Shorter Jules Crittenden
Posted on October 2nd, 2007 by Gavin M.
Above: Spoils of war confiscated by US Customs
- Hoo-ah, fellows! The gritty glory that, I imagine, constitutes the authentic experience of combat soldiers is insufficiently championed by some liberal and defeatist Hollywood movies that I haven’t seen.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
Reviews a movie he hasn’t seen (Valley of Elah). That’s a proud asshat tradition.
Hmm. He certainly seems to have a very narrow interpretation of “the reality of war”.
No moral dilemmas in war. No questioning the reason, or the goal. No thinking, at all. Soldiers are not to think. Sure, they can have the internet and sat phones, but they must not consider the broader implications of their day to day ops.
This guy is just sad.
mikey
[updated a bit, btw]
Shorter: All this stuff portraying war as something slightly more complicated than the rah-rah heroism I imagine to be the case, is seriously interfering with my masturbation habits.
That footage demonstrates what combat veterans and combat photographers know, but many filmmakers and ordinary Americans, innocent of that variety of carnal knowledge, do not appear to fully grasp.
Jules would look awfully good sticking his wang into a humvee.
But he does grasp it? Has Mr. Crittenden, in fact, been in combat?
God, can’t you lefties go channel your bloodlust into something noble?
He was embedded for awhile in early 2003, and ever since, he’s been writing about his ‘battle experiences’ as though he were a soldier in combat.
Here’s the most action he was in:
“An Embed’s Tale From The Dark Side”
God, can’t you lefties go channel your bloodlust into something noble?
There’s a thread with some Halo 3 stuff just thataway.
He was embedded for awhile in early 2003, and ever since, he’s been writing about his ‘battle experiences’ as though he were a soldier in combat.
In the fine journalistic tradition of … Bill O’Reilly.
That’s fucking sad.
“There’s a thread with some Halo 3 stuff just thataway.”
Halo 3 is GLORIOUS.
I have to ask…is it ok for me to be a lib and still enjoy videogames? Because I love me some videogames. My current fav (other than Halo 3) is Guitar Hero II. Like I’ve said before…I am a living room guitar god…much to my wife’s chagrin.
I still think you guys should be exposing the retardation that is the Libertas movie blog more. Is soooooooooo stoopid.
There’s some exemplary Crittenden here, from last April.
Or actually, no, this one is better. More in the rosy-fingers-of-dawn, two-fisted-war-tales genre:
So now the problem is putting political context into war movies? I’m sorry, but if you want to play that game, you’re going to have to go un-make a lot of war movies.
Seriously, all you want out of a war movie is 120 minutes of nonstop fighting? Take your copy of Soldier of Fortune to the restroom with some baby oil and leave the rest of us alone.
“Letters from Iwo Jima,” which through the eyes of that rarest of Japanese soldiers on Iwo … one that wanted to live … spins a tale of meaningless, futile sacrifice in war that, with its ennobling of the Japanese commander, paradoxically seeks meaning and exalts sacrifice in the futile effort to make futile sacrifice meaningful.
Truly you have a dizzying intelect
But I thought these guys got off on all of that 300, fighting to the last man stuff. Now that’s suddenly evidence of less-than-humanity?
By the way, Wafa Sultan — recently noted by SN! — is the subject of some spamogranda going around the blogosphere today. I have tracked it down a bit at Warcheerleaders if you all want to check it out. Turns out a progressive rabbi is comparing Sultan to Ann Coulter.
forgot to say http://www.warcheerleaders.andmuchmore.com !
Just in case someone didn’t click on all Gavin’s links:
Meanwhile, Boston Herald reporter Jules Crittenden also is under scrutiny after returning from Iraq with war souvenirs.
Crittenden, who was embedded with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division to cover the war for the Boston Herald, also wrote a number of pieces for Poynter Online describing his experiences.
The Boston Globe reported that “U.S. Customs officials confiscated a large painting that … Crittenden brought back as a souvenir from the war in Iraq, but the artwork is not valuable enough to merit prosecution, a law enforcement official said yesterday.”
Jules is a veritable Journamalist of Fortune.
P.S. Hanx, Gavin, for reminding me of three years of Greek I took in H.S. I always wanted to know how Dawn’s fingers got so rosy.
“Hollywood can’t get war right”?
No, I guess not. I mean, “All Quiet on the Western Front”, produced in 1930 or so, was totally inaccurate and irrelevant, right?
Hey, think of all the great art we’ll be able to loot from Iran!
As for the pic, I just wanna know – what’s he doing with his right hand?
FWIW, I reviewed the movie at my own blog, and just want to point out my gift of clairvoyance, specifically my prediction that:
It’s a moving and remarkable film, doubly so if you like Tommy Lee Jones.
Paths of Glory
Apocalypse Now
Platoon
M*A*S*H
Iron Cross
Full Metal Jacket
Saving Private Ryan
–all crap. Not that I’ve seen them or anything.
And, by the way–“carnal knowledge”?
Did anybody but me see “The Last Flight” about a bunch of American World War I vets hanging about in Paris just after the war? Made in 1931 with Richard Barthelmass, Helen Chandler, David Manners and Bronco Billy Anderson. It’s awesome.
War movies? Only one worth it’s polycarbonate.
Kelly’s Heroes.
That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.
