it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few weeks. right now it sounds like the Iraqi's are very happy to have us there.
when i heard the reports on the radio about people saying "we love Bush", waving to the US forces, dancing etc. i had to wonder if it wasn't just the same things we'd seen before only this time with Americans in mind.
i'd stipulated (along with many others) that Iraqi's weren't celebrating before because they were scared of retribution. i was wondering if they were just celebrating now because they were afraid of the American forces there, so wanted to appear non threatening.
Last fall when Saddam granted that amnesty the NY Times reported that the freed prisoners were chanting Bush's name. I saw Christopher Hitchens say (on CSPAN?) that he'd ridden in Kurdish taxis that had a picture of George Bush on the dash. I'd wager that the celebrations are genuine.
I guess, for those troops, it took away a lot of the glory they thought they would be met with.
For some reason I'm gonna guess that the troops' assessment of their reception is going to be based a little bit more on the reactions of millions of Iraqis rather than the two dozen Westerners who have spent all of a month in Baghdad letting themselves be used as a propaganda grist mill for a genocidal regime. As for what that assessment may be in the end, no one can know at this point but it certainly isn't going to be one which is determined by a bunch of idiots.
These people are all incompetent anyway. What sort of human shield lives through a war in which 2000+ civilians die by your own reckoning? Unless they're blind or something they all should have been killed long ago shielding someone. But I suppose it is no surprise that the human shields are still around and weren't really willing to die for anything. After all, if they were genuine they would have been standing in front of the various Iraqi military, police and intelligence services which have been torturing and killing Iraqis for the last 24 years. It seems they are only to be found though when the US is going to be killing 2000 civilians. They missed out on the whole 2,000,000 Iraqis that have been whacked due to Saddam's benevolence. Oops. Too late to do anything about that now. Regardless, I'm sure they will want to go home once the US is done killing Iraqis rather than going to say North Korea or Cuba or China or any other country where the victims who die unjustly at the hand of their particular killers are not worthy of shielding since those victims don't happen to be killed by the US (or our Zionist lackey) and are thus not lucky enough to be a cause celebre.
At this point, I just think it's easier to believe that some people will believe and go for ANYTHING not U.S.-created/supported.
Sure, the troops made the sign. Sure, we kill journalists on purpose, for the sport of it. Sure, troops aren't in downtown Baghdad. Sure, the people aren't REALLY celebrating. Sure, we'll plant any WOMD discovered. Sure, we carpet bombed the entire city. Sure, we're losing the war. Sure, the Republican Guard is giving us hell. Sure, our supply lines are stretched too thin. Sure, all soldiers are on the verge of killing their own commanders and colleagues. Sure, it was an "unfair" fight. Sure, we seek out children and babies to shoot, whenever possible. Sure, Saddam is not that bad of a guy.
And so it goes...
\
It's called "moving the goalpost" and here's how it works: as it's becoming obvious that nearly ALL of the doom and gloom predictions and scenarios predicted by many on the anti-war/Bush side are not coming to be. So, those are all scrapped and a NEW set of goals, terms, definitions are brought forth.
Once those new ones are all demolished, a third set will be brought in to replace and so on, for as long as it takes. Within reason, of course. After 9 or 10 "moves", people finally figure out the other side is completely full of shit and hasn't been right about anything this entire war (and the period leading up to it).
A popular back-up tactic will be to deflect any notion/discussion of their wrongness by bringing up one of several popular topics and throwing them into the middle of an argument/debate (completely out of left field):
a) Anything to do with Ronald Reagan
b) How Ken Starr dogged President Clinton for years
c) How George W. Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore
d) Oil
e) Halliburton
f) Blood for oil
g) Halliburton and Cheney
h) Oil for blood
i) Blood for Enron
j) Republican tax cuts
k) The environment
l) Bush's intelligence
By my calculations, by 2009 the last remaining holdouts will finally - albeit grudgingly - concede that "okay, it was cool those people were liberated...and, by golly, Hussein DID have quite a stockpile of those WOMDs, didn't he? That's funny because Sean Penn said he saw no evidence of them".
