Why PR is a Vital Force

Comments (20)

Why PR is a Vital Force

By: Robert A. Kelly

Because it can alter individual perception and lead to changed behaviors. Something of profound importance to businesses, non-profits and associations who can sink or swim on how well they employ this crucial dynamic.

Consider this simple blueprint that gets everyone working towards the same external audience behaviors insuring that your public relations effort stays focused: people act on their own perception of the facts before them, which leads to predictable behaviors about which something can be done. When we create, change or reinforce that opinion by reaching, persuading and moving-to-desired-action the very people whose behaviors affect the organization the most, the public relations mission is accomplished.

Winners use it to produce results like these: community leaders beginning to seek you out; welcome bounces in show room visits; capital givers or specifying sources looking your way; prospects starting to do business with you; customers making repeat purchases; membership applications on the rise; fresh proposals for strategic alliances and joint ventures; higher employee retention rates, and even politicians and legislators starting to view you as a key member of the business, non-profit or association communities.

Here's how they do it.

They start by finding out who among their important outside audiences is behaving in ways that help or hinder the achievement of their objectives. Then, they list them according to how severely their behaviors affect their organization.

Next, they take steps to find out precisely HOW most members of that key outside audience perceive their organization. Now, if you don't have the budget to pay for what could be costly professional survey counsel, you and your PR colleagues will have to monitor those perceptions yourself. Actually, they should be quite familiar with perception and behavior matters.

Best way to get that activity under way is to meet with members of that outside audience and ask questions like "Are you familiar with our services or products?" "Have you ever had contact with anyone from our organization? Was it a satisfactory experience?" Be sensitive to negative statements, especially evasive or hesitant replies. And watch carefully for false assumptions, untruths, misconceptions, inaccuracies and potentially damaging rumors. When you find such, they will need to be corrected, as they usually lead to negative behaviors.

Here, you must select the specific perception to be altered which then becomes your public relations goal. You obviously want to correct any untruths, inaccuracies, misconceptions or false assumptions.

Clearly, a PR goal without a strategy to show you how to get there, is like lasagna without the marinara sauce. As you select one of three strategies especially constructed to create perception or opinion where there may be none, or change existing perception, or reinforce it, what you want to do is insure that the goal and its strategy match each other. You wouldn't want to select "change existing perception" when current perception is just right suggesting a "reinforce" strategy.

Now, you create a compelling message carefully put together to alter your key target audience's perception, as specified by your public relations goal.

Here's a thought. Combine your corrective message with another news announcement or presentation which may provide more credibility by downplaying the need for such a correction.

Your message must be compelling and quite clear about what perception needs clarification or correction, and why. Of course you must be truthful and your position logically explained and believable if it is to hold the attention of members of that target audience, and actually move perception in your direction.

I like to call the communications tactics you will use to move your message to the attention of that key external audience, "beasts of burden" because they must carry your persuasive new thoughts to the eyes and ears of those important outside people.

Happily, you have a wide choice because the list of tactics is long indeed. It includes letters-to-the-editor, brochures, press releases and speeches. Or, you might choose radio and newspaper interviews, personal contacts, facility tours or customer briefings. There are scores available and the only selection requirement is that the communications tactics you choose have a record of reaching people just like the members of your key target audience.

We are all lucky in this business because things can always be accelerated by adding more communications tactics, AND by increasing their frequencies.

Colleagues and others will soon be asking about progress. Of course, you will already be hard at work remonitoring perceptions among your target audience members. Using questions similar to those used during your earlier monitoring session, you'll now be sharp-eyed and on the lookout for signs that audience perceptions are beginning to move in your general direction.

Satisfying curiosity in this regard is largely a matter of serving up the results you will receive when you undertake this aggressive public relations plan. Put another way, it's Happy Hour time when you achieve the kind of key stakeholder behavior change that leads directly to achieving your department, division or subsidiary objectives.


Please feel free to publish this article and resource box in your ezine, newsletter, offline publication or website. A copy would be appreciated at bobkelly@TNI.net. Word count is 940 including guidelines and resource box. Robert A. Kelly Copyright 2004.)

