12/1    Required reading for anyone that thinks we are winning the war on
        terror.  And before any of you jerk your knees, note the .mil address.
        "Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic
        Communication"
        http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
        \_ One can infer that you are trying to say that we are not winning
           the war on terror based on this single report. If that presumption
           is correct then you are merely fact-finding for your own case
           instead of attempting to really understand the situation at hand.
           This paper is merely one of thousands of proposals that go in
           front of government bodies and the opinions stated in it are
           policy strategies that are suggested. They may or may not
           be correct. Merely drawing up one study group paper and saying
           that it proves your point that we are not winning the war
           against terror is fallacious at best. Politics, unlike
           computer science, does not have one definitive answer. It is
           a complex interplay of socio-economic dynamics. One should
           never presume to know definitively whether one is "winning"
           or "losing" something based on one opinion or one report.
           Take, for example, the Cold War. There are pundits who claim
           that we won the cold war and there are those who claim that
           we did not but instead the Soviets merely imploded due to their
           own internal conflicts. You can argue either way based on which
           papers you select and which facts you wish to draw up. That
           doesn't mean you are more correct than any other pundit. It merely
           means you found what you are looking for in a myriad of facts.
           Anyway, the document is some 100+ pages. If you actually did an
           in depth study of the paper I doubt that you would find that
           it conclusive can tell you whether the war on terror is won or
           lost. It is also beyond the scope of the motd and probably
           the majority of the CSUA members to determine this on their
           own without a true context. It would be as silly as trying to
           give a CS major a case book and tell him/her to defend
           Scott Peterson in trial. -williamc
           \_ you win the award for longest post that doesn't say anything.
              \_ pshah!  Maybe second place.  read this:
                 /csua/tmp/motd.kinney
           \_ Easy with the axe-grinder there, dude. Did you read what
             the PP wrote? It is clear
             s/he thinks we are not winning the "war
             on terror", but he never claims that he came
             to this conclusion because of this one report. -nop
        \_ And who exactly would benefit from a report saying we're not
           winning the war on terror?
                \_ anyone in the "reality based community"
           \_ Are you really this mired in partisan stupidity?  It would be
              of benefit to anyone that wants to see terrorism stamped out
              of existance.  If our tactics aren't working then we need to
              change them, but this sort of presumes that the policy makers
              REALIZE they're not working.  It also helps to understand WHY
              they're failing or why they're not working as well as they're
              supposed to. I hope I've missed your point(and I'm sorry if I
              did), but if not, then I find myself wondering how someone as
              stupid as yourself even manages to dress himself in the
              morning....this all ought to be kind of self evident.
              \_ You're a moron if you think terrorism can be "stamped out
                 of existence." So who dresses *you* in the morning?
                 \_ I didn't say it could be.  -4hp for poor reading
                    comprehension.
                    \_ And I never said anything partisan. -9hp for poor
                       reading comprehension for you, dumbass
                       \_ I think I already covered this.  Feeling a little
                          defensive, are we?  If you'd actually read what I
                          said instead of hysterically knee-jerking, you'd have
                          realized that.
                          \_ Okay, let me spell it out for you, dumbfuck.
                             A sales consultant for a network security services
                             company gives you a report telling you that your
                             network isn't secure. Who exactly would benefit
                             from such a report? How is this knee-jerk? Because
                             I'm not as gullible as you are? Idiot.
                             \_ Uhm, so you're saying that you just assume
                                he's obviously biased and is therefore full of
                                shit?  So, on that basis, you do no
                                due-diligence, but sit back and tell yourself
                                how clever and world-wise you are for avoiding
                                *that* pitfall?  That's just stupid.
                                \_ No. No.
                 \_ I bet you also scoffed at Kerry's "nuisance" comment..
              \_ His thinking may be partisan, but he's not necessarily
                 stupid.  A classic political tactic for poo-pooing opposition
                 to your plans is to point to threats ("we have always been
                 at war with Eurasia!")  I agree with you, objectively
                 speaking it is best to pragmatically go about analyzing
                 your mistakes and weaknesses so you can do a better job, but
                 let's face it, recent US politics has, more than at any time
                 I can recall, relied on "terrorism" as a threat to grant a
                 blank check for "the government" to commit questionable
                 actions.  It's easy to take a cynical view.  -John
                 \_ Hmm.  I think it's much less depressing to just assume that
                    the guy is a partisan moron.
                    \_ And that would be the incorrect assumption. FYI- the
                       election ended a month ago.
                       \_ FYI, partisanism exists and causes issue with or
                          without an election going on.
        \_ how does this report say we are not winning the war on terror?
           \_ You really should just read it.  Essentially it says we are
              making a collosal "strategic mistake."
        \_ Thank you for pointing me to this report. I have been saying
           more or less these exact things for at least a year now and
           had decided that the US was hopelessly going to screw things up,
           at least for the next four years. At least somebody in
           government is starting to think about these issues in the
           right way. -ausman