Long rambling shite I don't expect anyone to read about the reality of this war, argued incoherently. Don't bother reading.
I live in Holland Park, near London's Trendy Notting Hill, and I've lived in West London since about 1995 when I moved to Bayswater. Bayswater is the residential centre of Arab London; lots of Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis and North Africans live there.
There was a halal butcher on Westbourne Grove around the corner from my flat where I used to go and buy my bread, milk and eggs and I got friendly with the guy who ran it, whose name was Ali. His English was shit, and I don't speak any Arabic, so we really communicated by nods and grins and stuff. One day I went to buy my milk and there was police tape around the shop, which was shut and dark, and none of the officers would tell me what happened. The next day he was in the newspapers; he was a Libyan dissident, Ali, he'd been murdered, and the hypothesis was by a member of the Libyan security forces. He was the first person I knew who'd ever been killed and I STILL, today, see his face up in bi-lingual Arabic / English police appeals for information on Westbourne Grove.
Anyway. Today I was riding up Westbourne Grove on my way home, and I popped into Ali's shop to buy a couple of tins of foules masdamas (broad beans, do them with tomatoes and raw garlic, lovely). The guy behind the counter gave me a massive smile, and I nodded at him, and he carried on talking to his friend. I paid. "We're talking about the war," he said. "It's our home towns in the news."
"Oh, you're Iraqis?" I said.
"Yes, yes, he's from Baghdad," he said.
So I sort of blew out my cheeks, and shook my head, and said "This war, this war." (I don't know if he's got a picture of Saddam in his kitchen or he's an exile like Ali was.) "Look, they're fighting this war," I say, "and they're not going to leave until it's finished. Let's just hope that it's over quickly." I'm trying to be polite and non-commital. I say something to the effect that it doesn't matter about the politics, let's hope that few innocent people die.
The guy just sort of smiles at me, as though he's Tom Cruise and I am Dustin Hoffman. I could not possibly understand.
I think that this war's going to last quite a long time. I don't think that the Iraqis are going to welcome British and American troops, and there are going to be street parties when Saddam is overthrown, even though he is an undoubted bastard and most people hate him. The Iraqis have to be humiliated to gain their freedom; they have to be beaten by force by people they have actually not invited in. And they're proud people. It's significant that this fierce resistence the troops have met in Umm Kasr is from conscripts: this guy's face said Saddam is not the point.
In Britain, now we're at war, more then 50% support the action. We've 'fallen behind Tony Blair.' Iraqis will probably fall behind Saddam. He's good at pushing them buttons. I reckon the Coalition's going to have a hard time of it in Baghdad.
"Fierce resistance"? What fierce resistance are you talking about? Dear God, man, have you forgotten every other war mankind has ever been involved in?
If THAT is "fierce" then what would you call the siege of Stalingrad?
The reality that is setting in is that we may have blundered
we may have raced up to Baghdad thinking they would throw down there arms when we approached
and we may have therefore left ourselves exposed and thin
our flanks wide open for reaming
Uhh, isn't it the pro-Iraqi war crowd that is always accused of playing armchair general? If I see more statements like this, I'm going to be forced to realize that it is really the anti-war crowd that seemingly loves to play armchair general (but ironically loves to accuse the other side of doing so)- not so much as generation of strategies, but assessment of military logistics (but I do see them second guess the strategies, as well).
I would just add that the reality that is setting in is that the whole world does not get the same propaganda that we create for ourselves
they don't know that if they are attacked by the Americans then they are getting attacked by the "Good Guys"
Right, they get the Arab media propagandas. So, what's the point? Everybody is spinning the truth! Is this a big revelation? Just pick and choose the info that makes sense and is reasonable. You don't have to "pick" a news station as a paragon of truth anymore than you have to pick your political side to have a viewpoint on a matter.
Right, they get the Arab media propagandas. So, what's the point? Everybody is spinning the truth! Is this a big revelation? Just pick and choose the info that makes sense and is reasonable. You don't have to "pick" a news station as a paragon of truth anymore than you have to pick your political side to have a viewpoint on a matter.
Are you really unable to deduce the point?!!?!?
even within the context of this thread?
And why are all your posts about "them" is that the only way that you see the world: "those anti-war folks they're just like this and that etc" . . .
. . . doesn't it feel a little constricted in your little thoughts?