About The Author

Bob Kelly counsels, writes and speaks to business, non-profit and association managers about using the fundamental premise of public relations to achieve their operating objectives. He has been DPR, Pepsi-Cola Co.; AGM-PR, Texaco Inc.; VP-PR, Olin Corp.; VP-PR, Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.; director of communi- cations, U.S. Department of the Interior, and deputy assistant press secretary, The White House. He holds a bachelor of science degree from Columbia University, major in public relations. mailto:bobkelly@TNI.net Visit: http://www.prcommentary.com


Tanya A 16.10.2008. 01:15

discuss why should native americans be concerned about the ways they are portrayed pr presented? the indigenous people of the americas have been seen as bakward poeple and primitives, and their histories have been written by western historians who claim to tell the "truth" about these indegenous cultures.

Tanya A

Admin 16.10.2008. 01:15

The reason is because mainstream society continues to promote racism and genocide against a population based on the concept that that population is inferior.

With Native Americans, the general concept is base on what people perceived to have occurred 2 to 5 hundreds years in the past. This allows them to ignore the continued mistreatment of those people and resolves them of any responsibility.

Here are some examples

Up until the 1980s Native children were forcibly taken from their families and placed in boarding schools. . Children were physically abused, sexually abused and murdered. Documents show more than 50% of the children died in those schools. April, 2003, six members of the Sioux Nation filed a class-action lawsuit against the United States on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans mistreated in government-run boarding schools

Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools
Zephier, et al. (Sioux Nation). v. United States of America Complaint

Native Americans were successful in getting The Indian Child Welfare Act, passed in 1978 to prevent the state and county welfare agencies from stealing the children and placing them in in non?Indian homes. The government likes to take credit for ending discriminatory practices. That?s far from the truth.

American Indian Child Welfare Act

Thousands of Native American men and women were sterilized right up to the 1980s. Even though the investigations began in the late 1970s

A Look at the Indian Health Service Policy of Sterilization, 1972-1976
A History of Governmentally Coerced Sterilization: The Plight of the Native American Woman

Viewing a population as backward and primitive, promotes the misconception that they deserve the problems they encounter because they are lazy and unproductive. Mainstream society refuses to see that population as no different from other segments of society in accomplishment and productivity.

Here are some examples.

Native Americans are the nation's second-wealthiest minority, behind Asians, reports Alison Stein Wellner in the August American Demographics magazine.

American Demographics magazine

Native American buying power will rise from $40.8 billion in 2002 to $57.3 billion by 2007. Entrepreneurship is one of those factors considered to be a major force in behind the growth of Native American buying power, as Native American owned firms primarily in the areas of business services, personal services, and construction industries, outperformed all other groups in terms of receipts.

Marketing to Native Americans Demographics

Native Americans have played a vital role in the economic conditions of the United States. For example, every year, Native American tribes contribute significantly to the overall energy production of the U.S. In 1997 alone Native Americans supplied 32 million tons of coal, 270 million mcf of gas, 15 million barrels of oil and 5.5 million tons of construction aggregate.

In the same year tribal businesses contributed to the lumber industry by harvesting 650 million board feet of timber. They have reforested more than 14,000 acres and completed forest improvements on an additional 66,625 acres of land. Native Americans also have made an impact on the fishery programs, and release more than 40 million young salmon and steelhead trout in the Pacific Northwest every year.

Tribal businesses have contributed to $10 billion in wage and salary income to the United States and created more than 300,000 jobs. This has generated more than $4-6 billion in federal tax revenue annually. The Native American art and craft industry generates more than $1 billion every year. On the state and local government levels, tribal communities contribute $246 million in tax revenues annually, and the combined purchases of goods from reservations total $5.5 billion on an annual basis.

Tribal Business Contributions

This is an example of how States benefit from casinos on Native American land.