These people are all incompetent anyway. What sort of human shield lives through a war in which 2000+ civilians die by your own reckoning? Unless they're blind or something they all should have been killed long ago shielding someone. But I suppose it is no surprise that the human shields are still around and weren't really willing to die for anything. After all, if they were genuine they would have been standing in front of the various Iraqi military, police and intelligence services which have been torturing and killing Iraqis for the last 24 years. It seems they are only to be found though when the US is going to be killing 2000 civilians. They missed out on the whole 2,000,000 Iraqis that have been whacked due to Saddam's benevolence. Oops. Too late to do anything about that now. Regardless, I'm sure they will want to go home once the US is done killing Iraqis rather than going to say North Korea or Cuba or China or any other country where the victims who die unjustly at the hand of their particular killers are not worthy of shielding since those victims don't happen to be killed by the US (or our Zionist lackey) and are thus not lucky enough to be a cause celebre.
I know I'm hilarious. Although if you don't pull your head out of that hole first der Strauß you may choke to death on that sand while you are laughing so hard.
I know I'm hilarious. Although if you don't pull your head out of that hole first der Strauß you may choke to death on that sand while you are laughing so hard.
No sand for miles in sight. I have sworn not to take you seriously without probable cause. Makes your posts much more enjoyable.
Also, you will have noticed that eight of those stupid laughing mormons take a lot of argumentative weight off of my shoulders.
This has to be the best news I have read all day. And it started last night so I went to bed smiling for once. I was getting worried about how long the war might go on, but things are starting to look much brighter. And the WOMD are starting to turn up too it seems. Also good news. However, I will reserve my biggest victory dance for when it is all over and the Iraqi people are shown that we meant what we said about them getting their own government.
And the WOMD are starting to turn up too it seems.
Of course, the Americans and British brought in so much WOMD that it'd be impossible to hide them, even for these bastards, kids who have an entire world of stealth technology at their disposal.
Why would the American 'victory' in this campaign change the opinion of anyone about this war? The defeat of Saddam was never in doubt. If you based your opposition to this war on a belief that Saddam would be victorious then you were just not thinking. Bizarre.
I was, and remain, against this war for reasons that have nothing to do with the ability of the US military machine to defeat whomever it wants.
My reasons for my opposition have not changed: This war (and especially the means by which we arrived at it) will undermine the international cooperation necessary for the the fight against terrorism. Further, it will encourage an international arms race (especially in WOMD) by nations who will no longer believe that multilateral institutions provide any forum for the resolutions of disputes.
I have three young children, so I hope and pray that I am wrong.
Lance Cpl. Shawn Hicks of Arizona is greeted by Iraqis as U.S. forces entered Central Baghdad.
I have no doubt that many or most Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam or that it is possible to provide pictures of some Iraqis welcoming American troops.
However, the removal of an unpopular and immoral regime does not constitute a sufficient reason to go to war. If it did, we would have nothing but endless war in this world. There is a better way.
In any case, your response did nothing to counter my stated reasons for opposing this war. Nor has any other conservative poster taken up a response to my reasons. Too bad.
you know, i am going to regret entering this thread, but here goes...
first of all, congrats to osama bin laden, who with one fell swoop (and a whole lotta help) managed to instigate a catastrophe so polarizing that i haven't heard or seen this much anger between americans in a long time. seems like if you were for the war, you were an ass, if you were against the war, you were an ass.
me, i was an ass, but in a different way.
first, i gave the u.s. government the benefit of the doubt. why? because i have to assume they have a few more tools at their disposal to tell if iraq and saddam are a threat to the world. what do i have as an individual? cnn. i mean, does it bother anyone else that they still haven't made mention of weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons? (or did they, and i missed the cnn broadcast when they found them? that's not sarcasm... i'm sincerely curious). heck, bush et al. really hammered home that phrase so much, i may never forget "weapons of mass destruction." if they don't find anything but implications of future weapons, i am going to feel a little misled.
seriously, bush was the worst spokesperson during this whole ordeal. powell, rumsfield (sp?), even the generals all spoke with a candor and straightforwardness that i could accept. i still think bush is borderline retarded, but hope his advisors can compensate for it in the long haul. bush may be well-meaning and have the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean i think he should be runnign the country. but he is, so i accept it. if enough others agree with me (and vote, dammit) then maybe things will change. if not, they won't, and i will still live, i will accept what happens, speak out when i must... and accept that my speaking out probably won't do a hell of a lot of good.