It's because "the profile" grows more apparent day by day. Are you not a part of "them"? What was your point? Are you really sure propaganda is only coming from the pro-Iraq war side? What about the anti-war side? What about the anti-Bush side? What about the Arab side? Do you feel the war is going "badly"? Would you describe the opposition as "fierce"? Do you consider our casualty numbers as "heavy"? For every side there is a propaganda. Making a point about only one type of propaganda is pretty, well, pointless.
On the contrary, you should give some credit that the pro-Iraq war crowd is content with the notion that the operation will take as long as it takes, as long as it isn't long on the order of years. The only people who were thinking it would be a "quick and easy brush" are generally the assertions of what the anti-war crowd think the pro-war crowd are thinking (just like they "predicted" the US would be carpet bombing Iraq, indiscriminantly mowing down unarmed civilians, and their assumptions that the "other side" believe what they do because they lack the concept of the darkside of war, etc, etc, etc). In fact it is ironic to imagine that the anti-war crowd "have it all figured out", but the day the operation sees a few setbacks and limited casualties, they are hysterically chanting, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling! I knew it!" It's almost like you are hoping for tragedy just to affirm your own positions (a might bit "sick", if you ask me).
Yes, the stock market is down, but I guess that blows away your theory that Bush wanted a war just to pump up the economy. It was also "up" just prior to that. If you know anything about the market, you know that watching for day to day fluctuations as indications of larger trends is just about pointless.
Listen up bucko, Firstly I predicted that Bush was using the war as a distraction. War in modern times can't pump up the economy. As a matter of fact it will be bad for it.
QUOTE:
" On the contrary, you should give some credit that the pro-Iraq war crowd is content with the notion that the operation will take as long as it takes, as long as it isn't long on the order of years. "
END QUOTE
So we just keep spending on a war that has lost it's original point? This brings me to another point : Where are those WOMDs? Where's the big threat? Some estimates are that this war ( not including occupation ) will cost us upwards of 300 billion dollars! In case you haven't seen it ( or wanted to ) the economy's not doing so well.
The other thing that bugs me is all those armchair generals glued to their TV ( with a beer in one hand ) cheering on the fact that we're going to kick some Iraqi butt like they were watching a football game. If they could be in real combat for 20 seconds ( assuming they survived ) they probably wouldn't watch TV news again! Now who's sick?
Things have really gone down hill since good ol' George took office. Let's recap shall we?
The economy's in the toilet.
Most of the rest of the world hates us.
There is social unrest at home ( once again ) and more to come.
We are in the most serious conflict in years.
And you know what? There's no end in sight for any of this.
Thanks a bunch George! Way to go!
And so help me if you say it's not his fault....... what the hell does he do for a living?
If he doesn't get voted down hard next time I suggest checking the ballot box to see if someone's stuffing it.
Listen up bucko, Firstly I predicted that Bush was using the war as a distraction. War in modern times can't pump up the economy. As a matter of fact it will be bad for it.
It is your assertion that Bush is using it as a distraction. There is very little to validate your "prediction" (other than your continuously repeating it in your posts, hoping it will come to be accepted as fact eventually). War may not pump up the economy, but a nation sitting idle under threat of WMD proliferation by not so savory individuals doesn't either (as evidenced by the past 2 years). The fact is, the economy isn't going to spontaneously revive whether Bush wages war or not. The economy will do as it does. There is no silver bullet. So you need to look elsewhere for an struggling economy/going to war connection. Bush is simply doing what he feels is best in world affairs at this point in time, despite the status of the economy. You may not agree with the world affairs, but it is no surprise that the world doesn't revolve around you in the first place.
Quote:
So we just keep spending on a war that has lost it's original point?
Lucky for you, the side that is running this operation does believe in an "endgame". If that status cannot be achieved after some reasonable time period, you can be sure an "ending" will be designed- none of this endless UN debacle crap that you have come to know and love. It is also your own assertion that it "has lost it's original point".
Quote:
This brings me to another point : Where are those WOMDs? Where's the big threat?
You give the UN 6 mos (after a prior 12 years) to only discover a few missles, but all of a sudden you demand results from a military operation that is only 6 days old? What makes you think that is a reasonable expectation? Do you have some military theater of operations experience we are not aware of? Who's being the "armchair general" now?
Quote:
Some estimates are that this war ( not including occupation ) will cost us upwards of 300 billion dollars! In case you haven't seen it ( or wanted to ) the economy's not doing so well.
Big numbers! Scary! Do you have any concept of what an "expensive war" vs. a "cheap war" costs, or do you just assume that any big number is a bad number? It will get paid. It always does. Once again, who's being the "armchair general" now?
