scale of one to 10? Billions, exponentially.
Not only money, it could mean hundreds of thousands of lives, changes we would never want. In short, it's important!
by Max
Friday, November 21, 2003
SPELL CHECK--THE 16TH WONDER OF THE WORLD
I can check my spelling. I don't always, and sometimes I should have. I love it. It can improve your image, you can look like you don't come from a swamp (somewhere) that didn't have any education available. It's fun, and it's educational. I found out I had been spelling "hypocrite" without the "e."
When did this happened? How could this happen? Well, once you drop the "e" and it looks fine, you're lost. Forever after, it's hypocrit. Now, I am educated, 'cause I spell it "HYPOCRITE." Dum....but, true.
I can check my spelling. I don't always, and sometimes I should have. I love it. It can improve your image, you can look like you don't come from a swamp (somewhere) that didn't have any education available. It's fun, and it's educational. I found out I had been spelling "hypocrite" without the "e."
When did this happened? How could this happen? Well, once you drop the "e" and it looks fine, you're lost. Forever after, it's hypocrit. Now, I am educated, 'cause I spell it "HYPOCRITE." Dum....but, true.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
HOW DO YOU FIGHT THREATS, FEAR, AND PROPAGANDA?
The following was posted on the Net:
J-"The fredom fighters are gathering in Iraq to liberate Iraq and then we will get to you."
Yes, I know. You come to get us, the Gunships come to get you, you come to get us, the bombs come to get you.
J-"They were not killing their own but innocents will be killed in the process of cleaning our country and Palestine and teh middle east from you white/jews sewer."
"They were not killing their own. . ."?
When will the accident kill or wound your own? What are you going to do if while you're trying to kill us, your friends accidentally kill your family. "They" don't care; "they" don't seem to try to be careful. Yours are the innocents, too. If you think that could never happen, it could. At least you mention the innocents, notice that there are some innocents.
The process of cleaning is probably an accurate description. You'll clean; we'll clean. It will be very messy while we're cleaning.
J-"The collierbators are not innocent but they are traitors including those who work with the red cross."
Okay, your view of it; but, bunches of collaborators helped Saddam. That makes them traitors. Saddam killed for the previous regime, killed to get power, killed to keep power, killed for revenge, killed on a whim. He killed Iraqis by the hundreds, by the thousands...by the hundred thousands. And now...you're going to kill more Iraqis FOR IRAQ. Do you think the souls of the hundred thousands will celebrate you? Do you think the living families of those would cheer you?
J-"See the effects of the bombing, all foreigners are gone. Starting with the fucking un,redcross,spanish,dutch ..etc. soon wee will be free from your filth.
One accident and you're gone, too. Those careful friends of yours will be twice as careful because it's you or your family. Won't they?
I don't know how you fight the propaganda, methodically maybe. I do know that you fight it and you do the best you can. We haven't fought it for years, and it's late to fight it now after so much ground has been lost. But, if we don't fight it, we lose.
The following was posted on the Net:
J-"The fredom fighters are gathering in Iraq to liberate Iraq and then we will get to you."
Yes, I know. You come to get us, the Gunships come to get you, you come to get us, the bombs come to get you.
J-"They were not killing their own but innocents will be killed in the process of cleaning our country and Palestine and teh middle east from you white/jews sewer."
"They were not killing their own. . ."?
When will the accident kill or wound your own? What are you going to do if while you're trying to kill us, your friends accidentally kill your family. "They" don't care; "they" don't seem to try to be careful. Yours are the innocents, too. If you think that could never happen, it could. At least you mention the innocents, notice that there are some innocents.
The process of cleaning is probably an accurate description. You'll clean; we'll clean. It will be very messy while we're cleaning.
J-"The collierbators are not innocent but they are traitors including those who work with the red cross."
Okay, your view of it; but, bunches of collaborators helped Saddam. That makes them traitors. Saddam killed for the previous regime, killed to get power, killed to keep power, killed for revenge, killed on a whim. He killed Iraqis by the hundreds, by the thousands...by the hundred thousands. And now...you're going to kill more Iraqis FOR IRAQ. Do you think the souls of the hundred thousands will celebrate you? Do you think the living families of those would cheer you?
J-"See the effects of the bombing, all foreigners are gone. Starting with the fucking un,redcross,spanish,dutch ..etc. soon wee will be free from your filth.
One accident and you're gone, too. Those careful friends of yours will be twice as careful because it's you or your family. Won't they?
I don't know how you fight the propaganda, methodically maybe. I do know that you fight it and you do the best you can. We haven't fought it for years, and it's late to fight it now after so much ground has been lost. But, if we don't fight it, we lose.
BUSH SPEECH IN LONDON
Some of the thoughts were expressed well and there were many good statements. Bush needs lessons. No official is perfect; but Blair is a more dynamic speaker and would have infused the audience with spirit. He may be better at making speech because he speaks frequently during those question and answer sessions with Parliament.