Sault Ste. Marie, MI ? Kewadin Casino brings a total economic output of $325.4 million annually to the Eastern Upper Peninsula

Other key statistics outlined in the report include:
? $103.1 million gross annual wage impact for the region.
? 3,001 annual total employment positions in the region.

Benefits from construction (4yr period)
? $230.3 million in gross economic output
? $74.6 million in gross earnings impact
? 1,703 gross employment

The City of Sault Ste. Marie also bills the casino for infrastructure maintenance and repair, on the assumption that those cost would not have occurred if the casino was not there.

John Bennett Herrington - Chickasaw - U.S. Astronaut

Does anybody know any famous First Nations/American Indian mathematicians?


thenoseknows 20.10.2010. 13:37

How does PR (public relations) manipulation shape people's perceptions about medicine? http://www.healingdaily.com/beliefs.htm

Do you recall doctors shilling for tobacco companies?
Are your perceptions guided by slick PR manipulation or do you think for yourself?


Admin 20.10.2010. 13:37

I work it out for myself. Money and profit is the driving force behind Big Pharma. Health concerns come in second place (if they do at all). In this day and age, thinking for yourself is vital if you don't want to be scammed into thinking companies that make million/billion pound profits at the expense of your health actually care about you. Until those attitudes change, human greed and the lust for money and profit will continue to negatively affect the world we inhabit. Here is a great link:


(There is a stupid pop-up that comes up but hopefully you'll be able to print it before it comes up!)

I take the red pill! (Thank God!)


Samuel S 17.02.2009. 15:09

WHY is obama going all the way to Denver to sign this "Momentous" Bill? When He told us it was vital to surviv? to OUR survival--to do so--and yet he is not with those who have forced this Bill onto the the helpless Citizens? What is avoiding--or what is so guilty about he has to hide?
What's in Denver--and why not sign it in DC like every other President?

Samuel S

Admin 17.02.2009. 15:09

I'm thinking it has to do more with PR..I thought CO was a swing state and maybe he's already campaigning there for the next election.


Tim 23.08.2007. 14:05

Was General Mac Arthur famed more for his outspokenness or his generalship? Array


Admin 23.08.2007. 14:05

MacArthur was a highly controversial figure even at the height of his military career. The MacArthur controversy shows no sign of being settled, one way or the other.

The question ?How good a General was he, as opposed to how good a self-publicist?? continues to be argued, fiercely.

In his lifetime, people were rarely neutral about MacArthur: they either worshipped him or detested him. That ?gut reaction? continues to sway the Answers that your Question receives.

So, I should confess my own gut-feel about MacArthur before offering my version of an Answer to your Question. Overall, I don?t like him, don?t trust him, and don?t buy into his super-soldier image. I accept that he had talent, perhaps even flashes of genius. But his startling inconsistency tells me that this man had feet of clay. Enormous ego; absorption with image, not reality; considered himself to be the center of the universe.

- - - - - -

So, now that you know where I stand on the man himself, here are my views on his performance: -


In the Philippines in 1942, MacArthur suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of American foreign wars. The inadequacy of MacArthur?s preparations to defend the Philippines contributed hugely to that defeat. His dithering indecision over the B-17?s and then over the retreat into Bataan (especially the delay in stockpiling supplies in Bataan) made that defeat the more certain and the more tragically costly.

In adversity in the Philippines in 1942, MacArthur showed a surprising lack of resilience: surprising, because in France in 1918 he had on several occasions displayed great personal courage. I think that the explanation is that MacArthur was one of those characters who is brave when winning, but all too prone to crack under the strain when things look grim. Then, and in the SWPA before the tide turned, he was petulant and reproachful, constantly blaming his superiors in Washington, and his subordinate commanders and their troops.

In my opinion, the commander responsible for a chaotic débâcle such as in the Philippines in 1942 should never have been given another active command. MacArthur, however, was too eminent a figure to be sidelined without repercussions at home, and loss of national prestige. So, instead of sacking him, the US gave MacArthur the Medal of Honor and boosted his PR image as a hero.