Quote:
The other thing that bugs me is all those armchair generals glued to their TV ( with a beer in one hand ) cheering on the fact that we're going to kick some Iraqi butt like they were watching a football game. If they could be in real combat for 20 seconds ( assuming they survived ) they probably wouldn't watch TV news again! Now who's sick?
You make a big assumption over who's watching it, how they are watching it, and what is going through their minds. What makes them "armchair generals"? They are simply watching TV and reacting to it. Same as some anti-war dude who is watching it with a beer in one hand- just a different response. Could it be that some people actually take the war more seriously than you give them credit for?
Watching TV and having a reaction doesn't make you an "armchair general", no matter how inappropriate you feel the reaction is. What does make an armchair general is someone who thinks they know what the correct plan of attack should be, someone who second-guesses the plans of attack done by real generals, someone who thinks they can indisputably assess how well or how bad a war is based on some pieces of information they get off the news, someone who relies on 20/20 hindsight to say such-and-such else should have been done when things do go wrong. That person sounds a lot like you, I'm afraid. I'm not saying that to piss you off, either. You need to consider what the meaning of "armchair general" really is, and then consider how your overly critical views of the current leadership and military presence apply.
Quote:
Things have really gone down hill since good ol' George took office. Let's recap shall we?
We heard you the 1st through 5th time. You don't like Bush. Fair enough. Move on.
Quote:
The economy's in the toilet.
It's called a recession. They happen in between the growth periods. You think that would spontaneously change if a new president stepped into office tomorrow? People don't just stop doing business when the "opposing party" steps into office. Current affairs and looming threats do affect them, however.
Quote:
Most of the rest of the world hates us.
...and you substantiated "most" how? Truth is, those that hate us now, hated us before, as well. Welcome to the World, slick!
Quote:
There is social unrest at home ( once again ) and more to come.
Yes, the anti-war crowd seems to have great difficulty in organizing effective, non-violent, non-obstructive movements. If they could, we would have "peaceful dissension", not social unrest. Ironic, indeed.
Quote:
We are in the most serious conflict in years.
It's been a long time coming, and ignoring it will not make it go away, either (except in warm, pink, fuzzy dreams that some seem to be trapped in).
Quote:
And you know what? There's no end in sight for any of this.
...and you know this how? Did Ms. Clio say so?
Quote:
Thanks a bunch George! Way to go!
Thank Clinton, too! Unfinished, neglected business in the world doesn't automatically "reset" when a presidential term switches over.
Quote:
And so help me if you say it's not his fault....... what the hell does he do for a living?
Maybe he is specifically doing things to make you unhappy? It's no mental fixation, at all. He really is out to get you! Better go change your name and burn off your fingerprints- quick!
Quote:
If he doesn't get voted down hard next time I suggest checking the ballot box to see if someone's stuffing it.
It's because "the profile" grows more apparent day by day. Are you not a part of "them"? What was your point? Are you really sure propaganda is only coming from the pro-Iraq war side? What about the anti-war side? What about the anti-Bush side? What about the Arab side? Do you feel the war is going "badly"? Would you describe the opposition as "fierce"? Do you consider our casualty numbers as "heavy"? For every side there is a propaganda. Making a point about only one type of propaganda is pretty, well, pointless.
Let us try and not be narrow minded . . . we can do so together . .
of course there is propaganda on all sides: "they" get one kind, and we get another
many who identify themselves as of the Left are mired in tired cliches that are worn from over-use . . . and they try to get people to think like them, therfore it is propaganda
but those cliches are not the Official Position
when the official position paints a rosy picture, with dancing muslim's that want only to kiss us, and when that image is used to mobilize opinions in order for a certain result to be made possible then that could be called Propaganda
my point was to point out that propaganda, which geneally is measured by the distance between the IMAGE it portrays and REAL conditions, has pushed us gleefully into a reality that many, who lapped up the official line, would not have embraced so happily if they had known otherwise ...
There is also the kind of Propaganda that is merely the AMBIENT background of daily discourse: and it so happens that ours right now is about the supremacy of Technology and its inherent greatness, the power of American goods and the goods of Power: look, for instance, at the Design of many of American cars: Cadillacs, Azteks, Hummers . . . they are barely veiled appeals to people's urge to wallow in a militant aura of power, notice also, all the metaphors used for selling these things; they are about controlling chaos or nature and power over things: nature, other drivers etc . . . as well as, of course, the "freedom' of the open road. . .
