My initial thoughts about the transfer were that it was probably done to avoid attacks timed with or during the transfer. I thought that was a good idea. Debka's editorial is a good one because it opens up other possibilies, something you're not very good at handling. You should really learn how to investigate multiple facets to any story to gain a greater understand of any given situation. It's essential to your growth as an intelligent human being.
I have to disagree. Scott's pro-Bush. Whether he's pro-US is in question, particularly in light of his support for the current administration and its anti-american domestic and foreign efforts.
at first I thought I might understand that maybe some in the left might think that way guiltily.
but then I read that article: it is trying desperately to pass off the culpability of the dying American soldiers onto the supposed attitude of 'gotcha' on the part of the boogy-man left.
I have never read, or even seen the American Spectator, but judging by that mean-spirited and hateful article, I can guess that it is non-stop partisan rhetoric .. . it so desperately wants to see evil in people; people who simply never wanted our soldiers out on a fool's errand . . . . I wonder if the thought of such an attitude comes easily to them because that is the sort of politiking that they employ?!
The premis of that article is that Bush's approval ratings drop whenever more troops die in Iraq, and therfor, the Left wants that to happen more.
It never looks at the obvious fact that his approval ratings drop because the war was a bad idea and more people recognize that when they see their sons and nieghbors dying . . . that his approval ratings drop because they should be dropping.
I have to disagree. Scott's pro-Bush. Whether he's pro-US is in question, particularly in light of his support for the current administration and its anti-american domestic and foreign efforts.
So I take it you're now conceding the article accurately described the position of many on the left. Well, good for you. It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
So I take it you're now conceding the article accurately described the position of many on the left. Well, good for you. It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
I admitted that in the first post responding to that terrible article . . . BUT, what I admit to is that the emotions that surround this whole affair are very complex: no-one, not the most Left-identified wants people to get hurt (except for terrorists and their sympathizers) . . . what they want is for more people to see what they know already, namely, that this war was a bad idea to begin with. .. . It is a terrible state of affairs when the only way that that seems to penetrate the popular mindset is when something overtly bad happens . . . I think that it is an terrible situation, and among all the mish mash of emotions that accompany the news of more friends dying there is a little: "look at this, see!!! now you know too!"
But that in no way means that people 'on the left' (even though you don't have to be on the left to be against this war) want failure . . . there is a difference between wanting failure and wanting people to see that this war was wrong from the get-go.
Some people may want failure, and some parts of even the best people might want it though they would quickly squash it when it shows itself . . . but in no way would I say 'most'. . . . I think that saying 'most' is completely off base.
I also think that the situation is such that if they succeed in creating a workable state, that is a good thing . . . but it won't have errased the deaths and suffering that the war inflicted that would not have been inflicted, and the international damage and the effects on the WOT will not have been undone, and the long-term effects on teh economy will also not be undone . . overnight.
But also, in my post, I say 'exactly' to the poster of Saturn eating his children.
Whatever will fit on a bumper sticker. The herd won't know the difference, nor will they care that there is a significant difference between the two phrases.
I must admit that this is a mightily confusing situation, and at the moment (I've been off the grid for a week and only caught the news in an airport) I draw the following conclusions:
1) The Admin had obviously wanted to make a HUGE deal out of the handover. I imagine an elaborate ceremony televised throughout the ME.
2) Their willingness to abandon that and replace it with Bremer hastily shaking hands, signing a paper, and then beating a trail out of dodge indicates that something serious has happened to make them abandon this plan.
3) Why on earth would you want the people you're "liberating" to wake up one morning and not know who's in charge? Can you imagine the confusion in Iraq? "What?!?! I thought it was the 30th? They secretly ceded control of us in the middle of the night? And didn't tell anyone? What are they afraid of?" Obviously, they're afraid of the same thing that the rest of the Iraqis are afraid of.
Certainly, the handover is entirely symbolic (as is much of this admin's business), but it is difficult to imagine that any admin would have been willing to give up this kind of symbolic event for nothing. Hell. Sticking around DESPITE the terrorists would've been a sign of gumption. What the hell happened to "We will not waver; we will not tire"?