I’m going to go read glenzilla now…
mikey
Also did you notice that in the various GI Joe episodes, Cobra is a terrorist organization which does not employ a single Muslim? Just Hollywood trying their damndest to not offend the PC sensibilities of the left.
Hmm, I also noticed in Ken Burns’ “War” series on PBS that there wasn’t a single mention of Islamocommiehippynazileftistfascism. Not. One. Moreover, during Monday Night Football last night, not once did Tom Brady mention the Islamomuslim threat. Doesn’t he know that under Islamocommie rule the Muslimofascists will kill him and force his Brazilian super-model girl-friend to wear a burkah, and the NFL will cease to exist?!
Hollywood doesn’t like happy endings, but there’s no room for defeatism in Iraq. War is hell, but some modicum of heavenly bliss may be waiting on the other side. Movie-makers don’t want you to know this. They want the war to simply end, magically. I too, want the war to end, but I suggest we…
End the War (By Winning It)!
Dr BLT (c) 2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/LetsWIN2C.mp3
I
C’mon, mikey!
What about the Dirty Dozen?
Kelly’s Heroes I have on my VCR. Never saw it before. (Which is amazing to most of my friends because I love stuff like The Bridge at Remagen, Von Ryan’s Express, A Bridge Too Far, The Eagle Has Landed, The Night of the Generals, etc.)
I’m gonna watch it tonight. I was looking forward to it anyway but your endorsement is the icing on the cake.
I bet he liked Black Hawk Down. Something about those endless hordes of negroes swarming after some embattled white people really appealed to him, but he’s not quite sure why.
End the War (By Winning It)!
That might be an option if we had competence, decency or honesty SOMEWHERE in the civilian leadership.
But we don’t.
Looking forward to some glib and/or shallow and/or mindlessly repetitive conservative talking points.
“We have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them here.”
“The insurgency proves we’re winning.”
So since the surge had caused a slight decrease in civilian deaths, does that mean we’re losing now?
Or does everything mean we’re winning?
“Looking forward to some glib and/or shallow and/or mindlessly repetitive conservative talking points.”
You have to admit, hoosier, that I didn’t grab my song title from Fox News talking points or from a Hannity and Colmes interview. Furthermore, the lines in the song may be glib, shallow, or mindlessly repetitive, but they are also true.
Crittenden is allowed to speak with authority on only one thing: cheeto brands
That is all.
Hoosier
I confidently predict you will looove Kelly’s Heroes. The only War Film I can bear to watch. Sing along with the theme (Burning Bridges) and be prepared to adore a young Donald Sutherland and his tank.
Enjoy.
With all due respect, Suezboo, I preferred Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People. It’s been downhill from there.
Joannegm mentioned All Quiet on the Western Front, a great novel and great film. That brings me to Crittenden’s imbecilic statement that “Hollywood fails to understand that war remains a necessary, ugly business and will be for the foreseeable future.” The guy clearly hasn’t watched that many war films, since there’s a wide range, but most of the serious ones have a stance that could be called pro-soldier and anti-war. He doesn’t contest that “war is bad” but complains that war movies aren’t sufficiently triumphant. Similarly, his complaint about Ken Burns’ The War is that it doesn’t retread the Hitler Channel and focus on generals but instead focuses on the grunts (even though he cops to being moved by their stories). Hmm, and might something as momentous as war, which deals with the death of human beings, conceivably involve moral questions?
The guy just can’t handle complexity or nuance. That’s typical of right-wingers, but personally, I find such imbecility more offensive than usual when it’s applied to film criticism.
I love how he avoided mentioning Clint Eastwood’s role in the Iwo Jima films. It’s almost as if he knows his readers would think Clint is tougher, and has more to say about combat and violence, then him.
At least it tells you that he knows he’s spewing propaganda.
Is that really Crittenden in the picture? I swear he looks just like a guy who was tapping his feet wildly in the stall next to me at Logan Airport last week but he was too pudgy for me.
Stop “stalling” for time, Larry. Get it? “Stalling” for time? And you guys say conservatives don’t have a sense of humor!
Jillian: Are there different cheeto brands? I thought Cheetos was a brand – or has it become a generic term for any form of cloying, vaguely cheese-flavoured wingnut chow? Please enlighten an ignorant Londoner.
Erm, I mean Lesley, obviously.
Larry Craig, if you would have listened to Sheryl Crow and limited yourself to one sheet, you would not have had so much time to get into so much trouble.
Despite Hollywood’s best efforts, it just can’t get war right. Filmdom’s fiery-eyed zealots have never quite managed to fake the 1,000-yard stare.”
Wouldn’t a REALLY GOOD 1,000-yard stare make the movie… more… anti-war?
“… gets bizarre, distorted comic book treatment in “300.””
I wonder if he knows were 300 came from….
BLT, since you’re so willing and eager to spend the lives of your countrymen in pursuit of “winning” in Iraq, please define what constitutes a “win”. What are the benchmarks? At what point and under what conditions do we say that we’ve won?
please define what constitutes a “win”
Oo oo oo!!! Me me me!
When every Muslim can cuddle the puppy of their choice.
Hmm… I thought “Rosy Fingered Dawn” was a girl-on-girl porn film.
What?
What Hollywood NEEDS to do is make a new Islamofacist version of “Red Dawn” where America suffers a coordinated suprise invasion of the entire Muslim world and small band of rightwing bloggers takes to the hills to wage guerrilla war.
Patrick Suaze would make a great Glenn Reynolds.