. . this is all another realm of Propaganda except it isn't controlled by any central agency or isn't even consciouse. . . and yet it provides a backdrop against which our thinking takes shape . . . it makes certain kinds of thinking that might otherwise seem absurd suddenly make sense.
I think that the AMBIENT background that conditions our thoughts is one that sees everything America does as Beneficent and Just (and it may very well be compared to other possible Superpowers that don't exist) and that all things will wok out if we just pray . . .
nobody has a telephone to REALITY and therefor any perspective is, by the definition above, to some degree propaganda
but when a rosey picture was painted in order to mobilize a nation to war, a rosey picture that the rest of the world saw right through, then that is Propaganda
now you can write that down in your little note book and get the Black-List of commie pinko Leftist subversives ready . . . I'm sure there will be a need for that list in the future, there will be a need to know who "They" are . . .
" It's called a recession. They happen in between the growth periods. You think that would spontaneously change if a new president stepped into office tomorrow? People don't just stop doing business when the "opposing party" steps into office. Current affairs and looming threats do affect them, however. "
It's about what he's done to work towards a stronger economy since. That would be ah, nothing. As a matter of fact he's done things to make it worse. This stupid war for instance. The world doesn't reset with a change in office. But, it's strongly influenced.
" It's been a long time coming, and ignoring it will not make it go away, either (except in warm, pink, fuzzy dreams that some seem to be trapped in). "
This is just stupid. As a matter of fact the rest can be summed up that way. I don't see GWB as a maniacle threat. I just see him as a poor, self serving sap that should never have been president. And by the way, I will never move on with this opinion.
"Fierce resistance"? What fierce resistance are you talking about? Dear God, man, have you forgotten every other war mankind has ever been involved in?
If THAT is "fierce" then what would you call the siege of Stalingrad?
Contrary to expectations, the Iraqi army in Umm Kasr, Nasiryr and Basra haven't just rolled over and surrendered. They are defending themselves fiercely, hence 'fierce resistance'. (Presumably you do see reports in the United States that forces in those cities are defending themselves with strength and determination we can accurately call 'fierce'.)
The siege of Stalingrad is the sine non qua of 'fierce resistance', yes, but I can't for the life of me see what point you're making.
The delays are more the result of the US military's caution with regard to civilian casualties and not the actual quality of the Iraqi resistance.
There has been very little "fierce" about Iraqi resistance. Their best tactics have been cowardly and deceitful ones so far.
It doesn't meet my rubric of "fierce". Just a semantic thing, I suppose. Just because they don't surrender I don't take it as "fierce". To me the vast majority of the resistance has been token resistance.
The delays are more the result of the US military's caution with regard to civilian casualties and not the actual quality of the Iraqi resistance.
There has been very little "fierce" about Iraqi resistance. Their best tactics have been cowardly and deceitful ones so far.
It doesn't meet my rubric of "fierce". Just a semantic thing, I suppose. Just because they don't surrender I don't take it as "fierce". To me the vast majority of the resistance has been token resistance.
I would say 500 charging men hurtling themselves against massive armerments and well trained soldiers in a blaring sandstorm is kinda 'fierce' . . .
stupid too, but still its kinda fierce . . . 'fiercly stupid'?!?!
It's about what he's done to work towards a stronger economy since. That would be ah, nothing. As a matter of fact he's done things to make it worse. This stupid war for instance. The world doesn't reset with a change in office. But, it's strongly influenced.
Depending on the economic theory you subscribe to, you can argue that any given president could do everything possible right or everything possible wrong and you wouldn't see the resultant change in trends in the economy until a good 3-4 years later. You could quite possibly do nothing at all and see a shift from recession to growth or vice versa over time (just make sure no major institutions collapse from various external circumstances over that time). The economy has its own inherent cycle as well that is futile to attempt to alter with mere policy, you realize. One thing's for sure, waffling on a major world event for another 1 year or 2 or 12 with the UN can certainly stagnate the exuberance of the market. To that effect, you simply cannot assume the alternative to war would suddenly affect the market in a positive way. It's a specious argument, at best- more suited to firing off a "business saavy" tagline than any functional good. At the least, staving off the proliferation of terrorism elements is a valid strategy toward enabling a "stronger economy" (conversely, the uncertainty introduced by unchecked terrorism elements discourages the formation of a stronger economy).
Comments
I live in Holland Park, near London's Trendy Notting Hill, and I've lived in West London since about 1995 when I moved to Bayswater. Bayswater is the residential centre of Arab London; lots of Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis and North Africans live there.
