I do feel some sympathy for Iraqi Kurds and I do wish them a peaceful future. Yet, I'm not so sure this is the way those people want it.
There were different approaches for the liberation of Iraq and US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to cause maximum damage. The parting of Iraq was planned from the start, and also meant to strengthen fundamentalism in Iran.
If I were a US fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a model Kurdistan to emerge in the dead middle of my playground.
A failed proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen radicals in Iran but also infuriate and exacerbate fundamentalists in Turkey.
The radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalism in Europe.
Don't mistake this initiative as an attempt to put a lock on Kirkuk oil fields : the aim of the game is to get rid of secularism in Turkey.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com
I do feel sympathy for Iraqi Kurds and I do hope they will leave in peace. It really depends on how you do it, and whether you use it as a tool to infuriate and exacerbate...
Like the invasion of Iraq, for instance : let us not forget US theocons planned the parting of Iraq from the start. This proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen Iran but also give a boost to Turkish nationalists and fundamentalists. And should it fail, the only "kind-o-quiet" region of Iraq would be forced to join the party.
Remember : the radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalistm in Europe.
This initiative perfectly mirrors the lobbying before the invasion of Iraq : there were different approaches of the liberation of the country and US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to make maximum damage. In general, the Bush administration has a gift for ruining every attempt from moderates in the region and to help radicals reach power. And if I were a fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a peaceful Kurdistan to emerge in the middle of my playground.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com
One of the things I like about the "Weekly Spin" is the refresing way the posts present a more objective view of reality then the spin we see far too often in the mass media. I was, therefore, understandably mystified to read the above post in this week's e-mail.
Certainly I understand that so-called "cause-related marketing" is often better for the bottom line of the for-profit companies then it is for the bottom line of the charitable recipient of the proceeds from the retail sales. I am not so naieve as to believe that for-profit corporations take actions without regard to their bottom line profit margin.
My dismay at reading the above post is that the author focuses exclusively on the article that appeared in Advertising Age magazine and excluded subsequent articles that appeared in the on-line versions of both The Independent (from the UK) (the artcile can be found at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2341310.ece) and The Christian Science Monitor (the article can be found at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0312/p01s02-wmgn.html). Both those articles refute some of the contentions in the Advertising Age article.
For a website and organization that claims to be free from "spin" I find the one-sided reporting in this instance disturbing, at best. At worst, I am reminded of the end of the novel Animal Farm in which the other animals can no longer tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.
Jeff in Ohio: Can you spell CONVICTION? That's
CONVICTION! Mr. Libby was convicted by a jury of
his peers. And, of course, the Prosecutor is a
REPUBLIBICAN appointed by the REPUBLICAN headed
Justice Department. Maybe you think REPUBLICANS
are LEFTISTS! Bye Jeff from Frank in California.
I do feel some sympathy for Iraqi Kurds and I do wish them a peaceful future. Yet, I'm not so sure this is the way those people want it.
There were different approaches for the liberation of Iraq and US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to cause maximum damage. The parting of Iraq was planned from the start, and also meant to strengthen fundamentalism in Iran.
If I were a US fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a model Kurdistan to emerge in the dead middle of my playground.
A failed proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen radicals in Iran but also infuriate and exacerbate fundamentalists in Turkey.
The radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalism in Europe.
Don't mistake this initiative as an attempt to put a lock on Kirkuk oil fields : the aim of the game is to get rid of secularism in Turkey.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
I do feel sympathy for Iraqi Kurds and I do hope they will leave in peace. It really depends on how you do it, and whether you use it as a tool to infuriate and exacerbate...
Like the invasion of Iraq, for instance : let us not forget US theocons planned the parting of Iraq from the start. This proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen Iran but also give a boost to Turkish nationalists and fundamentalists. And should it fail, the only "kind-o-quiet" region of Iraq would be forced to join the party.
Remember : the radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalistm in Europe.
This initiative perfectly mirrors the lobbying before the invasion of Iraq : there were different approaches of the liberation of the country and US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to make maximum damage. In general, the Bush administration has a gift for ruining every attempt from moderates in the region and to help radicals reach power. And if I were a fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a peaceful Kurdistan to emerge in the middle of my playground.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
One of the things I like about the "Weekly Spin" is the refresing way the posts present a more objective view of reality then the spin we see far too often in the mass media. I was, therefore, understandably mystified to read the above post in this week's e-mail.
Certainly I understand that so-called "cause-related marketing" is often better for the bottom line of the for-profit companies then it is for the bottom line of the charitable recipient of the proceeds from the retail sales. I am not so naieve as to believe that for-profit corporations take actions without regard to their bottom line profit margin.
My dismay at reading the above post is that the author focuses exclusively on the article that appeared in Advertising Age magazine and excluded subsequent articles that appeared in the on-line versions of both The Independent (from the UK) (the artcile can be found at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2341310.ece) and The Christian Science Monitor (the article can be found at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0312/p01s02-wmgn.html). Both those articles refute some of the contentions in the Advertising Age article.
For a website and organization that claims to be free from "spin" I find the one-sided reporting in this instance disturbing, at best. At worst, I am reminded of the end of the novel Animal Farm in which the other animals can no longer tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.
Jeff in Ohio: Can you spell CONVICTION? That's
CONVICTION! Mr. Libby was convicted by a jury of
his peers. And, of course, the Prosecutor is a
REPUBLIBICAN appointed by the REPUBLICAN headed
Justice Department. Maybe you think REPUBLICANS
are LEFTISTS! Bye Jeff from Frank in California.
well that is pretty stupid.
public relations should be honest. leave it to the public to decide whether your information is informative. but be honest.
mary elizabeth mahoney
Pages