The only good war movie is an anti-war movie. The rest is propaganda.
I thought we had to wait until all Iraqis can have abortions and get married to gays.
Disclosure: I haven’t seen this movie, and don’t intend to spend my money on it. The rave reviews told me all I needed to know.
Dear Jules: I would like to talk to you about how you can improve the argument in your essay for English. Please see me after 3rd period tomorrow.
We fight until all Muslims can enjoy a beer and a hot-dog.
At what point and under what conditions do we say that we’ve won?
When every brown person in the Middle East is dead. It’s practice for the ethnic and social cleansing of America. Their aim is to get rid of liberals, queers, African-Americans, Hispanics, atheists, non-Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews.
Halliburton will get the no-bid contract for the death camps, complete with gas chambers, crematoriums and a private-sector Einsatzgruppen. A murderous Blackwater on a massive scale.
r4d20, I’m thinking it’s casting call time. I can see:
Bruce Willis as “Confederate Yankee”
Fran Drescher as “Pammy Atlas”
The only match for Jonah is this fine actor.
No, Philip Seymour Hoffman. He could just give basically the same performance he gave in Happiness.
“BLT, since you’re so willing and eager to spend the lives of your countrymen in pursuit of “winning” in Iraq, please define what constitutes a “win”. What are the benchmarks? At what point and under what conditions do we say that we’ve won?”
The answer is contained in this song (but you have to read between the lines):
Home
Dr BLT c 2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/Home.mp3
Leave eet to Ken Burns to make WWII boring.
Por ejemplo, joo would theenk that the liberation of a P.O.W. camp would be more exciting than, say, a commercial for a brand-name denture adhesive.
Burns has, essentially, geeven us “Antiques Road War Two”, weeth a soundtrack by Lawrence Welk.
so.
what a dick – hell even Patton showed war was an ugly damn business – no matter how much you tired to dress it up. When Patton says “I love it, god help me I do love it so.” he’s not saying that as a boast.
stick with your toy soldier collection – Airfix used to make a wide rage of them in their 72 mm size – even arabs so you can go bang bang on them.
Off topic, but still dedicated to winger moronitude, a fellow posting at Dan Riehl’s site, calling himself Rush’s Right Arm is giving me quite a hoot this afternoon:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/10/absolute-absolu.html#comments
Whoa…The guy looks like he suffers from anencephaly. Apparently, that’s quite common in the Crittenden clan.
Leave eet to Ken Burns to make WWII boring.
Yep, completely dull. Oh what a comfy war!
The answer is contained in this song (but you have to read between the lines):
You know, Doc, I’m sure it’s a lovely song and all, but I don’t want to have to “read between the lines” to get an answer to what is really a very simple question.
How about an answer in what the humans call “English”?
please define what constitutes a “win”. What are the benchmarks? At what point and under what conditions do we say that we’ve won?
Hell, I’ll make it easy on you. Just tell me who we will defeat in this glorious victory. If you’re going to have a winner, you’ve gotta have a loser too, right? So other than five millions iraqi civilians, who will we defeat?
mikey
You know, Doc, I’m sure it’s a lovely song and all, but I don’t want to have to
F’fuck’s sake zsa, you don’t. Just keep-a-writin’.
“Hell, I’ll make it easy on you. Just tell me who we will defeat in this glorious victory. If you’re going to have a winner, you’ve gotta have a loser too, right? So other than five millions iraqi civilians, who will we defeat?”
The losers are those who want to rule with an iron fist and the cruel rules of theocracy. The losers are the husbands who would beat their wives and treat them like slaves. The losers are the enemies of freedom. The losers are those who want every non-Muslim’s head handed to them on a silver platter, or spattlered in a car bomb. The winner is democracy.
As for those who lost their lives in the process, including civilians, we should honor them, even in death. And in the next battle, we should go out of our way to minimize such casualties.
BTW, that was for the benefit of those who couldn’t find the courage to face the music.
Really, now.
That’s some catch, that Catch 22….
Especially the scene where the old man basically says, we were here long before you got here and we’ll be here long after you leave.
That movie should get more props.
We came out of the desert at dawn. The tanks kicked up dust by mud hut farms, their skull-and-crossed-saber guidons whipping in the wind.
I would sooo love to find out what “we”, the grunts, called Jules of Arabia when his back was turned.
Or perhaps “Jules” was considered commentary enough.
Do you suppose he had sufficient self-restraint to refrain from making pshow! kapwee! reeeee… BOOM! mouth noises in front of the professionals?
The losers are those who want to rule with an iron fist and the cruel rules of theocracy. The losers are the husbands who would beat their wives and treat them like slaves. The losers are the enemies of freedom. The losers are those who want every non-Muslim’s head handed to them on a silver platter, or spattlered in a car bomb.
The wonder is not that 70% of americans oppose such mindless idiocy as this, the wonder is what is wrong with the other 30%.
Bacon sammich. Those are not entities you can fight, let alone defeat. After you declare victory someone will still rule with an iron fist, someone will still beat their wife, and religous fanatics of all stripes will still be killing the unbeliever. If you can’t even provide a serious answer in an exercise as simple and yet as serious as defining who it is americans are fighting, dying and killing to defeat, maybe you should think about reconsidering your own support for the carnage…
mikey
I got a song for all of us:
Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
By Pete Seeger
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in Louisiana,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That’s how it all begun.