There was a halal butcher on Westbourne Grove around the corner from my flat where I used to go and buy my bread, milk and eggs and I got friendly with the guy who ran it, whose name was Ali. His English was shit, and I don't speak any Arabic, so we really communicated by nods and grins and stuff. One day I went to buy my milk and there was police tape around the shop, which was shut and dark, and none of the officers would tell me what happened. The next day he was in the newspapers; he was a Libyan dissident, Ali, he'd been murdered, and the hypothesis was by a member of the Libyan security forces. He was the first person I knew who'd ever been killed and I STILL, today, see his face up in bi-lingual Arabic / English police appeals for information on Westbourne Grove.
Anyway. Today I was riding up Westbourne Grove on my way home, and I popped into Ali's shop to buy a couple of tins of foules masdamas (broad beans, do them with tomatoes and raw garlic, lovely). The guy behind the counter gave me a massive smile, and I nodded at him, and he carried on talking to his friend. I paid. "We're talking about the war," he said. "It's our home towns in the news."
"Oh, you're Iraqis?" I said.
"Yes, yes, he's from Baghdad," he said.
So I sort of blew out my cheeks, and shook my head, and said "This war, this war." (I don't know if he's got a picture of Saddam in his kitchen or he's an exile like Ali was.) "Look, they're fighting this war," I say, "and they're not going to leave until it's finished. Let's just hope that it's over quickly." I'm trying to be polite and non-commital. I say something to the effect that it doesn't matter about the politics, let's hope that few innocent people die.
The guy just sort of smiles at me, as though he's Tom Cruise and I am Dustin Hoffman. I could not possibly understand.
I think that this war's going to last quite a long time. I don't think that the Iraqis are going to welcome British and American troops, and there are going to be street parties when Saddam is overthrown, even though he is an undoubted bastard and most people hate him. The Iraqis have to be humiliated to gain their freedom; they have to be beaten by force by people they have actually not invited in. And they're proud people. It's significant that this fierce resistence the troops have met in Umm Kasr is from conscripts: this guy's face said Saddam is not the point.
In Britain, now we're at war, more then 50% support the action. We've 'fallen behind Tony Blair.' Iraqis will probably fall behind Saddam. He's good at pushing them buttons. I reckon the Coalition's going to have a hard time of it in Baghdad.
Anyway, if you read this, I'm going to bed.
If THAT is "fierce" then what would you call the siege of Stalingrad?
Originally posted by pfflam
The reality that is setting in is that we may have blundered
we may have raced up to Baghdad thinking they would throw down there arms when we approached
and we may have therefore left ourselves exposed and thin
our flanks wide open for reaming
Uhh, isn't it the pro-Iraqi war crowd that is always accused of playing armchair general? If I see more statements like this, I'm going to be forced to realize that it is really the anti-war crowd that seemingly loves to play armchair general (but ironically loves to accuse the other side of doing so)- not so much as generation of strategies, but assessment of military logistics (but I do see them second guess the strategies, as well).
Originally posted by pfflam
I would just add that the reality that is setting in is that the whole world does not get the same propaganda that we create for ourselves
they don't know that if they are attacked by the Americans then they are getting attacked by the "Good Guys"
Right, they get the Arab media propagandas. So, what's the point? Everybody is spinning the truth! Is this a big revelation? Just pick and choose the info that makes sense and is reasonable. You don't have to "pick" a news station as a paragon of truth anymore than you have to pick your political side to have a viewpoint on a matter.
Originally posted by Scott
Hassan i Sabbah you are only posting what you whish would happen.
How on earth would you know that?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Right, they get the Arab media propagandas. So, what's the point? Everybody is spinning the truth! Is this a big revelation? Just pick and choose the info that makes sense and is reasonable. You don't have to "pick" a news station as a paragon of truth anymore than you have to pick your political side to have a viewpoint on a matter.
Are you really unable to deduce the point?!!?!?
even within the context of this thread?
And why are all your posts about "them" is that the only way that you see the world: "those anti-war folks they're just like this and that etc" . . .
. . . doesn't it feel a little constricted in your little thoughts?
