Posted on 10/02/2006 3:29:40 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
Edited on 10/02/2006 3:49:15 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It's to the point where there is no aspect of media reporting that can be trusted. NONE
Well there's never a shortage of opinions around here. :-)
America can't always use military might in nation building. We can root out terrorists that pose a threat and invade countries as necessary. But when it comes to rebuilding countries we should promote democratic systems of government that do not exclude people based on religious beliefs. We should stress that these new governments should have laws to forbid terrorists and criminals from becoming part of the government. Of course that rules out a lot of people and lot of Taliban. :-)
Alia, what those countries want to do is up to them. I would like to think they would NOT involve the Taliban in their government, because the Taliban once held government positions and it was terrible.
What I object to is a Senator of the United States marching off to a foreign land and making comments that address issues that are none of his business. Yes, he should know what is going on over there so he can support those whose perview it is to set policy, but no he should not make comments about things like this.
Sorry, but that's how I see it. I appreciate your response. I agree with some of your premises about territory and the Taliban not having a sovereign area to rule.
Frankly, that's a very good thing in light of their track record.
Sometimes, one can tell a great deal about the rightness or wrongness of a news report if: a) one knows a bit or so about the person being "written" about, and b) if one has faith in the party they profess to have faith in.
I'm not for blind faith. Just couple the three facts I've enumerated above; it might help ya know when you are being taken on a long walk on a short pier by the MSM, and being observed by your fellow Freepers. :)
I completely agree. I don't think Frist is a bad guy, and I think highly of his charity work, but he's an empty suit with no leadership skills. Nice guys have a place in this world, but it's not clawing for advantage in Congress.
I never cared for Hastert, either, but he completely lost my support me when he stood up for Jefferson during the corruption investigation. His arguement seemed to communicate that he though congressmen shouldn't be subject to FBI investigations, and in so many words, should be above the law. Aside from the appaling nature of that reasoning, on a tactical level we had the Democrats flanked and exposed, and even the media was letting Jefferson have it. Hastert rolled in to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
lol. I do agree. And I understand your valid concerns. I don't think I'd have lasted two years in Salem, Mass, centuries back. No matter my faith and belief in God. I'd have opened my mouth and someone would have shrieked I'd stolen into their heads at night telling them to vote Republican or somesuch.
But that Puritan Extremist group did die out. Sure, sure, it has remerged as Political Correctness. I know that.
Civilizations sometimes take for granted the liberties and goodnesses of their lives. At that time, evil always rears its ego-driven head and starts riots and movements.
And when good men remain silent, when instead they should speak. And when people lose their moral compasses and decide to win at all costs, despite that it may cost innocent others their lives. And so forth.
Perhaps the Taleban, too, can reform its ways, or die out. That's clearly the choice being given them.
What I appreciate right now, is that you and I can disagree so cleanly on this specific topic, and have it be so wonderfully civil. Thank you, DoughtyOne.
Once again, crAP strikes fan.
>>>That's quite different from the AP story thread where I ripped him a new one.<<<
Rule #1: NEVER, EVER, trust a liberal "journalist" or "correspondent".
Rule #2: Refer to Rule #1.
And it's exactly what Musharref was misquoted about last week in Pakistan.
I understand your concerns about putting Islamists in power, but the above point is nonsensical. Co-opting your enemies and turning them into friends is what counterinsurgencies are all about. Sure, they're savage and barbaric guys, but they're connected, and credible with the people. Finding credible leaders with no blood on their hands in Afghanistan is like finding an elected Kennedy with nothing to say at confession. If these Islamists are ready to take off their Taliban hat, and put on a central government one, it will bring their followers into the fold as well. It turns enemies into allies, if unsavory ones.
That is progress. Ideally, of course, all of the influential Islamists would disappear tomorrow, and Jeffersonian democracy would bloom out of the brutal Afghan winter, but that's not it the cards. The best we can do with Afghanistan is to turn the killers into former killers, and get them supporting their new democratic republic instead of the insurgency.
And if we had dropped just one nuke on Hanoi, 58,000 American lives would have been saved, plus hundreds of thousands wounded, and we would have captured the hearts, minds, and genitals of all Vietnamese.
Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that once again the press distorted what was actually said. No media outlet can be trusted. Journalists have zero credibility - it doesn't matter which company they work for.
Thanks. I missed that one.
Got a link?
Sorry, folks, but I think this is woefully naive and ahistorical.
The Puritans were a strange little sect that, because of various political factors, was important in England for awhile and then became important here, with the cult-behavior common to small sects emerging fairly rapidly. But the difference is that the thing that the Puritans were based on, Christianity, offered no support for their bizarre ideas and the violence inherent in them, and this was what eventually made the Puritans come around.
Islam, on the other hand, is all about violence, and that is what the Taleban are basing themselves on.
Unless we make them cleanly reject that vision and agree to a secular society - which, frankly, no Muslim will do, as we are seeing in Iraq now - there's no place for them.
Frist is naive in the extreme if he things that a serious member of the Taleban is going to just agree to disagree and say why can't we all just get along. It's a pity, but we seem to have given up.
Women all over Afghanistan are probably nearly suicidal right now, because we were their great hope - and now, thanks to the new improved Taleban, girls' schools are having to be opened in secrecy.
If we let this happen, we will have thrown away everything we have done there.
I understand that. It's no excuse for politicians on our side to be careless about what they say. Not everything is misreported by the MSM, and not everything that is misreported is a completely inaccurate distortion. In addition, what they really said gets through to some people, via alternative media, in many cases. And sometimes what they really said isn't very good.
The Pashtun are an ethic group that makes up about 42% of the population of Afghanistan. They reside in large numbers in South and East Afghanistan (as well as Western parts of Pakistan).
They are very set in their ways, very backwards and very conservative(and I don't mean FreeRepublic conservative).
The Pashtuns have been this way even before they were Muslims.
In this very traditional, backwards and culturally static way, they have a lot in common with the Taliban and they sympathizes with the Taliban in this respect.
The Taliban is largely Pashtun but Pastuns are not largely Taliban. Most aren't terrorists and most will never commit a terrorist act.
Their hearts and minds need to be changed to make a democratic Afghanistan work. In some cases these changes are already occurring albeit slowly.
I remain unconvinced that Mr. Frist wasn't word-massaged out of context by the MSM. And yes, I do agree with what you've written about dealing with the MSM.
Let's just back up a minute, here.
What we did was show up in Afghanistan like the fist of God, smashing al-Qa'ida to bits and sending the Taliban running like scared rats. AQ is now hiding in Pakistan, and the Taliban is hiding in the provinces of Afghanistan that, translated from Pashtun, mean "The Lands That Time Forgot". Some of those places are so remote, they've never even heard of America, much less are aware their country has been invaded.
Anyway
All we did was to show up, sieze the centers of population, and set up a new government. There's been no Marshall plan to bring Afghanistan out of the bronze age. When GW said he wasn't in favor of nation building exercises, back in the 2000 election, he meant it. So, aside from a rather abrupt and stunning encounter with American firepower, Afghanistan isn't a lick of different now than it was 5 years ago.
Or 500 years ago, for that matter.
Worrying about 'throwing away all of our progress' is itself a pretty amusing concern.
The proverbial nail on the head......
My compliments to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.