We were — knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, “Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?”
“Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
‘Bout a mile above this place.
It’ll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We’ll soon be on dry ground.”
We were — waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, “Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim.”
“Sergeant, don’t be a Nervous Nellie,”
The Captain said to him.
“All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I’ll lead on.”
We were — neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain’s helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, “Turn around men!
I’m in charge from now on.”
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.
We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn’t know that the water was deeper
Than the place he’d once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
‘Bout a half mile from where we’d gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.
Well, I’m not going to point any moral;
I’ll leave that for yourself
Maybe you’re still walking, you’re still talking
You’d like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We’re — waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man’ll be over his head, we’re
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Hoosier X adds:
And it’s REAL EASY to say to push on when you’re of the ass hats who’s doesn’t even have to get his feet wet.
I’ve only seen two episodes thus far, but I must be watching a different version of Ken Burns’s “The War” than others, because I’m not finding it dull at all.
I find it quite fascinating and very moving.
The losers are those who want to rule with an iron fist and the cruel rules of theocracy.
That’d be the majority of the Iraqi parliament. If you liked the election results, that’d be the Iraqi people as well.
The losers are the husbands who would beat their wives and treat them like slaves.
Policing this sort of behaviour is not really what armies are for. Mind you it’d be interesting to see soldiers take care of this kind of stuff here.
The losers are the enemies of freedom.
Oh. Them. I hear they’re led by that guy. And the other one. And his friend.
The losers are those who want every non-Muslim’s head handed to them on a silver platter, or spattlered in a car bomb.
That’s a somewhat more broad – and yet more narrow! – ambition than screwing with Iraq and Afghanistan.
The winner is democracy.
Watch this: and the winner is…victory! Or the winner is…discomfort! The winner is…the idea of Clamato!
As for those who lost their lives in the process, including civilians, we should honor them, even in death. And in the next battle, we should go out of our way to minimize such casualties.
Oops.
BTW, that was for the benefit of those who couldn’t find the courage to face the music.
Christ on a seesaw, Doc. Who does Larry Craig have to blow to get a, umm, straight answer out of you?
If you can’t honestly define “winning” in concrete, measurable terms, just say so.
We won’t mock you. Really. Fish, barrel, and all that.
The only good war movie is an anti-war movie.>/i?
All the good war movies are anti-war movies.
And BLT? Keep working the program, you ain’t recovered enough.
Whoops. Out, damn tag
I think BLT’s post was missing some links and code and stuff to help it make sense. Let’s fix that, shall we?
The losers are those who want to rule with an iron fist and the cruel rules of theocracy. The losers are the husbands who would beat their wives and treat them like slaves. The losers are the enemies of freedom. The losers are those who want every non-
Christian’sMuslim’s head handed to them on a silver platter, or spattlered in a car bomb.There. I think it makes more sense now.
…the idea of Clamato!
Personally, I think the idea of Clamato makes everybody lose.
I am SOOO irritated with their use of the term “Hollywood” as if it’s a homogenous group of people they don’t like making entertainment they don’t like. The movie studios are run by gigantor corporations which are, on the whole, a wee bit more conservative than the politics of Susan Sarandon and George Clooney. After all, movie studios are the ones that ultimately choose which movies the majority of Americans watch, and those decisions are ultimately based on what they think will sell the most tickets. Perhaps the reason most movies about war are leaning a bit anti-war is because WAR SUCKS AND MOST PEOPLE KNOW THAT, so more tickets will be sold. Still, I think Vonnegut said in Slaughterhouse Five that any war movie does, ultimately, glorify war. Even Saving Private Ryan and Platoon, for all their various themes on sacrifice and honor and grief, glorify war.
I got off-topic, so let me come back. The use of the term “Hollywood” by Crittendon conveys a sense of injustice that the Susan Sarandons and George Clooneys of Hollywood decide which movies come out, and that is dishonest. Even coming up with a few examples doesn’t make his thesis that the movie studios have an anti-war agenda believable or true. “Hollywood” is not like FoxNews, where one owner can lay out an agenda, affecting hiring practices, viewing lineup, etc. Does this irritate anyone else?
Does this irritate anyone else?
Speaking as an East coast-er, yes. Yes it does.
Jules is such an ignorant twit, he can’t even find time to dress his strawmen to look like people. He says all he has to do is read the glowing reviews of In the Valley of Elah. Yeah, the movie that gets an overall “meh” of 65 at Metacritic, including pretty poor reviews from The Village Voice and Salon.
He also conveniently sidesteps some movies that would destroy his “Hollywoood hates war” thesis, particularly Blackhawk Down, which is prime beat-off material for these guys. Three Kings in its own kooky way also supports the idea of liberating Iraq by showing how fucked up things were under Hussein, and also getting shots in at Bush I for hanging the Iraqis out to dry after the war. Not to mention the vast amount of special forces blowjob action flicks Hollywood cranks out.
Is it a requirement to be a semi-literate fuckstick before you can get a job with Pajamas Media, or do they provide that training after hiring?
Brando,
I believe there are enough of them roaming about loose that there is no need for training. Pajamas Media knows who to hire: the ones with their heads up their asses.
Thanks, Julian, for putting my comments in their proper contexts with the links and all. And yes, it sucks when conservative Christians and fundamentalists disguising themselves as evangelicals get too pushy. I don’t want to minimize how much that can suck, but no matter how much you try to turn that into a theocracy, the shoe just simply doesn’t fit.