The real problem with George Bush's speech may be that he doesn't seem to like to do it. If a person likes doing something, generally the results are better. (Just a thought)
Did you ever notice when George Bush speaks about Iraq, or the deaths of people, there is a subtle difference in his voice. Well, it appears that way to me. Almost as though it's emotion under control. And, sometimes when he has a particular issue, he does well while speaking on his particular passion. I'm just looking at it; turning it over in my mind; and, wondering if he is uncomfortable with public speaking until he gets to the part he REALLY is passionate about.
Some of the thoughts were expressed well and there were many good statements. Bush needs lessons. No official is perfect; but Blair is a more dynamic speaker and would have infused the audience with spirit. He may be better at making speech because he speaks frequently during those question and answer sessions with Parliament.
The real problem with George Bush's speech may be that he doesn't seem to like to do it. If a person likes doing something, generally the results are better. (Just a thought)
Did you ever notice when George Bush speaks about Iraq, or the deaths of people, there is a subtle difference in his voice. Well, it appears that way to me. Almost as though it's emotion under control. And, sometimes when he has a particular issue, he does well while speaking on his particular passion. I'm just looking at it; turning it over in my mind; and, wondering if he is uncomfortable with public speaking until he gets to the part he REALLY is passionate about.
OKAY TO BE GAY? OR, AWAY GAY? OR, NAY TO GAY?
I have wrestled with the issue of Gay Rights throughout decades. Each new issue caused me to examine where I stood. Conclusions were more simple when I was younger. Issues seemed more clear-cut.
(Words are important in this issue, but I don't think I can drag out the right words to describe how I feel. I don't discuss the issues often, but have thought about them. I've gotten far enough in the thinking to feel that some are settled, for me. Gay rights is deceptive. In Oct., approx. 60% did not agree with Gay Marriage. So, apparently, many are close to my view on this part of the Gay issue. I would not want Gay for myself, my children, or society; and I wouldn't want the direction of my country to be a preference for Gay.)
Are you gay at the moment of birth? No. I don't believe it. Hasn't been proven. It doesn't seem genetic--like brown hair. Studies in the future might tell us more.
Is it chemical or environmental? It seems environmental, but could be chemical as well, or possibly hormonal.
Should a Gay Individual be protected from Hate? Yes.
Are group rights protected, or is it individual rights within a group? I lean toward Individual Rights protected within a group. Don't know, yet.
I've gotten this far, but it is not a huge accomplishment.
It's not approval or disapproval; it is more disagree. I disagree with the lifestyle; I don't like what Gay represents; don't want to be a Gay Country; I agree it's okay to be Gay, but not Hooray, you're Gay.
This might be a situation of "Lemons into Lemonade". Gay hasn't seemed to be a cheered condition, or way to be, many Gays might wish not to be Gay. In the United States, being Gay was dangerous until around the 1980's(?); dangerous was not my view of how it should be.
In the "Lemons into Lemonade" (Gay) Campaign, it's okay to be Gay was transformed into Hey I'm Gay, and then Hooray I'm Gay, and promoted to "In Your Face All Day". Well, it was in my face all day, today. It was irritating today. It was more pressure to agree with something when you just don't agree. Maybe I'm just tired on the constant pushing and worried about where this will lead, how it will continue on. In agreeing with it's okay to be Gay, I don't want to be push into it's not okay not to be Gay.
I have wrestled with the issue of Gay Rights throughout decades. Each new issue caused me to examine where I stood. Conclusions were more simple when I was younger. Issues seemed more clear-cut.
(Words are important in this issue, but I don't think I can drag out the right words to describe how I feel. I don't discuss the issues often, but have thought about them. I've gotten far enough in the thinking to feel that some are settled, for me. Gay rights is deceptive. In Oct., approx. 60% did not agree with Gay Marriage. So, apparently, many are close to my view on this part of the Gay issue. I would not want Gay for myself, my children, or society; and I wouldn't want the direction of my country to be a preference for Gay.)
Are you gay at the moment of birth? No. I don't believe it. Hasn't been proven. It doesn't seem genetic--like brown hair. Studies in the future might tell us more.
Is it chemical or environmental? It seems environmental, but could be chemical as well, or possibly hormonal.
Should a Gay Individual be protected from Hate? Yes.
Are group rights protected, or is it individual rights within a group? I lean toward Individual Rights protected within a group. Don't know, yet.
I've gotten this far, but it is not a huge accomplishment.
It's not approval or disapproval; it is more disagree. I disagree with the lifestyle; I don't like what Gay represents; don't want to be a Gay Country; I agree it's okay to be Gay, but not Hooray, you're Gay.
This might be a situation of "Lemons into Lemonade". Gay hasn't seemed to be a cheered condition, or way to be, many Gays might wish not to be Gay. In the United States, being Gay was dangerous until around the 1980's(?); dangerous was not my view of how it should be.