Originally posted by Randycat99
On the contrary, you should give some credit that the pro-Iraq war crowd is content with the notion that the operation will take as long as it takes, as long as it isn't long on the order of years. The only people who were thinking it would be a "quick and easy brush" are generally the assertions of what the anti-war crowd think the pro-war crowd are thinking (just like they "predicted" the US would be carpet bombing Iraq, indiscriminantly mowing down unarmed civilians, and their assumptions that the "other side" believe what they do because they lack the concept of the darkside of war, etc, etc, etc). In fact it is ironic to imagine that the anti-war crowd "have it all figured out", but the day the operation sees a few setbacks and limited casualties, they are hysterically chanting, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling! I knew it!" It's almost like you are hoping for tragedy just to affirm your own positions (a might bit "sick", if you ask me).
Yes, the stock market is down, but I guess that blows away your theory that Bush wanted a war just to pump up the economy. It was also "up" just prior to that. If you know anything about the market, you know that watching for day to day fluctuations as indications of larger trends is just about pointless.
Listen up bucko, Firstly I predicted that Bush was using the war as a distraction. War in modern times can't pump up the economy. As a matter of fact it will be bad for it.
QUOTE:
" On the contrary, you should give some credit that the pro-Iraq war crowd is content with the notion that the operation will take as long as it takes, as long as it isn't long on the order of years. "
END QUOTE
So we just keep spending on a war that has lost it's original point? This brings me to another point : Where are those WOMDs? Where's the big threat? Some estimates are that this war ( not including occupation ) will cost us upwards of 300 billion dollars! In case you haven't seen it ( or wanted to ) the economy's not doing so well.
The other thing that bugs me is all those armchair generals glued to their TV ( with a beer in one hand ) cheering on the fact that we're going to kick some Iraqi butt like they were watching a football game. If they could be in real combat for 20 seconds ( assuming they survived ) they probably wouldn't watch TV news again! Now who's sick?
Things have really gone down hill since good ol' George took office. Let's recap shall we?
The economy's in the toilet.
Most of the rest of the world hates us.
There is social unrest at home ( once again ) and more to come.
We are in the most serious conflict in years.
And you know what? There's no end in sight for any of this.
Thanks a bunch George! Way to go!
And so help me if you say it's not his fault....... what the hell does he do for a living?
If he doesn't get voted down hard next time I suggest checking the ballot box to see if someone's stuffing it.
Originally posted by jimmac
Listen up bucko, Firstly I predicted that Bush was using the war as a distraction. War in modern times can't pump up the economy. As a matter of fact it will be bad for it.
It is your assertion that Bush is using it as a distraction. There is very little to validate your "prediction" (other than your continuously repeating it in your posts, hoping it will come to be accepted as fact eventually). War may not pump up the economy, but a nation sitting idle under threat of WMD proliferation by not so savory individuals doesn't either (as evidenced by the past 2 years). The fact is, the economy isn't going to spontaneously revive whether Bush wages war or not. The economy will do as it does. There is no silver bullet. So you need to look elsewhere for an struggling economy/going to war connection. Bush is simply doing what he feels is best in world affairs at this point in time, despite the status of the economy. You may not agree with the world affairs, but it is no surprise that the world doesn't revolve around you in the first place.
Quote:
So we just keep spending on a war that has lost it's original point?
Lucky for you, the side that is running this operation does believe in an "endgame". If that status cannot be achieved after some reasonable time period, you can be sure an "ending" will be designed- none of this endless UN debacle crap that you have come to know and love. It is also your own assertion that it "has lost it's original point".
Quote:
This brings me to another point : Where are those WOMDs? Where's the big threat?
You give the UN 6 mos (after a prior 12 years) to only discover a few missles, but all of a sudden you demand results from a military operation that is only 6 days old? What makes you think that is a reasonable expectation? Do you have some military theater of operations experience we are not aware of? Who's being the "armchair general" now?
Quote:
Some estimates are that this war ( not including occupation ) will cost us upwards of 300 billion dollars! In case you haven't seen it ( or wanted to ) the economy's not doing so well.
Big numbers! Scary! Do you have any concept of what an "expensive war" vs. a "cheap war" costs, or do you just assume that any big number is a bad number? It will get paid. It always does. Once again, who's being the "armchair general" now?
Quote:
The other thing that bugs me is all those armchair generals glued to their TV ( with a beer in one hand ) cheering on the fact that we're going to kick some Iraqi butt like they were watching a football game. If they could be in real combat for 20 seconds ( assuming they survived ) they probably wouldn't watch TV news again! Now who's sick?
You make a big assumption over who's watching it, how they are watching it, and what is going through their minds. What makes them "armchair generals"? They are simply watching TV and reacting to it. Same as some anti-war dude who is watching it with a beer in one hand- just a different response. Could it be that some people actually take the war more seriously than you give them credit for?