i hated listening to a congressman today say that this means bush was right for not listening to hollywood, the ny times or the french. nice cheap shots, but i don't see why this victory makes him "right." like the u.s. was ever going to lose??? come on. unless he had baghdad wired with a hundred nuclear arms ready to blow when the troops arrived, the u.s. victory was never, EVER in doubt.
i suppose i am happy of the outcome if it means a better iraq in the future, and less threat of terrorism for everybody, but i have a hard time reconciling "the ends justifying the means."
plus, to top it all off, no one is for certain where saddam is, or if he is alive or dead. just like osama. that's got me worried.
anyway, that's my stance, as al-over-the-place as it is. don't bother attacking me or my opinions... they are as well fashioned as i can make them while still working 9-9 every day, getting a few hours of cnn coverage at the end of the day before bed, and not liking bush to begin with. i don't understand how anyone else could say they are well-informed enough to support either side without question -- both sides have some merit. i'd say i'm keeping a pretty level head about it all, considering.
(edit: sorry... wanted to add a sentence or two there, so if you just posted based on my post, you may want to re-read and see if anything i have added changes your viewpoint).
Well, Scott, the anti-war movement isn't about the Iraqi people, so what does that matter?
And the pro-war movement was about the Iraqi people? Give me a break.
Groverat is on record, for example, as citing the deaths of Iraqis during the years of sanctions as a justification for going to war to end all of that. I don't believe that any of you conservative posters lost a night of sleep or shed a tear over the last ten years worrying about the deaths of Iraqis under sanctions. I certainly did not hear any dismay about this state of affairs (except from from those denounced as 'liberals').
Meanwhile, the US administration endlessly cited atrocities commited by Saddam's regime. Many of these atrocities were committed while Saddam's regime was supported by the US. Was this 'support' all about the Iraqi people?
Take into account as well that a considerable number of the countries in the United States 'coalition of the willing' are ones who continue to persecute their citizens. Friends of US conservatives. I guess the liberation of their people will have to wait.
Can I sign up on that list you've got going der Kopf? Those guys are BOSS!
Big issues remain.
Overwhelming issues in fact.
The 'dancing in the streets' episode will be grudgingly pried from the tongues of the media as the war continues for two more weeks. The 'tiredness' syndrome will be quick to light upon the media; watch for it.
A new government will take time.
Time enough for proof to arise regarding human rights atrocities by Saddam's governement, time enough for weaponized materials to be discovered if in fact they existed, time enough for those with an axe to grind against Tony Blair and George Bush to wreak havoc on their reputations and bend the history of events to suit the perverse tinges of their own bent auras.
Time enough for everyone to find something to think about, get angry about and speak out about.
Meanwhile there are children who are reunited with their parents, free of the cages in which they are kept. Men whose arms were popped out of their sockets while dangling from hooks will explain what it felt like to have bats smashed into their faces. Parents will look for solace from the loss of their sons and daughters, men and women and children, all lost in the war.
And all of you will keep screeching in your shrill voices, some forever blinded to the fact that history moves on for a country where a repressed population may one day join us on these forums to squabble and bitch over the futures of other nations.
i suppose i am happy of the outcome if it means a better iraq in the future, and less threat of terrorism for everybody, but i have a hard time reconciling "the ends justifying the means." plus, to top it all off, no one is for certain where saddam is, or if he is alive or dead. just like osama. that's got me worried.
i am going to commit a big no-no and reply to my own post, but i wanted to elaborate without mucking up my original post again...
when i look at what we've done, and try to put it in perspective, i get the bad feeling that we've stepped on a fire ant mound. sure, you've brought down the structure (and a new one will probably be built in its stead), but unless you're REALLY carefule, you're gonna get bit badly from a hundred different directions.
anyway, that's my useless analogy. carry on hating one another.
In review over the last 12 hours or so, it's become clear that all of the images of celebration have been of either Shiites or Kurds. The Sunnis are staying at home or continuing to fight. These are the ones to be afraid of.
But the Shiites are actually the majority in Iraq, so we still have the upper hand if they are indeed all welcoming us.