Thanks, Julian, for putting my comments in their proper contexts with the links and all. And yes, it sucks when conservative Christians and fundamentalists disguising themselves as evangelicals get too pushy. I don’t want to minimize how much that can suck, but no matter how much you try to turn that into a theocracy, the shoe just simply doesn’t fit.
First, it’s “Jillian.” Get a new prescription for those bifocals.
Second, if you’re trying to discount Jillian’s links based on the fact that there’s no way the conservative Christians and fundamentalists and evangelicals (in and out of disguise) could possibly turn the U.S. into a theocracy—then what the fuck is going on with all the Islamofascistzilla, “Fight ’em there so we don’t fight ’em here!!” “Oh, you want your daughters to wear burkhas?!?!” bullshit?
If well-financed and well-connected domestic religio-political organizations can’t overtake the government (sez you), then what chance do the mad mullahs have? They’re going to invade us? With what? Homemade ocean-going rafts? Threaten us? With what? IEDs launched by slingshot?
Seriously, I want answers here.
I KNEW there was an inconsistency in that tired argument somewhere.
I wonder if the painting Crittenden had confiscated was anything like this.
Wow. Still waiting on BLT for an answer to a simple question.
“BLT, since you’re so willing and eager to spend the lives of your countrymen in pursuit of “winning” in Iraq, please define what constitutes a “win”. What are the benchmarks? At what point and under what conditions do we say that we’ve won?”
Isn’t this the kind of thing you need to know before you go to war? This shouldn’t be difficult for you, BLT.
Yes, this is the kind of thing you need to know before you go to war. While the situation in the region is fluid and, as such, attaching such benchmarks is nearly impossible, the strategic planning behind the war was admittedly sorely lacking.
What constitutes a win is the opposite of what you would say constitutes a loss. I would suggest using the same benchmarks defeatists use to assess loss. I would like to see warring factions in the region begin to overcome differences through democratic, legislative means, and not via violence.
I would like to see a dramatic reduction in deaths of American and allied troops, and innocent civilians in the region. I would like to see less bad news on the front pages of the major newspapers. I’ve seen some good news of late. I’d like to see more.
Sorry Jillian. You are not alone. Folks get my screen name wrong all the time. There are even those among you who honestly believe that I’m not the real Dr BLT, but someone who has studied his mode of operation, and has somehow found a way of channeling him through my own music.
But it is my music, and it is me, Dr BLT, the man some refer to as King of Blog n Roll, a title I humbly, and vehemently reject. Yes, I may have invented this “blog n roll” style of commenting and blogging, using links to original songs as commentary, but this hardly makes me worthy of such a title.
What Hollywood NEEDS to do is make a new Islamofacist version of “Red Dawn” where America suffers a coordinated suprise invasion of the entire Muslim world and small band of rightwing bloggers takes to the hills to wage guerrilla war.
But what to call it? Green Dawn? Crescent Dawn? Waxing Crescent?
Intro: Middle East suffers worst oil extraction in 55 years… Labor and religious riots in Saudi Arabia. Iranian troops invade… Venezuela and Indonesia reach troop strength goals of 500,000. Israel and Serbia fall… Greens Party gains control of West German Parliament. Demands withdrawal of U.S. naval nuclear weapons from Persian Gulf… France plunged into banlieue revolution… NATO dissolves. United States stands alone.
Ace O Spades: …The Islamo-fascists need to take us in one piece, and that’s why they’re here. That’s why they won’t use car-bombs anymore; and we won’t either, not on our own soil. The whole damn thing’s pretty conventional now. Who knows? Maybe next week will be swords.
Debbie Schlussel: What started it?
Ace O Spades: Chr-st, Debbie, you’ve been writing about the Islamofascist invasion for years! Remember, they needed to put burkhas on all the women in the world, and we were the only thing in the way?
Debbie Schlussel: That simple, is it?
Ace O Spades: Or maybe somebody just forget what it was like before.
Debbie Schlussel: …Well, who *is* on our side?
Ace O Spades: Twenty million freakin’ Poles.
Debbie Schlussel: Last I heard, there were 38,530,080 freakin’ Poles.
Ace O Spades: There *were*.
Confederate Yankee: Man-Eating Badgers!
BLT, you are saying that our troops need to stay and fight until they “win”. The onus is upon you to define “winning”. You haven’t done so. You’d like to see less violence? And then we can bring the troops home? Because Petraeus says there’s “less violence” now. If you see “less bad news”, then we can bring all the troops home? That means we would have won?
How do you expect our troops to accomplish something when we can’t even define the goals?
Simple fact is, we haven’t got a clue what constitutes “winning” because it’s an occupation. You don’t “win” occupations. The war ended a long time ago. We “won” back in 2003. And then we decided to stay.
An occupation you either get out or you hang in and pay the price. Your choice, but there is no “winning” scenario. You can leave voluntarily or you eventually leave involuntarily.
Is there a realistic scenario that you can manufacture that would have US troops out within a decade and still meet your nebulous concept of “winning”? Because another decade means at least another 5000 dead Americans, and about 5 times that severely injured. For what purpose?
This is why a lack of “strategic planning” is a bad thing, Doc. Because it leaves you in situations which have no good way out. Iraq and a hard place. And it’s not “defeatists” who put us there. It’s the conservatives and their gung-ho cheerleaders who put us there.