[B] 1943 ? 45 SWPA:

In his next appointment as commander of the SWPA for the return journey from Papua to Luzon, his judgments were sometimes right, sometimes ill-advised. The credit for their ultimate success rests as much on Admiral Halsey on the spot and on the Joint Chiefs in Washington as on MacArthur. The prescience with which he at times seems to have been endowed was generally the outcome of the cracking of the Japanese naval code before Pearl Harbor; even then his responses were often too slow or too cautious.

It is also questionable whether the resources poured into the SWPA offensive campaigns from 1943 onwards were dictated by any vital strategic need, or more by MacArthur?s self-centered insistence on recapturing the Philippines (?I will return.?)

In his operations in New Guinea and the Philippines, MacArthur had to rely on maneuver and overwhelming fire power from land, sea and air forces. It is to his credit that he used these assets intelligently. But, when in 1942-43 he had under his command some of the best infantry in the world, he was markedly distrustful of their performance: could this be because they were mostly Australian?


MacArthur?s response to the Communist invasion of South Korea was as good as could be expected, given the paltry land-force resources at his immediate disposal --- and, for that matter, the lack of preparedness of the US Army in an overall sense to deal with such a crisis.

As had been the case in 1942 with the Japanese in the Philippines, MacArthur seriously overestimated the North Korean strength opposing him at Pusan (by a factor of 5 times!). But the perimeter was held.

With Pusan secure, and with full command of both air and sea, it was inevitable that MacArthur?s thoughts would turn to a replay of the amphibious landing encirclements that had carried him back from Papua to Luzon. And MacArthur was able to bring overwhelming strength into the Inchon landings: X Corps had 70,000 fighting men; the North Korean defense at Inchon mustered 2,500, with another 4,000 in Seoul. Inchon was certainly a good decision: but it was such an obvious choice under the circumstances that I have never been able to understand why it was hailed as a stroke of genius.

But, after Inchon and the initial pursuit of the North Koreans across the 38th Parallel, MacArthur seems to have been so convinced of his own genius that he ignored all the clear warnings about China?s military sensitivity; and furthermore allowed the UN troops to scatter into haphazard clusters that could only have been regarded as ?secure? if their enemy was truly and utterly beaten.

After the Chinese intervention, it was all over for MacArthur, because he lost all sense of reality. Truman had no choice but to dismiss him.

Throughout the last ten years of his military career, MacArthur?s insatiable appetite for adulation made him prey to devoted followers who flattered his conviction that he was infallible and that people in Washington were conspiring against him.

Bottom line? A general with far too high an opinion of himself. Quite talented as a tactician, but clueless about the ?big picture?, thanks to his self-absorption. Much better at Press Releases and posed Photo Opportunities than at actually winning wars.
EDIT: to Max Smart.
Yes, Max, I quite agree that the Inchon tidal patterns were a major concern. But, in truth, that was ALL that MacArthur had to worry about at Inchon. Apart from the question of "can we get the troops ashore?", landing at Inchon was a no-brainer, given the resources by then at MacArthur's disposal. That's why I scratch my head when folks say "Oh! How brilliant!"


dodge24dodge 09.04.2006. 19:40

Looking for credible sources for a college paper on Americans' interaction and perceptions of latinos? Array


Admin 09.04.2006. 19:40

Please look at Joan Moores' book "Homeboys" it has longitudinal data that can be very helpful. Also look at "Going Down to the Barrio" by Joan W Moore. Still available online from Amazon.com. The editorial review from that site says it all:

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal
This sequel to Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prisons in the Barrios of Los Angeles (Temple Univ. Pr., 1978) is based on continuing research begun by Moore and Carlos Garcia. It traces the 45 years of two Chicano youth gangs in Los Angeles. Through analysis of economic trends and hundreds of trenchant interviews, she has unearthed evidence that the stereotypes of Hispanic youth gangs promoted by the media are mistaken and alarmist. Hers is one of the few studies to cover girl gangs in depth. She offers copious statistics to show that what changed these gangs from primarily ethnic social groups to many that deal in drugs and crime was the increased unemployability of young barrio men. Index, bibliography, notes, charts, methods, and somewhat dry text indicate that this is aimed at the scholarly and professional community.
- Anne Osborn, Youth Training Sch., Ontario, Cal.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Book Description
In this illuminating look at two Chicano gangs in East Los Angeles, Joan W. Moore examines the changes and continuities among three generations of barrio gangs. As a sequel to the author's award-winning study, Homeboys (Temple, 1979), this book returns to the same neighborhoods to chart the development of gang behavior, especially in terms of violence and drug use, and to compare experiences of male and female gang members.
In a remarkable research collaborative effort, Moore and gang members worked together to develop an understanding of both male and female gangs and an internal vision of gang members' lives. By using excerpts from individual interviews, the author depicts more about the gangs than simply their life together as a unit; she gives them a voice. Gang members discuss their personal reaction to violence, drug using and selling, family relations and intra-gang dating; they share intimacies that reveal varying levels of loyalty to and dependency on their affiliations, which often become a family substitute.

After maintaining neighborhood ties for 17 years, Moore's research group has established a relationship with these communities that gives her a rare perspective. This is a fascinating and informative book for anyone interested in sociology, criminology, youth behavior and deviance, and ethnic studies. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

I hope this helps. We have to keep in mind that Latinos in the US are memorialize in history and white male America as yet another blockage removed in the quest to dominate North America. A conquered people thrown out of their own land by europeans. They are, for that reason, marginalize and dehistorized in mainstream perception and media. Latinos and Latinas are a vital and significant force in the US in spite of the american desires to the contrary.


kurt s 12.07.2008. 00:07

My son is going in the Navy to be a parachute rigger. Can anyone tell me anything about this rate .? Array

kurt s

Admin 12.07.2008. 00:07

Your son will be providing a very valuable resource to the Navy and can eventually become a PRC (Chief Parachute Rigger).

Until 1965 the rate PR now called Aircrew Survival Equipmentman, was changed from Parachute Rigger.

If he's going to be a PR (Parachute Rigger) he will be working with Naval Special Warfare members and other units deployed by Air.

It is a good Rate and a very serious undertaking, as he'll be responsible, in large part, for the safety of the Units. Pay Grades vary for the Rate, but moving up is directly related to the length of time he's in, and how well he works with others as a Team. Team Work is vital in the Navy, as with other branches, and many lives will rest on his discipline, skill and knowledge.

Some of his duties will involve: The operation, maintenance, and repair of aviation survival equipment and flight clothing and also to instruct in the operation of the equipment, as well as being involved in aviation survival techniques.

He will be adorned with the awesome PR (Parachute Rigger) device, which is an Open Gold Parachute with Wings on either side.

I believe the Training for PR's is still done at P-Cola (Naval Air Station Pensacola) and consists of a 12 week course. On graduation your son will be a PR, but will be called a Aircrew Survival Equiptmentman.

PR's are one of the most important and often unrecognized Rates in the Armed Forces.

Good luck to you and your son. He will be a very important asset!!!


gat 15.03.2009. 05:36

did Jesus or anyone he resurrected say what death was like or any explanation? Array