I don't have a TV so maybe you can tell me how you can tell all that?
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few weeks. right now it sounds like the Iraqi's are very happy to have us there.
when i heard the reports on the radio about people saying "we love Bush", waving to the US forces, dancing etc. i had to wonder if it wasn't just the same things we'd seen before only this time with Americans in mind.
i'd stipulated (along with many others) that Iraqi's weren't celebrating before because they were scared of retribution. i was wondering if they were just celebrating now because they were afraid of the American forces there, so wanted to appear non threatening.
Last fall when Saddam granted that amnesty the NY Times reported that the freed prisoners were chanting Bush's name. I saw Christopher Hitchens say (on CSPAN?) that he'd ridden in Kurdish taxis that had a picture of George Bush on the dash. I'd wager that the celebrations are genuine.
I guess, for those troops, it took away a lot of the glory they thought they would be met with.
For some reason I'm gonna guess that the troops' assessment of their reception is going to be based a little bit more on the reactions of millions of Iraqis rather than the two dozen Westerners who have spent all of a month in Baghdad letting themselves be used as a propaganda grist mill for a genocidal regime. As for what that assessment may be in the end, no one can know at this point but it certainly isn't going to be one which is determined by a bunch of idiots.
These people are all incompetent anyway. What sort of human shield lives through a war in which 2000+ civilians die by your own reckoning? Unless they're blind or something they all should have been killed long ago shielding someone. But I suppose it is no surprise that the human shields are still around and weren't really willing to die for anything. After all, if they were genuine they would have been standing in front of the various Iraqi military, police and intelligence services which have been torturing and killing Iraqis for the last 24 years. It seems they are only to be found though when the US is going to be killing 2000 civilians. They missed out on the whole 2,000,000 Iraqis that have been whacked due to Saddam's benevolence. Oops. Too late to do anything about that now. Regardless, I'm sure they will want to go home once the US is done killing Iraqis rather than going to say North Korea or Cuba or China or any other country where the victims who die unjustly at the hand of their particular killers are not worthy of shielding since those victims don't happen to be killed by the US (or our Zionist lackey) and are thus not lucky enough to be a cause celebre.
Sure, the troops made the sign. Sure, we kill journalists on purpose, for the sport of it. Sure, troops aren't in downtown Baghdad. Sure, the people aren't REALLY celebrating. Sure, we'll plant any WOMD discovered. Sure, we carpet bombed the entire city. Sure, we're losing the war. Sure, the Republican Guard is giving us hell. Sure, our supply lines are stretched too thin. Sure, all soldiers are on the verge of killing their own commanders and colleagues. Sure, it was an "unfair" fight. Sure, we seek out children and babies to shoot, whenever possible. Sure, Saddam is not that bad of a guy.
And so it goes...
It's called "moving the goalpost" and here's how it works: as it's becoming obvious that nearly ALL of the doom and gloom predictions and scenarios predicted by many on the anti-war/Bush side are not coming to be. So, those are all scrapped and a NEW set of goals, terms, definitions are brought forth.
Once those new ones are all demolished, a third set will be brought in to replace and so on, for as long as it takes. Within reason, of course. After 9 or 10 "moves", people finally figure out the other side is completely full of shit and hasn't been right about anything this entire war (and the period leading up to it).
A popular back-up tactic will be to deflect any notion/discussion of their wrongness by bringing up one of several popular topics and throwing them into the middle of an argument/debate (completely out of left field):
a) Anything to do with Ronald Reagan
b) How Ken Starr dogged President Clinton for years
c) How George W. Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore
d) Oil
e) Halliburton
f) Blood for oil
g) Halliburton and Cheney
h) Oil for blood
i) Blood for Enron
j) Republican tax cuts
k) The environment
l) Bush's intelligence
By my calculations, by 2009 the last remaining holdouts will finally - albeit grudgingly - concede that "okay, it was cool those people were liberated...and, by golly, Hussein DID have quite a stockpile of those WOMDs, didn't he? That's funny because Sean Penn said he saw no evidence of them".
Mark your calendar, folks!