Of course I'm pro-US. How dare you question my patriotism! How can anyone not be pro US?
Well, with the caveat that I'm not American, and that I am certainly very, very anti Bush, here's my view.
GWB has damaged the image of the US all over the world. Very, very badly. You can chose to say you don't care about this (he's doing the right thing, if you don't like it fuck you blah blah blah) but it's a stone-cold fact there has never (as in NEVER) been a more unpopular US president or that trust and belief in what the US does and 'is' has never been lower.
Fact. And it's your man's policies that have done this (or rather, the ones he rubber stamped when he got back from golf).
Do you consider that global perception of America is an important factor in long-term US interests? I'd say that, yeah, everyone hating you is not in your interest, but that's just me. Even good policies won't work if the rest of the world won't play ball.
Fact.
SO: unthinkingly taking Bush's POV even when you know it's going to damage long-term US interests would seem to be anti-US, at least to me.
And it also seems to me that the US derives its sense of self from being better then the terrorists, from a form of government with freedom and liberty at its heart, for itself and for others. So slamming people up without trial or any legal rights, and pressing for the use of torture (even if you later change you mind as in Gitmo) would seem to be an affront to the very nature of the US. As would passing draconian laws such as PATRIOT without US lawmakers even reading them. All of which you're in favour.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Leave it AI members to find the dark cloud in the silver lining.
Transparency.
Originally posted by bunge
Transparency.
More like missing the forest through the trees.
Originally posted by Scott
More like missing the forest through the trees.
My initial thoughts about the transfer were that it was probably done to avoid attacks timed with or during the transfer. I thought that was a good idea. Debka's editorial is a good one because it opens up other possibilies, something you're not very good at handling. You should really learn how to investigate multiple facets to any story to gain a greater understand of any given situation. It's essential to your growth as an intelligent human being.
Originally posted by Scott
Of course the anti-american left is hoping for collapse in Iraq. No misery is too great when you can blame it on the US...
Bingo. It's all about blood for power.
Originally posted by Scott
I see. Then maybe I'll know how to put an anti-US spin on every bit of information I get.
Add that to your current pro-[Bush] spin and you'll start to edge towards the center, rather than extreme. I think it's a great idea.
Originally posted by bunge
Add that to your current pro-US spin ...
I have to disagree. Scott's pro-Bush. Whether he's pro-US is in question, particularly in light of his support for the current administration and its anti-american domestic and foreign efforts.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Bingo. It's all about blood for power.
That article is sickening . . .
at first I thought I might understand that maybe some in the left might think that way guiltily.
but then I read that article: it is trying desperately to pass off the culpability of the dying American soldiers onto the supposed attitude of 'gotcha' on the part of the boogy-man left.
I have never read, or even seen the American Spectator, but judging by that mean-spirited and hateful article, I can guess that it is non-stop partisan rhetoric .. . it so desperately wants to see evil in people; people who simply never wanted our soldiers out on a fool's errand . . . . I wonder if the thought of such an attitude comes easily to them because that is the sort of politiking that they employ?!
The premis of that article is that Bush's approval ratings drop whenever more troops die in Iraq, and therfor, the Left wants that to happen more.
It never looks at the obvious fact that his approval ratings drop because the war was a bad idea and more people recognize that when they see their sons and nieghbors dying . . . that his approval ratings drop because they should be dropping.
Originally posted by giant
I have to disagree. Scott's pro-Bush. Whether he's pro-US is in question, particularly in light of his support for the current administration and its anti-american domestic and foreign efforts.
Understood.
Originally posted by Scott
Of course I'm pro-US. How dare you question my patriotism! How can anyone not be pro US?
If they argue against the ideals and principles of the country, like you do.
Originally posted by pfflam
That article is sickening . . .
Yes, it is.
. . . I have never read, or even seen the American Spectator, but judging by that mean-spirited and hateful article. . .