Admin 15.03.2009. 05:36

The cessation of all functions of life, hence, the opposite of life. (De 30:15, 19) In the Bible the same original-language words for ?death? or ?dying? are applied to humans, animals, and plants. (Ec 3:19; 9:5; Joh 12:24; Jude 12; Re 16:3) However, for humans and animals the Bible shows the vital function of the blood in maintaining life, stating that ?the soul of the flesh is in the blood.? (Le 17:11, 14; Ge 4:8-11; 9:3, 4) Both humans and animals are spoken of as ?expiring,? that is, ?breathing out? the breath of life (Heb., nish?math? chai?yim?). (Ge 7:21, 22; compare Ge 2:7.) And the Scriptures show that death in humans and animals follows the loss of the spirit (active force) of life (Heb., ru?ach chai?yim?).?Ge 6:17, ftn; 7:15, 22; Ec 3:19; see SPIRIT.
From the Biblical viewpoint, what is death?
It is of interest to note the correspondency of these Biblical points with what is known scientifically of the death process. In humans, for example, when the heart stops beating, the blood ceases to circulate nourishment and oxygen (obtained by breathing) to the billions of body cells. However, The World Book Encyclopedia (1987, Vol. 5, p. 52b) pointed out: ?A person whose heart and lungs stop working may be considered clinically dead, but somatic death may not yet have occurred. The individual cells of the body continue to live for several minutes. The person may be revived if the heart and lungs start working again and give the cells the oxygen they need. After about three minutes, the brain cells?which are most sensitive to a lack of oxygen?begin to die. The person is soon dead beyond any possibility of revival. Gradually, other cells of the body also die. The last ones to perish are the bone, hair, and skin cells, which may continue to grow for several hours.? Thus while the vital importance of breathing and of the blood in maintaining the active life-force (ru?ach chai?yim?) in the body cells is evident, at the same time it is also clear that it is not the cessation of breathing or of heartbeat alone but the disappearance of the life-force or spirit from the body cells that brings death as referred to in the Scriptures.?Ps 104:29; 146:4; Ec 8:8.
Condition of Human Dead. The dead are shown to be ?conscious of nothing at all? and the death state to be one of complete inactivity. (Ec 9:5, 10; Ps 146:4) Those dying are described as going into ?the dust of death? (Ps 22:15), becoming ?impotent in death.? (Pr 2:18; Isa 26:14) In death there is no mention of God or any praising of him. (Ps 6:5; Isa 38:18, 19) In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, death is likened to sleep, a fitting comparison not only because of the unconscious condition of the dead but also because of the hope of an awakening through the resurrection. (Ps 13:3; Joh 11:11-14) The resurrected Jesus is spoken of as ?the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.??1Co 15:20, 21; see HADES; SHEOL.
Whereas the ancient Egyptians and other peoples of pagan nations, and particularly the Grecian philosophers, were strong in their belief in the deathlessness of the human soul, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures speak of the soul (Heb., ne?phesh; Gr., psy?khe?) as dying (Jg 16:30; Eze 18:4, 20; Re 16:3), needing deliverance from death (Jos 2:13; Ps 33:19; 56:13; 116:8; Jas 5:20), or as in the Messianic prophecy concerning Jesus Christ, being ?poured out . . . to the very death? (Isa 53:12; compare Mt 26:38). The prophet Ezekiel condemns those who connived ?to put to death the souls that ought not to die? and ?to preserve alive the souls that ought not to live.??Eze 13:19; see SOUL.
Thus, The Interpreter?s Bible (Vol. II, p. 1015), commenting on 1 Samuel 25:29, observes that ?the idea of man as consisting of body and soul which are separated at death is not Hebrew but Greek.? (Edited by G. Buttrick, 1953) Similarly, Edmond Jacob, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Strasbourg, points out that, since in the Hebrew Scriptures one?s life is directly related with the soul (Heb., ne?phesh), ?it is natural that death should sometimes be represented as the disappearance of this nephesh (Gen. 35:18; I Kings 17:21; Jer. 15:9; Jonah 4:3). The ?departure? of the nephesh must be viewed as a figure of speech, for it does not continue to exist independently of the body, but dies with it (Num. 31:19; Judg. 16:30; Ezek. 13:19). No biblical text authorizes the statement that the ?soul? is separated from the body at the moment of death.??The Interpreter?s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 802.


Lisa M 23.09.2010. 05:36

Would you support an attack on Iran and if so, how should it be done? Array

Lisa M

Admin 23.09.2010. 05:36

I would support an attack on Iran if and only if they tested a nuclear device and it worked. The reality for this is 2 fold. One we can ill afford another PR disaster like Iraq in regards to not finding any WMD, and secondly if you look at the historical record for new nuclear powers the first bomb or 2 takes the longest to build and there is a gap between when the first bomb becomes operational and the next ones. It would be between that gap that an attack would have to occur.