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
These people are all incompetent anyway. What sort of human shield lives through a war in which 2000+ civilians die by your own reckoning? Unless they're blind or something they all should have been killed long ago shielding someone. But I suppose it is no surprise that the human shields are still around and weren't really willing to die for anything. After all, if they were genuine they would have been standing in front of the various Iraqi military, police and intelligence services which have been torturing and killing Iraqis for the last 24 years. It seems they are only to be found though when the US is going to be killing 2000 civilians. They missed out on the whole 2,000,000 Iraqis that have been whacked due to Saddam's benevolence. Oops. Too late to do anything about that now. Regardless, I'm sure they will want to go home once the US is done killing Iraqis rather than going to say North Korea or Cuba or China or any other country where the victims who die unjustly at the hand of their particular killers are not worthy of shielding since those victims don't happen to be killed by the US (or our Zionist lackey) and are thus not lucky enough to be a cause celebre.
You and pscates, it's a tie!
Originally posted by der Kopf
You and pscates, it's a tie!
I'm honored. No, really!
Originally posted by pscates
I'm honored. No, really!
Hey, pscates, the matter in which you might tie with our Colander is that of writing skills. Both of youns have the power.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I know I'm hilarious. Although if you don't pull your head out of that hole first der Strauß you may choke to death on that sand while you are laughing so hard.
No sand for miles in sight. I have sworn not to take you seriously without probable cause. Makes your posts much more enjoyable.
Also, you will have noticed that eight of those stupid laughing mormons take a lot of argumentative weight off of my shoulders.
Originally posted by NoahJ
And the WOMD are starting to turn up too it seems.
Of course, the Americans and British brought in so much WOMD that it'd be impossible to hide them, even for these bastards, kids who have an entire world of stealth technology at their disposal.
I was, and remain, against this war for reasons that have nothing to do with the ability of the US military machine to defeat whomever it wants.
My reasons for my opposition have not changed: This war (and especially the means by which we arrived at it) will undermine the international cooperation necessary for the the fight against terrorism. Further, it will encourage an international arms race (especially in WOMD) by nations who will no longer believe that multilateral institutions provide any forum for the resolutions of disputes.
I have three young children, so I hope and pray that I am wrong.
Originally posted by Chinney
Why would the American 'victory' in this campaign change the opinion of anyone about this war?
...
This is why.
Lance Cpl. Shawn Hicks of Arizona is greeted by Iraqis as U.S. forces entered Central Baghdad.
Originally posted by Scott
This is why.
Lance Cpl. Shawn Hicks of Arizona is greeted by Iraqis as U.S. forces entered Central Baghdad.
I have no doubt that many or most Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam or that it is possible to provide pictures of some Iraqis welcoming American troops.
However, the removal of an unpopular and immoral regime does not constitute a sufficient reason to go to war. If it did, we would have nothing but endless war in this world. There is a better way.
In any case, your response did nothing to counter my stated reasons for opposing this war. Nor has any other conservative poster taken up a response to my reasons. Too bad.
It was not about
first of all, congrats to osama bin laden, who with one fell swoop (and a whole lotta help) managed to instigate a catastrophe so polarizing that i haven't heard or seen this much anger between americans in a long time. seems like if you were for the war, you were an ass, if you were against the war, you were an ass.
me, i was an ass, but in a different way.
first, i gave the u.s. government the benefit of the doubt. why? because i have to assume they have a few more tools at their disposal to tell if iraq and saddam are a threat to the world. what do i have as an individual? cnn. i mean, does it bother anyone else that they still haven't made mention of weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons? (or did they, and i missed the cnn broadcast when they found them? that's not sarcasm... i'm sincerely curious). heck, bush et al. really hammered home that phrase so much, i may never forget "weapons of mass destruction." if they don't find anything but implications of future weapons, i am going to feel a little misled.
seriously, bush was the worst spokesperson during this whole ordeal. powell, rumsfield (sp?), even the generals all spoke with a candor and straightforwardness that i could accept. i still think bush is borderline retarded, but hope his advisors can compensate for it in the long haul. bush may be well-meaning and have the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean i think he should be runnign the country. but he is, so i accept it. if enough others agree with me (and vote, dammit) then maybe things will change. if not, they won't, and i will still live, i will accept what happens, speak out when i must... and accept that my speaking out probably won't do a hell of a lot of good.
