Any American government that did NOT have a nuclear contingency plan would be traitorous IMO.
CONTINGENCY PLANS! The government is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Consider and plan for every possibility, however remote. It does not mean that Bush desires to nuke anyone.
Sheesh! What a bunch of idiots.
Letter to the Editor, Buffalo News
Contrary to the repeated denials of Editor Margaret Sullivan, the Buffalo News exhibits bias daily in not only its’ own news coverage but stories supplied by the far left wing sister paper, the Los Angeles Times. A story from the far left wing, LA Times in this Sunday’s paper, exhibits the EXACT type of bias described in Bernard Goldberg’s’ book “Bias”.
The body of the article “7 nations on U.S. list as targets for nukes”, contains references to 3 groups. The first 2 groups, which were in opposition to the subject of the article, are simply referred to by name. “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace” and “Council for a Livable World”.
The last group mentioned, “Heritage Foundation” was clearly identified as “the conservative Heritage Foundation”
What were the first 2 groups, left wing, socialist, communist, anti-capitalists, anti-American, Marxist?
Tell me Ms Sullivan, why does the LA Times and the Buffalo News continue to do this? I certainly do not mind the Heritage Foundation labeled as “conservative” because they are a conservative group and that tells me their point of reference, which is supporting the US Constitution. I cannot determine the point of reference for the first 2 groups because for some reason, the media refuses to place the pejorative label preceding any left wing group’s name.
I would highly recommend your entire editorial staff read and attempt to understand Mr. Goldberg’s book so that we don’t have to keep referring to the far left wing Buffalo News.
Ever since the end of the second world war, social psychologists and communication scholars have been conducting empirical studies in order to learn more about the effectiveness of fear appeals.
All other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is to take positive preventive action.
Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behavior if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.
Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behavior if they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the audience believes are both effective and doable.
In summary, there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.
I got this far and went into a fit of uncontrollable yawning.
Lord forgive my thoughts.
Great post!!!
British trash-tabloids are as good as the Star and the National Enquirer any day, LOL! Tomorrow maybe they can do an expose about PeeWee Herman's face being spotted on Mars!
The funniest part about these 'fabricated-from-whole-cloth' stories (I mean, these "contingency plans" have been operative since at least the '60s, right?) is that they never make the slightest ripple here in the USA. This just drives the socialist Euro-scum crazy. Time and again, the people of this country basically tell them to drop dead, hahahaha!
Great post - - this one will have me smiling all day.
Uh, thanks for abrogating the NATO pact of mutual defense - when the US was attacked the rest of NATO allies (with the exception of UK) hemmed and hawed.
WE DON'T CARE WHAT EUROPE THINKS!!
They are irrelavent.
The article uses these words, but apparently the author doesn't understand their meaning. It means if you do not attack us with weapons of mass destruction we won't nuke you.
What on earth could be easier to understand than plain english when spoken to an Englishman?
I suggest that since their affiliation with the EU, Brits have lost the ability to understand their own language.