For someone who’s advocating for the continued deaths of American troops, you certainly don’t seem to have thought through the issues.
But what to call it? Green Dawn?
How about “Yellow Puddle”?
I just finished “Kelly’s Heroes” and mikey is right. It’s boss.
I can’t believe I never saw it before.
It actually seems kinda average until the last third of it, with everybody wandering around in the French village, esp. the tank maneuvering. Then it really transcends the genre it has been pushing the limits of the whole movie. It has quite a disparate bunch of actors who don’t really seem to belong together. Yeah, I know Carroll O’Connor, Telly Savalas and Donald Sutherland were all in Dirty Dozen, but Savalas and Sutherland are totally different types of characters. (And Sutherland is bizarre. He makes the movie.) Clint Eastwood, Gavin MacLeod, Don Rickles, Harry Dean Stanton, Stuart Margolin.
I love Clint Eastwood grunting out “Auf Wiedersehn” at the end.
Yeah, its really good.
zsa, first let me say that I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue with a recovering troll.
Now, to answer your question, to understand the concept of “winning” as it applies to this war, we must disabuse ourselves of pre-9/11 concepts of winning where the losing side formerly surrenders.
As you are well aware, terrorists intent on “cleansing” the world of all infidels have no intention of issuing a formal surrender. Winning must be defined in realistic terms. You guys say it’s worse now in Iraq than its ever been, so we certainly don’t want to leave the country in such a dire state. We don’t want the situation to, in any way, resemble civil war. But this is not hockey, where you have 3 periods, and then, notwithstanding a tie, the game ends in a split second with a decisive victory.
That being the case, because the concept of victory, and the concept of winning as it applies to Iraq is more ambiguous than a hockey, soccer or football game, doesn’t automatically downgrade the presence to an occupation, at least not “occupation” in a pejorative sense in which those on the Cindy Sheehan end of the continuum use the term.
Yes, we occupy the region, but not as an oppressive force, as a potentially liberating force.
Winning in this case means a reasonable containment of the hostilities in the region, and a reasonably mature system of government that can support itself and operate its own military without much help from the US and its allied forces.
As military leaders provide ongoing feedback to the government regarding gradual, incremental steps towards victory, and as the Iraqi government shows more signs of independence, then the timing and rate of withdrawal will become abundantly clear.
I’d rather trust General P. than Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore to let us know when we’re winning, when we’re ready to get out of Iraq, and at what rate the troops should return home.
Just for the record, the second sentence about should read “formally surrenders,” not “formerly surrenders.”
And, just for the record (no pun intended), I do understand the temptation to keep asking the following question in relation to the war:
Is It Over Yet?
Dr BLT c 2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/Over.mp3
There’s been far too much blood shed, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cleam up the mess and help the Iraqi government to get a better grip of the situation before evacuating the place.
Written by a Briton, by the name of Troy Kennedy Martin. He’s the man who gave us The Italian Job (the excellent 1960s original with Michael Caine, Noel Coward and Benny Hill, not the shitty Yank remake). Also he wrote the ’80s political/nuclear thriller Edge of Darkness, starring Bob Peck and Joe Don Baker and which is still, in my book, the best ever drama on television.
Oh, and the best war movie evah is Steel Helmet, directed by Sam Fuller. Made on a shoestring budget during the Korean War (the production is so poor it has cardboard tanks!) it anticipated the Vietnam war cycle by thirty years with its tired, shocking cynicism. Gene Evans’s Sergeant Zack delivers a great thousand-yard-stare. I imagine this movie would have been a real slap in the face for 1950s audiences.
It’s a great progressive movie, too. Just look for the scene in which the North Korean commissar tries to turn a black GI. (This was back in the days when Army units were still segregated.) The black dude gives an astonishing speech on civil rights that predates MLK by more than a decade!
Sam Fuller. He da man!
Now, to answer your question, to understand the concept of “winning” as it applies to this war, we must disabuse ourselves of pre-9/11 concepts of winning where the losing side formerly surrenders.
1) That “9/11 changed everything” schtick is, frankly, getting rather tired and threadbare.
2) The original mission was supposed to be removing Saddam: that’s done.
3) The “war” is over. Your side won. Your president proclaimed victory.
4) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway: the war was based on lies.
As you are well aware, terrorists intent on “cleansing” the world of all infidels have no intention of issuing a formal surrender.
Except you’re not fighting turr’rists, you’re fighting Iraqis trying to evict you from their country. Plus a few loose cannons who’ve been drawn to Iraq to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. Face it: the number of turr’rists intent of cleansing the world of all infidels is miniscule. The number of Moslems who hate America, however, is legion, largely because they, unlike you, actually base their views on what America does in the world, not on what America claims to want (ie ponies for everybody).
You guys say it’s worse now in Iraq than its ever been, so we certainly don’t want to leave the country in such a dire state. We don’t want the situation to, in any way, resemble civil war.
It is civil war. And staying will only exacerbate it. Note, please, how the situation has continued to deteriorate over lo, these past few years. Why is that, do you think? Anything to do with the continued occupation? Read Riverbend’s blog for a local’s eye view of the American occupation.
Jesus, man, can’t you understand: continued American presence is making things worse. It’s got nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan or Furtive Global Islamofascistacommiefeminazis R Us or any other of the straw men you throw up: the Iraqis want you out. You’ve done enough damage, and you just can’t win.