i hated listening to a congressman today say that this means bush was right for not listening to hollywood, the ny times or the french. nice cheap shots, but i don't see why this victory makes him "right." like the u.s. was ever going to lose??? come on. unless he had baghdad wired with a hundred nuclear arms ready to blow when the troops arrived, the u.s. victory was never, EVER in doubt.
i suppose i am happy of the outcome if it means a better iraq in the future, and less threat of terrorism for everybody, but i have a hard time reconciling "the ends justifying the means."
plus, to top it all off, no one is for certain where saddam is, or if he is alive or dead. just like osama. that's got me worried.
anyway, that's my stance, as al-over-the-place as it is. don't bother attacking me or my opinions... they are as well fashioned as i can make them while still working 9-9 every day, getting a few hours of cnn coverage at the end of the day before bed, and not liking bush to begin with. i don't understand how anyone else could say they are well-informed enough to support either side without question -- both sides have some merit. i'd say i'm keeping a pretty level head about it all, considering.
(edit: sorry... wanted to add a sentence or two there, so if you just posted based on my post, you may want to re-read and see if anything i have added changes your viewpoint).
Originally posted by groverat
Well, Scott, the anti-war movement isn't about the Iraqi people, so what does that matter?
And the pro-war movement was about the Iraqi people? Give me a break.
Groverat is on record, for example, as citing the deaths of Iraqis during the years of sanctions as a justification for going to war to end all of that. I don't believe that any of you conservative posters lost a night of sleep or shed a tear over the last ten years worrying about the deaths of Iraqis under sanctions. I certainly did not hear any dismay about this state of affairs (except from from those denounced as 'liberals').
Meanwhile, the US administration endlessly cited atrocities commited by Saddam's regime. Many of these atrocities were committed while Saddam's regime was supported by the US. Was this 'support' all about the Iraqi people?
Take into account as well that a considerable number of the countries in the United States 'coalition of the willing' are ones who continue to persecute their citizens. Friends of US conservatives. I guess the liberation of their people will have to wait.
Big issues remain.
Overwhelming issues in fact.
The 'dancing in the streets' episode will be grudgingly pried from the tongues of the media as the war continues for two more weeks. The 'tiredness' syndrome will be quick to light upon the media; watch for it.
A new government will take time.
Time enough for proof to arise regarding human rights atrocities by Saddam's governement, time enough for weaponized materials to be discovered if in fact they existed, time enough for those with an axe to grind against Tony Blair and George Bush to wreak havoc on their reputations and bend the history of events to suit the perverse tinges of their own bent auras.
Time enough for everyone to find something to think about, get angry about and speak out about.
Meanwhile there are children who are reunited with their parents, free of the cages in which they are kept. Men whose arms were popped out of their sockets while dangling from hooks will explain what it felt like to have bats smashed into their faces. Parents will look for solace from the loss of their sons and daughters, men and women and children, all lost in the war.
And all of you will keep screeching in your shrill voices, some forever blinded to the fact that history moves on for a country where a repressed population may one day join us on these forums to squabble and bitch over the futures of other nations.
Originally posted by rok
i suppose i am happy of the outcome if it means a better iraq in the future, and less threat of terrorism for everybody, but i have a hard time reconciling "the ends justifying the means." plus, to top it all off, no one is for certain where saddam is, or if he is alive or dead. just like osama. that's got me worried.
i am going to commit a big no-no and reply to my own post, but i wanted to elaborate without mucking up my original post again...
when i look at what we've done, and try to put it in perspective, i get the bad feeling that we've stepped on a fire ant mound. sure, you've brought down the structure (and a new one will probably be built in its stead), but unless you're REALLY carefule, you're gonna get bit badly from a hundred different directions.
anyway, that's my useless analogy. carry on hating one another.
Originally posted by tonton
In review over the last 12 hours or so, it's become clear that all of the images of celebration have been of either Shiites or Kurds. The Sunnis are staying at home or continuing to fight. These are the ones to be afraid of.
But the Shiites are actually the majority in Iraq, so we still have the upper hand if they are indeed all welcoming us.
I don't have a TV so maybe you can tell me how you can tell all that?