That's my point about the Kurds. Their welfare isn't controversial and, to some, not worthy of discussion. It's great that the Kurds are pimping tourism, but how much discussion is going to happen about it?


And I'm glad Snowflake got a new job. I was just using her thread as an example... :)

How glib would war supporters be if "only" New York, Los Angeles, and Washington DC were burning? Would they complain about the dearth of feel-good stories about tourism worthy Nebraska?

I suppose it depends, Sac. If the news reports were saying that all of the United States is in flames and there is no hope for the country, I might offer that, no, the entire US is not in flames and while it is tragic and we hope and pray for the best, and we want to help in whatever we can, in Nebraska the wheat harvest went on as scheduled.

This does not belittle tragic events. It simply points out that the entire country is not in flames.

Iraq is much smaller. It would be California with LA, SF and Sacramento in flames with people blowing themselves and others up on and near the LAX, Amtrak stations, Bart and Metro... Would the news media say that California was screwed? Yes.

Something tells me that if that were the case there would be a lot less sentiment trying to understand the people that were doing it, and there would be fewer cries to give up and leave CA on their own.

Have to argue against that one, Scaeagles. All California has to do is pass an eco-friendly or pro-human rights law and the rest of the country wants to disown them. California is the progressive thorn in America's side, and I suspect that if there were an insurgency of some sort the rest of the country would at least consider putting them on ignore.;)

As far as sentimentally trying to understand the insurgent- I don't think there are many that want to link arms with them and sing 'Kumbaya', but sometimes in order to effect a cure it makes sense to discover the cause.

If the government that bombed CA (in the middle of the night killing women and children in Sacramento) said that they had weapons of mass destruction and then found out there weren't any, people might be interested to get to the bottom of everything.

Also, if the strategy was suddenly changed to say that the gov't was liberating CA from the oppressive Swarzeneggar, then people would say, 'Well, what happened to Arnold's WMDs? Wasn't that the point of the war?' When there wasn't WMD, which many people knew there wasn't, then people world wide would question the government that seemed to be attacking CA for other reasons.

Eyebrows may also be raised if LA, SF and Sacto were still burning and the leader of the attacking government came out and said, 'All done. Nothing to see here. War's over.' Many would go, 'Uh, my loved ones are still fighting and dying in Inglewood and in Downtown SF... The war's over?'

Then years later, the war still continues with Northern Californians and SoCal residents possibly getting into a civil war over this... People in other countries might say, well they should leave them to sort this out because with that other gov't's help, things don't seem to be getting any better...

But, but, but... Barstow is doing quite well. Why don't the news media focus more on Barstow?

Hey! Careful with those bombs, pal.

We've been over that, MBC....no need to focus on Barstow, but it might be best to point out that Barstow, Redding, and Eureka are not burning. I recognize the bad news is what is reported thing, which is really what it should be. When we get to the point that what is good happens to be unique and the most newsworthy, we are in deep caca.