Yes, we occupy the region, but not as an oppressive force, as a potentially liberating force.
Ask something like 80% of Iraqis whether they agree with you. Your intentions are immaterial: Iraq is spiralling into civil war because of the American war, invasion, and occupation.
If you want an example of what being a “potentially liberating force” might mean, aside from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, try this: the Assyrian city of Nineveh was essentially destroyed by the US armed forces, which used it as a fucking vehicle base. Remnants of a civilisation thousands of years old crumbled beneath the Mighty US Army.
And you wonder why they hate you.
Percyprune, I’m completely with you on Edge Of Darkness: Bob Peck is such an underappreciated actor, and British TV productions can often be excellent. Just shows you don’t need money to make quality.
With regards to possible punishment for Jules, found this rather a good idea:
After their initial complacency, US forces have now resorted to a heinous and racist form of punishment for Iraqi looters. They have been forcing them at gun point to strip naked and walk in public parks and highways. On their chests are written the Arabic words, “Ali Baba — thief.” These disturbing Nazi images first published by a Norwegian newspaper have been distributed worldwide, except in America of course, and US officials are insisting that this medieval tactic is a good deterrent which they will continue to use. Maybe it is. We just hope Benjamin James Johnson, the satellite engineer for Fox News, and Jules Crittenden, Boston Herald reporter, who have both been caught smuggling stolen paintings, Monetary Bonds, and other artifacts into the US, will also be forced to strip naked in public.
If you’re interested, it came from this article. I’ve been looking for a few articles that I read last year about Nineveh being used as a vehicle depot, but they seem to have been overwhelmed (thus far) by BushCo propaganda. I persist.
The Steel Helmet is fookin’ great! Shot in L. A.’s own Griffith Park, where I often hike. Although the U. S. Army was de-segregated by the Korean War, there was still plenty of racism James Edwards, who was the black soldier in The Steel Helmet, is also in Home Of The Brave (1949) another fine war movie, though I’ve only seen it on late night television, & the “n-word’ was cut out throughout it. If you get a chance…
Though money helps. Don’t forget that Edge of Darkness was directed by Martin Campbell, better known these days for the Bond movies Goldeneye and Casino Royale.
Officially it was desegregated in 1948 when Truman signed an executive order. But the reality was that separate black units served in the first year of the Korean War until a lack of morale forced the Army to accelerate integration.
The Steel Helmet is terrific, even if the seams show. Scorsese admits stealing from the cheaper and more expressive scenes (Gene Evans stalking out of the smoky dark) for Raging Bull.
While the situation in the region is fluid and, as such, attaching such benchmarks is nearly impossible, the strategic planning behind the war was admittedly sorely lacking.
What constitutes a win is the opposite of what you would say constitutes a loss. I would suggest using the same benchmarks defeatists use to assess loss. I would like to see warring factions in the region begin to overcome differences through democratic, legislative means, and not via violence.
When your analysis is this inane, how can you possibly accuse strategists of poor planning? The goal in war is not creation. A General is not put in charge to create a political system. The goal of a war general is to defeat an enemy. If you can’t define your enemy, then you can’t win your war.
And, if you think that killing massive numbers of civilians, and occupying their nation indefinitely, will make the survivors want to renouce violence and use democracy and legislation, then you should reassess your views.
I was interested to fund this summary of desegregation in the Korean War on Wikipedia. The usual Wikipedia caveats apply:
Qetesh the Abyssinian: I am actually impressed with your ability to focus on the issues that I addressed instead of resorting to what has been done to folks like me here in the past. You, and Jillian, though obviously unwavering in your disdain for the war efforts in Iraq, and though vehemently opposed to my point of view, have not engaged in ad hominem attacks or cheap shots to make your points. As a result, you have my respect.
Now, to attempt to respond in kind and address your points:
“1) That ‘9/11 changed everything’ schtick is, frankly, getting rather tired and threadbare.”
>Perhaps it is a tad hackneyed, but would you deny that extremist Muslims have an interest in perpetuating civil war in the region, and would you deny the fact that, in addition to direct involvement via suicide bombing missions, that they are sponsoring and providing ongoing aid to insurgents?
“2) The original mission was supposed to be removing Saddam: that’s done.”
> True, but, as Bush Sr. and others of his ilk predicted, instability ensued. What he didn’t realize is that temporary instability may be required for long-term stability to take hold.
When a female victim of domestic violence leaves her significant other, instability ensues, and he will likely try to hunt her down, stalk her and beat her down. But remaining in a relationship marked by violence is not a life-sustaining option. So we did contribute to the instability, but with the goal of ridding the world of an evil regime that was intent on harming America and its allies.
That being said, don’t we have some sort of responsibility for stabilizing that which we made unstable before walking out the door?
“3) The “war” is over. Your side won. Your president proclaimed victory.”
> Which side do you claim to be on? Who is your president? Proclaiming victory and establishing victory are obviously not one and the same. The victory was proclaimed prematurely, and that was admittedly foolish and woefully myopic. Democrats opportunistically jumped all over the ill-conceived statement and used it for political posturing, as one might expect.
“4) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway: the war was based on lies.”
>If the war was based on lies, then Democrats, with a few exceptions, who overwhelmingly supporting the decision to go into war, were incredibly naive, foolishly gullible Mymidons of the Bush administration.
