Contact motorola razr v3 ringtones free nextel real ringtones

Tonight free alltel music ringtones download ringtones to cell phone from pc

Think Progress »…

Who can really believe that our occupation of Iraq is going to help anything in a positive way—Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, US ground commanders complain about the huge shortage of troops to quell the insurgency, terrorist cells are gro…

apparently the most respected American paper
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005070510450002729381&dt=20050705104500&w=RTR&coview=

agrees that the dems have zilch of a plan for anything.

Meanwhile, Rummy?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumsfeld1jul01,1,6698843.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

As far as the topic of the site?
Vietnam was a Civil War. The end would require one side beating the other.

Iraq is a newly formed representative government. There is nothing remotely similar, although the domino theory that drives it, is far more compelling than Kennedy’s domino theory. If the new government breaks down, it was for naught. The honest question, that will never be answered honestly-”Would the democrats wish for victory, resulting in a grand march for democratization in the Middle East, or would they rather see failure and promise, that if elected, would keep this from happening again?”

The logic that the most outspoken critics wish for failure is not arguable. There will be an election in 2006 and 2008, don’t make the same mistakes that were made in 2002 and 2004. Voters have settled in, and are watching Iraq. Fro a majority of the country, there does seem to be a plan. Until that changes the democrats are ceding crediblity of Foreign Policy. Get a plan.

Mark asks:

“If the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is close enough, then would it be fair to call Kennedy a murderer and Byrd a racist?”

yes, it would be fair, but that’s really irrelevant unless you also ask: what would those labels tell you? If the vietnam analogy is relevant (and, oh boy, after watching apocalypse now redux the other night, the similarities are mounting in my opinion), then what that tells you is that we should learn from experience. the administration has TOTALLY learned from the vietnam experience about certain things (maintaining incredible secrecy, never admit to mistakes, never ever talk about the possibility of early withdrawal, always maintain that victory is absolutely essential, don’t let body bags be shown on TV, never attend a funeral, use the patriotism card to keep the corporate press in line and not questioning, delay confirmation of damaging stories for several days or as long as possible to dissipate ourtrage and press attention, always keep on the talking point du jour – cheney violated that the other day though, and so on).

But the real lessons of vietnam, to mis-quote apocalypse (since I don’t recall the exact quote), is that we will never ever win a war in which our troops are lounging in sadaam’s pool, while the insurgents are willing to give up their lives in an instant to get our troops out. we will never ever ever “win” this way. THAT is the lesson of vietnam, and it would be useful if we would recall it.

as for the point of “Chahmed Ahlabi” (cute) on whether Riummy is losing it:

watch the C-Span coverage of his testimony before the senate armed services committee last week, specifically the questioning by Byrd. That guy might well be a racist, but he has become a tireless and absolutely critical advocate for congressional oversight and authority.

It was explained rather succiently to me that the real issue is one of access. Meaning that if reporters or the news bureaus they represent are seen as caustic or anti-administration–their calls to these same individuals will be lessen. Thus the kid glove treatment.

Whether this point is in fact the major cause of the depletion of investigative journalism, I’m unsure, since it seems as well that today–Americans can choose to watch the news or read papers that confirms what they first have accepted as reality. The media then has become the place to tune in as if watching a TV drama, stoked by behind the scene producers who flame the partisan bickering for ratings. Gone are the days when say a NBC and CBS would collaborate on a story looking only to share their collective resources to look beyond the words of their government to find out if what they said was right or wrong. The competition would be first and foremost to break the story behind the story rather than to pick a side upfront. In such an environment, ratings were driven by a desire to be the first to uncover the truth (or as close as it could be determined) and get it out on the airwaves or in print as accurately as possible.

But, unfortunately today the desire to get the story right is stymied by news formats that seems to beckon its viewers to stay tuned to hear more evident that “their side” is right and the “other side” is wrong. CNN to their credit did do away with Crossfire, which conceptually is sound, but leaves it audience only with the same conclusions that they possessed after watching the program. In the segments I would watch, neither side was able to concede or recognize the other’s opinion as valid. And this slide into a forum where compromise is viewed as heresy did little to open up a dialogue where one side listened while the other side talked. And lost in this entire environment was the recognition by both sides that there exists a common reality that both sides can see and then choose to address for the common good of the country.

In my humble opinion, those of us who are opposed to the war in Iraq must not ignore that while Rome burned, our spin doctors in Washington [both dems and repubs] were getting assistance from the media that no longer seemed to be interested in being a ‘watchdog’. The repubs are shown saying this and the dems are shown saying that, but no media organization is to be found to explain it to the public that evidence leads not to the repubs or dems answer but to a grey or to an orange. Thus, a common and persistent cycle of never ending bickering. And of course great theatre for the media who lies in wait to record the endless childlike scenes.

