Articles in the New York Times and other liberal icons in the media have made tacit calls for the intervention of US troops in the ongoing conflict in Israel. The US needs to resist sending troops into an area will both sides will resent their presence. Before a lasting peace is obtained, one side must be defeated. Neither side has reached this point. Sending troops into the middle of an ongoing, heated conflict to “police” a peace will be a disaster.
We somehow feel that Media, Inc. is calling for US military intervention because it opens he door to criticize, what has been up to this point, a very successful military campaign against a difficult enemy- terrorism. The Media and the leftist voices controlling its views have largely been very anti-military. Why should we think that their opinions have changed? They haven’t.
The press calling for military intervention in Israel achieves two objectives. First, it opens the Bush Administration to inevitable callous critique from the talking head box. Second, it gives Media, Inc. something to do. A new breed of war reporters cut their teeth on the war in Afghanistan. Flashy war coverage means more viewers. More viewers means higher ratings and higher ratings mean more commercials. More commercials means more money. That’s what it’s all about isn’t?
Stephen A. McDonald Bigtreenews.com
Officials with the Indian Air Force believe that Russia's fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jet does not correspond to required characteristics and is inferior to the American F-35 and F-22
A nuclear-powered submarine of the British Navy surfaced in the ice of the Arctic for the first time in many years