Now how to Iran:
1) Convoy system for oil tankers- This is vital as a good portion of the worlds oil passes through the Straights of Hormuz. Iran no doubt would try and sink some of these ships to throw the worlds economy in to another recession.
2) Overwhelming initial air strikes- The Air war for Iran would involve more sorties than ever seen since WW2. The reason is simple. You cannot just knock out Iran's nuclear weapons programs. You have to take out their air defense system, you have to knock out as much of their shore based anti ship missiles as you can, you have to sink the Iranian Navy, and you have to take out all of their surface to surface missiles, their artillery, and other long range missiles otherwise oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf will be in danger, again if they are taken out the economy will go in from bad to super bad.
3) Special Forces- They would be needed for several roles, among them gathering intelligence on Iran's missiles, artillery platforms, and working with elements in Iran that our hostile to the current regime, and prep potential landing zones for the Rangers, and Airborne units
4) Ranger Regiment, 82nd Airborne, 173 Airborne- Conduct airborne operations to seize Iran's oil facilities. This would be done to prevent them from doing what Saddam did in the first Gulf War.
5) Navy Seals- Seize offshore oil platforms, and covertly sink or disable as much of Iran's Naval power before the first shots go off.
6) US Marines- Conduct amphibious assault near the Straights of Hormuz early on to add more protection for the Super Tankers in the waters off Iran, and to eventually conduct ground operations to move Iranian forces out of range to target any ships.
7) US Army- A massive ground offensive like the march to Baghdad to seize Tehran.

If you are going to attack Iran you have to go all out. Taking out their nuclear R&D facilities will do nothing on its own. If you hit them you will have to hit them in such a way to eliminate their options to respond. That means in short an all out attack


Nation States.com 01.11.2009. 13:02

How do i ask a question here? help how do i ask a qeustion here

Nation States.com

Admin 01.11.2009. 13:02

When posting questions to a professional forum or newsgroup it is vital to format the question and it's content in a proper way in order to greatly increase the possibility for quickly receiving a good answer, and thus saving you time and frustration.

After posting a question to a professional forum or newsgroup and waiting for a while, you get the following answer(s) from the active forum/newsgroup members:

"Your question does not contain all the required information needed for us to help you.
Please re-write your question, this time make sure you have all the needed info and
we'll try to help."

Another symptom of this error is getting the following answer:

"You question has been answered a hundred times. Please use a decent search engine
and/or search our archives before posting any future questions"

and others.

Other variations of the same answer exist, all depending on the forum/newsgroup quality and tolerance level.

In some severe cases, when trying to reply to this answer yourself, you may find out that the nickname you've been using to post on the forum, or that the alias you've been using to read and post on the newsgroup has been banned for any future use.

This article is a loose how-to guide for correct forum and newsgroup question-asking and general netiquette.

In most cases, getting such an answer (also called "Flame") indicates that you have not taken the right steps in formulating your question. In other instances, this type of answer might indicate that the information you saw fit to provide in your original question is either too little, too late, or totally missing or irrelevant to the question.

Use the following guidelines when posting questions to a professional forum or newsgroup:

Before asking

- Search the archives/FAQ before you post. Most forums and newsgroups have some sort of online FAQ (FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions) or archives. You should always perform a search on these resources before asking your "very important and unique" question. Many questions have already been answered, there is no point in answering them again, and some communities have members who will flame you for not doing so before asking. Another good idea is to do a keyword search for words relating to your question on the archives before you post.

- Use online search engines such as MSN Search, Google, Yahoo! or other search engines. Post the error message you're getting on your preferred search engine and see what you come up with. Let us know what you found, especially if your problem is identical or similar to your findings.

- Look for an answer in the manual, documentation or readme file and tell us about it.

- Ask a skilled friend, but don't take their advice for granted. Many troubleshooting scenarios just got worse because "my friend told me to erase the E00.log file and"...