Watching TV and having a reaction doesn't make you an "armchair general", no matter how inappropriate you feel the reaction is. What does make an armchair general is someone who thinks they know what the correct plan of attack should be, someone who second-guesses the plans of attack done by real generals, someone who thinks they can indisputably assess how well or how bad a war is based on some pieces of information they get off the news, someone who relies on 20/20 hindsight to say such-and-such else should have been done when things do go wrong. That person sounds a lot like you, I'm afraid. I'm not saying that to piss you off, either. You need to consider what the meaning of "armchair general" really is, and then consider how your overly critical views of the current leadership and military presence apply.
Quote:
Things have really gone down hill since good ol' George took office. Let's recap shall we?
We heard you the 1st through 5th time. You don't like Bush. Fair enough. Move on.
Quote:
The economy's in the toilet.
It's called a recession. They happen in between the growth periods. You think that would spontaneously change if a new president stepped into office tomorrow? People don't just stop doing business when the "opposing party" steps into office. Current affairs and looming threats do affect them, however.
Quote:
Most of the rest of the world hates us.
...and you substantiated "most" how? Truth is, those that hate us now, hated us before, as well. Welcome to the World, slick!
Quote:
There is social unrest at home ( once again ) and more to come.
Yes, the anti-war crowd seems to have great difficulty in organizing effective, non-violent, non-obstructive movements. If they could, we would have "peaceful dissension", not social unrest. Ironic, indeed.
Quote:
We are in the most serious conflict in years.
It's been a long time coming, and ignoring it will not make it go away, either (except in warm, pink, fuzzy dreams that some seem to be trapped in).
Quote:
And you know what? There's no end in sight for any of this.
...and you know this how? Did Ms. Clio say so?
Quote:
Thanks a bunch George! Way to go!
Thank Clinton, too! Unfinished, neglected business in the world doesn't automatically "reset" when a presidential term switches over.
Quote:
And so help me if you say it's not his fault....... what the hell does he do for a living?
Maybe he is specifically doing things to make you unhappy? It's no mental fixation, at all. He really is out to get you! Better go change your name and burn off your fingerprints- quick!
Quote:
If he doesn't get voted down hard next time I suggest checking the ballot box to see if someone's stuffing it.
Yes, of course.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's because "the profile" grows more apparent day by day. Are you not a part of "them"? What was your point? Are you really sure propaganda is only coming from the pro-Iraq war side? What about the anti-war side? What about the anti-Bush side? What about the Arab side? Do you feel the war is going "badly"? Would you describe the opposition as "fierce"? Do you consider our casualty numbers as "heavy"? For every side there is a propaganda. Making a point about only one type of propaganda is pretty, well, pointless.
Let us try and not be narrow minded . . . we can do so together . .
of course there is propaganda on all sides: "they" get one kind, and we get another
many who identify themselves as of the Left are mired in tired cliches that are worn from over-use . . . and they try to get people to think like them, therfore it is propaganda
but those cliches are not the Official Position
when the official position paints a rosy picture, with dancing muslim's that want only to kiss us, and when that image is used to mobilize opinions in order for a certain result to be made possible then that could be called Propaganda
my point was to point out that propaganda, which geneally is measured by the distance between the IMAGE it portrays and REAL conditions, has pushed us gleefully into a reality that many, who lapped up the official line, would not have embraced so happily if they had known otherwise ...
There is also the kind of Propaganda that is merely the AMBIENT background of daily discourse: and it so happens that ours right now is about the supremacy of Technology and its inherent greatness, the power of American goods and the goods of Power: look, for instance, at the Design of many of American cars: Cadillacs, Azteks, Hummers . . . they are barely veiled appeals to people's urge to wallow in a militant aura of power, notice also, all the metaphors used for selling these things; they are about controlling chaos or nature and power over things: nature, other drivers etc . . . as well as, of course, the "freedom' of the open road. . .
. . this is all another realm of Propaganda except it isn't controlled by any central agency or isn't even consciouse. . . and yet it provides a backdrop against which our thinking takes shape . . . it makes certain kinds of thinking that might otherwise seem absurd suddenly make sense.