Lastly, the media I believe has drawn some seriously wrong assumptions about the American people. A previous correspondent noted correctly when he asked, “Do you know why we were attacked on 9/11?” The media has not reported on the implication of this question: that is; what has/is our government doing in the name of democracy and what are the consequences to the native people who live and reside in various remote places that we intervene? It seems that perhaps they believe we aren’t interested or can not fanthom the answers or possibly these matters are best left for formats that can thoroughly address them in better detail. Perhaps, those things are best handled in the numerous think tanks that exist, in which they can easily summarize once these groups have reached a conclusion in their 1-2 minute sound bite formats.

But the obvious problem becomes that a nation like Iraq comes into our living rooms, if like in a magical maestrom, and we find that suddenly we have an enemy. When in fact, the history of the US and Iraq dates backs more than 30 years. But what the media does is to treat us like little kids who must only be told some things and not other things. They state in unison the government’s message: they hate our way of life, they hate our freedom, they hate our flag and the democracy it represents. But, no where does the media give a complete and accurate representation of our country’s prior inventions and what activities occured to make them hate us. If Donald Rumsfeld called France, Germany and some others old Europe than today we can call NBC, ABC, FoX and CNN old new organizations.

The blogs are where the investigative journalists have gone to report the “news”. The slick presentations we see today is as much about T&A as it is about news. Not that I have any issue with attractive women and men, but the superficialness of it all is phoney. Hollywood and tabloid news has taken over the news and sent the serious hunter for information to the internet. The assumption is that we give out small blocks of news followed by ‘missing white women and little kids’, washed out movie and sports stars. They offer up to the trough personalities like Nancy Grace, opinionated blowhards who prey on the misery of the celebrity set for ratings. Although Micheal Jackson’s troubles may be of a curious nature, it would be more interesting to have the media track the details of Halliburton and how our $250 billion of public monies has been spent and is going to be spent in Iraq. But a blonde bimbo pitbull screaming Scott Peterson is a murderer every 5 seconds or that MJ is a child molesting freak is far more important to our taxing paying lives. And somewhere in the near future is another celebrity who will crash and burn and Nancy Grace will be there to narrate every excruiting detail of the gorry mess.

While the real important news is short and spotty and rarely if ever is followed up by serious and critical news reporting. This perhaps in their thinking is too boring and expensive, so let’s just repeat what we have heard, repeat it again and use attractive people to smile big smiles in the camera. I watched FoX recently and there in their morning show was an attractive female flanked to her left and right by two attractive men bantering on about a whole lot of ‘nothings’. Are we really to believe these folks are going to seriously uncover facts about Iran, Iraq, SA or any other pertinent issue of the day? Of course not, they are the image that the ‘old News’ feels sells to the public. The media distrust in what they believe we should digest is really our biggest lost to this democracy.

We are told they are the enemy, so to some they are the enemy. As Reggie Jackson once remarked that he was the straw that stirred the drink[Oakland I believe, not NY]. Our media is the straw that has been stirring this mess for their own selfish benefit. It is beyond the time we push the drink away and sobered up.

Vince1157

“Accurate judgment is pred [...]

Comment by mark — June 28, 2005 @ 4:34 pm ”

Idoits? This is like when the old men and boys defended Berlin while Chimpy, I mean Adolph, hangs out in the bunker.
I think they will wear thin before we wear them out. GOPstopo.

I don’t feel the least bit foolish, I’m a vet (USA-69/73-MOS: 91-C).

RE: ChickenHawk (short definition): spineless blowhard with no combat experience who consider military intervention the only option.

For the record, it takes no guts at all to wave the flag and support a military conflict like our cheerleading fearless leader, our first (and hopefully only) self-proclaimed war president, when you are several time zones away from harms way. Suffice it to say, doing so renders the speaker with a serious lack of credibility.

Saying that you are not ‘active’ at this time implies that at one time or another you were ‘active’. Active? Do you mean active duty? You have gained and lost war? Would that be stock dividends?

RE: “Actually, no individual is qualified to believe his opinion to be fact. There is too much to know. ‘Why’ is always the hardest to answer. There is no occam’s razor for war, there are reasons for and against. IF you can measure them within yourselves you’ll find a dichotomy which will set you free. IF you can only be for or against, without be able to weigh it, you will always be a lump of flesh, blown along by what you knew and not looking for what you will find.�

Wow! I’m going to have to have my wife read this; she teaches English, technical writing and critical thinking; maybe she can interpret that paragraph for me. On the surface it looks as though your freshman philosophy class made a real impression on you.

RE: “Timetable and/or withdrawal(not exceeding 25,000) within the next 60 days- a fact?�

What exactly are you asking?

One simple question – What uniform did you wear?

-Sky