The title of your question

Although it might seem silly for some, selecting a good title for the question/thread will be the one of the main driving forces for others to want to actually read your item. Choosing a badly-formatted title will drive people away, thinking that since the title is so badly written, so must be the information and the question within the thread. For example:


is an example for a really bad selection of a title for your question. People don't like to waste time trying to help people that don't seem to be able to help themselves, or at least not being able to correctly describe their problem. Titles like these are likely to be filtered by reflex.

On the other hand. a short, informative title like this one:

"After swing server restore - MBX store won't mount on Exchange 2003 - error C1041737"

will actually bring people in. Skilled members can tell, at a glance, what problem you're having, on what product version, and perhaps even the reason for your problem. The ones that know the answer will gladly try to help, and those that do not know will gladly enter because they would like to find what the answer is for their own benefit.

The question

Know how to ask the question, and provide all the necessary information in your initial post. For example, a question like:

"Please help me, I cannot mount exchange mailbox store!!! I must repair this ASAP,
will someone help me?"

will also receive the same sort of answers that this article tries to teach you how to avoid, or no answers at all. And if someone did want to try to answer, they'd need to ask for more information, which in turn will cause you to come back and explain yourself, thus lengthening the answering process.

Good examples of questions will include information from most of the following categories:

- What are you trying to do?
- Why are you trying to do it?
- What did you try already, why,


Rach6 02.02.2009. 03:31

Native Americans Today? Red Cloud "Peace and Justice"? What do you think about the situation of Native Americans today?

I have an assignment about the situation of N.A. today. No offense to anyone, but I really didn't think there was any type of situation, ya know? I just read Red Cloud's "All I want is Peace and Justice". Any suggestions!?


Admin 02.02.2009. 03:31

Well, you should do your own research when it comes to the situation Native Americans find themselves in. However, as a group they are not "fine".

Native Americans are the ethnic group most likely to live in poverty (over half of them do). According to the Bureau of the Census, four of the top five and ten of the top twenty poorest counties in the United States have primarily Native American populations, and are located primarily on tribal lands.


As of right now, the United States government has broken every treaty it has ever made with the Native American populations around the country. Yes, I'm serious. It hasn't honored even a single one.

Also as of right now, Native American tribes are still locked in a court battles across the country with the United States government because in 1883, it signed lease and trust agreements with many Native American tribes for the use of over 56 million acres of tribal lands (well, the U.S. actually took the land and then forced the agreement on the various tribes, but it still made a binding agreement with them that all parties signed off on).

The United States has kept the land for its own use, and leased it out to various private enterprises (most notably oil companies) but it has never seen fit to pay any of the tribes what it agreed to pay... the tab for which is right now estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The battle itself has been held up because the United States government was taking all the records of land use, and dumping them in a cave for "storage" (no, I'm not making that up), so most of the records have been destroyed.

When the tribes suing came forward with an offer to settle for 10% of what was owed, plus a commitment to begin paying the rent due on the property, George W. Bush's response was to tell the tribes the government wouldn't pay them one cent, and if they didn't like it, they could get out of HIS country.




I could go on, but I really think it's important for this assignment that you do some research for yourself and see what else you can dig up. To make a long story short, though, Native Americans aren't all rich casino owners these days. That's a myth put forth primarily by white people so they can keep ignoring the continued suffering of the people they conquered and shoved into the nastiest corners of the country to die.

Sorry, but it's true.


See the first answer for confirmation. No, most Native Americans don't live in ghettos, nor were they slaves. Ghettos would be a step up for most Native Americans, and Europeans were far too busy genocidally slaughtering them to make slaves out of them.

Most ethnic groups "have problems", but the biggest problem Native Americans have is that the United States itself has spent centuries isolating them and shoving them into a corner, and once it got them there, started continually and purposefully stealing and keeping every scrap of vital Native resources it can get its hands on, and turning a blind eye to the fact the people who need those resources for their very survival are slowly dying without them.

I can't think of any other ethnic group in the United States that has that particular problem these days.


Write a comment

* = required field





* Yes No