I think that the AMBIENT background that conditions our thoughts is one that sees everything America does as Beneficent and Just (and it may very well be compared to other possible Superpowers that don't exist) and that all things will wok out if we just pray . . .
nobody has a telephone to REALITY and therefor any perspective is, by the definition above, to some degree propaganda
but when a rosey picture was painted in order to mobilize a nation to war, a rosey picture that the rest of the world saw right through, then that is Propaganda
now you can write that down in your little note book and get the Black-List of commie pinko Leftist subversives ready . . . I'm sure there will be a need for that list in the future, there will be a need to know who "They" are . . .
Feel free to refer to jimmac's thoughts above...
Originally posted by Randycat99
Uh, whatever?
Feel free to refer to jimmac's thoughts above...
I bothered to type up serious thinking for you?!?!?!?
I guess that I was overestimating
Originally posted by Randycat99
Uh, whatever?
Feel free to refer to jimmac's thoughts above...
And you really think we wanted these things to happen? Boy have you found a home.
" It's called a recession. They happen in between the growth periods. You think that would spontaneously change if a new president stepped into office tomorrow? People don't just stop doing business when the "opposing party" steps into office. Current affairs and looming threats do affect them, however. "
It's about what he's done to work towards a stronger economy since. That would be ah, nothing. As a matter of fact he's done things to make it worse. This stupid war for instance. The world doesn't reset with a change in office. But, it's strongly influenced.
" It's been a long time coming, and ignoring it will not make it go away, either (except in warm, pink, fuzzy dreams that some seem to be trapped in). "
This is just stupid. As a matter of fact the rest can be summed up that way. I don't see GWB as a maniacle threat. I just see him as a poor, self serving sap that should never have been president. And by the way, I will never move on with this opinion.
Originally posted by Scott
Hassan i Sabbah you are only posting what you whish would happen. You should move south. Way south.
South?
Cornwall?
Ibiza?
Cape Town?
The Antarctic?
(Did you pay any attention at school at all, Scott?)
Originally posted by groverat
"Fierce resistance"? What fierce resistance are you talking about? Dear God, man, have you forgotten every other war mankind has ever been involved in?
If THAT is "fierce" then what would you call the siege of Stalingrad?
Contrary to expectations, the Iraqi army in Umm Kasr, Nasiryr and Basra haven't just rolled over and surrendered. They are defending themselves fiercely, hence 'fierce resistance'. (Presumably you do see reports in the United States that forces in those cities are defending themselves with strength and determination we can accurately call 'fierce'.)
The siege of Stalingrad is the sine non qua of 'fierce resistance', yes, but I can't for the life of me see what point you're making.
There has been very little "fierce" about Iraqi resistance. Their best tactics have been cowardly and deceitful ones so far.
It doesn't meet my rubric of "fierce". Just a semantic thing, I suppose. Just because they don't surrender I don't take it as "fierce". To me the vast majority of the resistance has been token resistance.
Originally posted by groverat
The delays are more the result of the US military's caution with regard to civilian casualties and not the actual quality of the Iraqi resistance.
There has been very little "fierce" about Iraqi resistance. Their best tactics have been cowardly and deceitful ones so far.
It doesn't meet my rubric of "fierce". Just a semantic thing, I suppose. Just because they don't surrender I don't take it as "fierce". To me the vast majority of the resistance has been token resistance.
I would say 500 charging men hurtling themselves against massive armerments and well trained soldiers in a blaring sandstorm is kinda 'fierce' . . .
stupid too, but still its kinda fierce . . . 'fiercly stupid'?!?!
Originally posted by jimmac
It's about what he's done to work towards a stronger economy since. That would be ah, nothing. As a matter of fact he's done things to make it worse. This stupid war for instance. The world doesn't reset with a change in office. But, it's strongly influenced.
Depending on the economic theory you subscribe to, you can argue that any given president could do everything possible right or everything possible wrong and you wouldn't see the resultant change in trends in the economy until a good 3-4 years later. You could quite possibly do nothing at all and see a shift from recession to growth or vice versa over time (just make sure no major institutions collapse from various external circumstances over that time). The economy has its own inherent cycle as well that is futile to attempt to alter with mere policy, you realize. One thing's for sure, waffling on a major world event for another 1 year or 2 or 12 with the UN can certainly stagnate the exuberance of the market. To that effect, you simply cannot assume the alternative to war would suddenly affect the market in a positive way. It's a specious argument, at best- more suited to firing off a "business saavy" tagline than any functional good. At the least, staving off the proliferation of terrorism elements is a valid strategy toward enabling a "stronger economy" (conversely, the uncertainty introduced by unchecked terrorism elements discourages the formation of a stronger economy).