In the "Lemons into Lemonade" (Gay) Campaign, it's okay to be Gay was transformed into Hey I'm Gay, and then Hooray I'm Gay, and promoted to "In Your Face All Day". Well, it was in my face all day, today. It was irritating today. It was more pressure to agree with something when you just don't agree. Maybe I'm just tired on the constant pushing and worried about where this will lead, how it will continue on. In agreeing with it's okay to be Gay, I don't want to be push into it's not okay not to be Gay.
THE BIASED PRESS IS WOUNDING AMERICA!
I knew that the Press was biased, but not why. Guess their view makes some sense, but it's wrong. In an effort not to show biased or sway the 2005 election, the Press is puposely not promoting the good things in Iraq.
Good things are facts, too. I know, you'd much rather cover a bloody murder, etc. Be reasonable, if you continuous do not report all the facts (as best you can) you are swaying the election in the Democrats favor while wounding America. Don't we have enough troubles without your contribution?
Democrats and Press....Wake up! This is your country, too. In serving a political interest by damaging the US, doesn't it become more difficult, if you get into office. In other words, you are making your own trouble. And, you are participating in the anti-American activities going on in most nations.
Let me make it really simple Democrats...I won't promise to vote for you; but, if you continue to do this I WILL PROMISE TO VOTE AGAINST YOU! I do not want a President, Congressman, Senator, who thinks party first, then America. Stop it!
To the Press, it's a similar story. I get to vote for you, or against you, by either buying or not buying products. VOTE WITH THE POCKETBOOK is a very good idea.
I knew that the Press was biased, but not why. Guess their view makes some sense, but it's wrong. In an effort not to show biased or sway the 2005 election, the Press is puposely not promoting the good things in Iraq.
Good things are facts, too. I know, you'd much rather cover a bloody murder, etc. Be reasonable, if you continuous do not report all the facts (as best you can) you are swaying the election in the Democrats favor while wounding America. Don't we have enough troubles without your contribution?
Democrats and Press....Wake up! This is your country, too. In serving a political interest by damaging the US, doesn't it become more difficult, if you get into office. In other words, you are making your own trouble. And, you are participating in the anti-American activities going on in most nations.
Let me make it really simple Democrats...I won't promise to vote for you; but, if you continue to do this I WILL PROMISE TO VOTE AGAINST YOU! I do not want a President, Congressman, Senator, who thinks party first, then America. Stop it!
To the Press, it's a similar story. I get to vote for you, or against you, by either buying or not buying products. VOTE WITH THE POCKETBOOK is a very good idea.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
BLOGGING AND POSTING
For weeks, I have been commenting at almuajaha.com. It's supposedly a little Baghdad Newspaper, seems to be on IMC (Net) and distributed locally, but who really knows. It's been my war effort (or contribution) to attempt to fight some of the EXTREMELY bad press about the US.
I freely say that I am not rabidly political, didn't vote for Bush, but have developed the opinion maybe it was better Gore didn't get elected. This means I really wasted my vote if even I agree that maybe I should have voted for Bush. As a confirmed crossvoter, I try to vote for the best person.
The press, in their wisdom of being unbiased, is swinging the election in favor of the Democrats; but, more importantly, *support for America needs a boost.* If the Democrats are "dumping" on the country, and the press is "dumping" on the country, the foreign is "double-dumping", and Al Qaeda-Saddam-anti-American and half the rest of the world are dumping . . .it's no wonder we feel in the "dumper" half the time.
If our press doesn't see fit to support America during war, we are in big trouble. There theory is that if they tell the good, it looks like they are biased in favor of Bush. When will they be a little biased for America. In the PR War, America is an extremely hampered underdog.
We need to fight for the Iraqis, and fight for the US at the same time. How?
(Holdfast, thought I would post my comment here, too)
For weeks, I have been commenting at almuajaha.com. It's supposedly a little Baghdad Newspaper, seems to be on IMC (Net) and distributed locally, but who really knows. It's been my war effort (or contribution) to attempt to fight some of the EXTREMELY bad press about the US.
I freely say that I am not rabidly political, didn't vote for Bush, but have developed the opinion maybe it was better Gore didn't get elected. This means I really wasted my vote if even I agree that maybe I should have voted for Bush. As a confirmed crossvoter, I try to vote for the best person.
The press, in their wisdom of being unbiased, is swinging the election in favor of the Democrats; but, more importantly, *support for America needs a boost.* If the Democrats are "dumping" on the country, and the press is "dumping" on the country, the foreign is "double-dumping", and Al Qaeda-Saddam-anti-American and half the rest of the world are dumping . . .it's no wonder we feel in the "dumper" half the time.
If our press doesn't see fit to support America during war, we are in big trouble. There theory is that if they tell the good, it looks like they are biased in favor of Bush. When will they be a little biased for America. In the PR War, America is an extremely hampered underdog.
We need to fight for the Iraqis, and fight for the US at the same time. How?
(Holdfast, thought I would post my comment here, too)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)