Imagine that.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Yes, it is. Imagine that.
yeah . . . exactly
Originally posted by pfflam
yeah . . . exactly
So I take it you're now conceding the article accurately described the position of many on the left. Well, good for you. It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So I take it you're now conceding the article accurately described the position of many on the left. Well, good for you. It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
I admitted that in the first post responding to that terrible article . . . BUT, what I admit to is that the emotions that surround this whole affair are very complex: no-one, not the most Left-identified wants people to get hurt (except for terrorists and their sympathizers) . . . what they want is for more people to see what they know already, namely, that this war was a bad idea to begin with. .. . It is a terrible state of affairs when the only way that that seems to penetrate the popular mindset is when something overtly bad happens . . . I think that it is an terrible situation, and among all the mish mash of emotions that accompany the news of more friends dying there is a little: "look at this, see!!! now you know too!"
But that in no way means that people 'on the left' (even though you don't have to be on the left to be against this war) want failure . . . there is a difference between wanting failure and wanting people to see that this war was wrong from the get-go.
Some people may want failure, and some parts of even the best people might want it though they would quickly squash it when it shows itself . . . but in no way would I say 'most'. . . . I think that saying 'most' is completely off base.
I also think that the situation is such that if they succeed in creating a workable state, that is a good thing . . . but it won't have errased the deaths and suffering that the war inflicted that would not have been inflicted, and the international damage and the effects on the WOT will not have been undone, and the long-term effects on teh economy will also not be undone . . overnight.
But also, in my post, I say 'exactly' to the poster of Saturn eating his children.
Originally posted by Scott
I never did that!
Of course you do.
Or is it ring?
Whatever will fit on a bumper sticker. The herd won't know the difference, nor will they care that there is a significant difference between the two phrases.
I must admit that this is a mightily confusing situation, and at the moment (I've been off the grid for a week and only caught the news in an airport) I draw the following conclusions:
1) The Admin had obviously wanted to make a HUGE deal out of the handover. I imagine an elaborate ceremony televised throughout the ME.
2) Their willingness to abandon that and replace it with Bremer hastily shaking hands, signing a paper, and then beating a trail out of dodge indicates that something serious has happened to make them abandon this plan.
3) Why on earth would you want the people you're "liberating" to wake up one morning and not know who's in charge? Can you imagine the confusion in Iraq? "What?!?! I thought it was the 30th? They secretly ceded control of us in the middle of the night? And didn't tell anyone? What are they afraid of?" Obviously, they're afraid of the same thing that the rest of the Iraqis are afraid of.
Certainly, the handover is entirely symbolic (as is much of this admin's business), but it is difficult to imagine that any admin would have been willing to give up this kind of symbolic event for nothing. Hell. Sticking around DESPITE the terrorists would've been a sign of gumption. What the hell happened to "We will not waver; we will not tire"?
I guess the bumper sticker changed.
Originally posted by Scott
Of course I'm pro-US. How dare you question my patriotism! How can anyone not be pro US?
Well, with the caveat that I'm not American, and that I am certainly very, very anti Bush, here's my view.
GWB has damaged the image of the US all over the world. Very, very badly. You can chose to say you don't care about this (he's doing the right thing, if you don't like it fuck you blah blah blah) but it's a stone-cold fact there has never (as in NEVER) been a more unpopular US president or that trust and belief in what the US does and 'is' has never been lower.
Fact. And it's your man's policies that have done this (or rather, the ones he rubber stamped when he got back from golf).
Do you consider that global perception of America is an important factor in long-term US interests? I'd say that, yeah, everyone hating you is not in your interest, but that's just me. Even good policies won't work if the rest of the world won't play ball.
Fact.
SO: unthinkingly taking Bush's POV even when you know it's going to damage long-term US interests would seem to be anti-US, at least to me.
And it also seems to me that the US derives its sense of self from being better then the terrorists, from a form of government with freedom and liberty at its heart, for itself and for others. So slamming people up without trial or any legal rights, and pressing for the use of torture (even if you later change you mind as in Gitmo) would seem to be an affront to the very nature of the US. As would passing draconian laws such as PATRIOT without US lawmakers even reading them. All of which you're in favour.
So, yes, anti-US seems to fit.