(As you are well aware, terrorists intent on “cleansing” the world of all infidels have no intention of issuing a formal surrender.)
“Except you’re not fighting turr’rists, you’re fighting Iraqis trying to evict you from their country. Plus a few loose cannons who’ve been drawn to Iraq to ‘fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here’. ”
>As a landlord of an apartment complex intent on evicting a resident, do you wait until he gets into his car, and then blow him up?
“Face it: the number of turr’rists intent of cleansing the world of all infidels is miniscule. ”
>Now that’s a comment that I wouldn’t have expected from someone who appears as intelligent and as thoughtful as you. I didn’t picture you as woefully benighted, but this statement forces me to entertain that very hypothesis. That falls under the category of too ridiculous to respond to.
“The number of Moslems who hate America, however, is legion, largely because they, unlike you, actually base their views on what America does in the world, not on what America claims to want (ie ponies for everybody).”
>If you think their hatred for America is not grounded in extremist Muslim beliefs, then you have an extremely limited understanding of the culture in which they have become indoctrinated from early childhood on up.
(You guys say it’s worse now in Iraq than its ever been, so we certainly don’t want to leave the country in such a dire state. We don’t want the situation to, in any way, resemble civil war.)
“It is civil war. And staying will only exacerbate it. Note, please, how the situation has continued to deteriorate over lo, these past few years. Why is that, do you think? Anything to do with the continued occupation? Read Riverbend’s blog for a local’s eye view of the American occupation.”
>Okay, I try to keep an open mind, If I have time, I will read Riverbend’s blog.
But I ask you this: Do you automatically dismiss the good news of late that’s been appearing on the front of even the most liberal-leaning of the major newspapers as propoganda ushered in by the Bush administration? Would you acknowledge success even if it stared you in the face?
When you hold on rigidly to the “occupier” mantra, you limit your view. You’ve put blinders on or you close your eyes and ears to anything that would challenge such a position. Granted, we have only begun to scratch the surface on stabilizing the region, but to ignore even baby steps towards success seems extremely intellectually dishonest to me.
“Jesus, man, can’t you understand: continued American presence is making things worse. It’s got nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan or Furtive Global Islamofascistacommiefeminazis R Us or any other of the straw men you throw up: the Iraqis want you out. You’ve done enough damage, and you just can’t win.”
>You just can’t win. Where have I heard that abysmally pessimistic, pathetically defeatist talk before? It’s every bit as much a cliche is the old Islofacistacommiefeminazis talk.
(Yes, we occupy the region, but not as an oppressive force, as a potentially liberating force.)
Ask something like 80% of Iraqis whether they agree with you. Your intentions are immaterial: Iraq is spiralling into civil war because of the American war, invasion, and occupation.
>That’s your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. However, someone reading a different set of poll results, or interpreting the same poll results from a different perspective may take issue with your conclusion.
“If you want an example of what being a ‘potentially liberating force’ might mean, aside from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, try this: the Assyrian city of Nineveh was essentially destroyed by the US armed forces, which used it as a fucking vehicle base. Remnants of a civilisation thousands of years old crumbled beneath the Mighty US Army.”
>I’ll have to research that for myself before I can intelligently comment on the situation. Do I think that every move we’ve made in Iraq has been wise? Far from it. Mistakes were made, some with devastating consequences.
And you wonder why they hate you.
>No I don’t. In their minds, I’m an infidel.
PS: Sorry for the prolix nature of my reply. When folks actually attempt to advance intellectual arguments (mantra-sounding and talking-points-sounding though they may be), rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks and cheap shots, it can take a lot of words to address the points they are attempting to advance.
Now, to answer your question, to understand the concept of “winning” as it applies to this war, we must disabuse ourselves of pre-9/11 concepts of winning where the losing side formerly surrenders.
Yeah, Doc. Only after 9/11 was it possible for a military force to overwhelm and occupy a conquered nation. Prior to 9/11 all wars were fought like a game of Stratego.
Umm, sarcasm, that.
We are clearly an occupying power. If we were a liberating power, we would have long since left.
I’m speaking from personal knowledge here, friend: Trust me when I tell you that Iraqis of all stripes, religions, and ethnicities want the US out. It’s that simple.
Look, the simple fact is that we made a serious strategic blunder in invading with no clear justification, and another serious strategic blunder in not getting out immediately once Saddam was defeated.
So why is anyone surprised that we’re stuck in some horrible clusterfuck there now? Like the man said, you can’t un-shit the bed. There isn’t a strategy we can apply now that will magically fix things in Iraq, or even that gives us a plausible chance of success. We’re faced with two choices: draw down and let the Iraqis figure out how they want to handle their own affairs, or stay in and pay the price in blood and money.
The only way the situation in Iraq can be viewed as having been a success if if our goal all along has been to occupy the region, with all the crap about WMDs and democracy just being a smokescreen for keeping a large military force in the heart of the Oil Belt.
You, on the other hand, talk about “winning”, but when pressed on the issue admit that it’s a term you cannot define in regard to Iraq. So you have no clear goal (other than a set of vague buzzwords), therefore no meaningful strategy can be formulated, and there are no tactics that will work effectively in the absence of an overall strategy.
Your prescription for “winning” in Iraq is equivalent to “beatings will continue until morale improves”, only more like “we will continue to occupy and undercut the authority of the Iraqi government until they stand up and assume control”.
I believe the lives of our troops are important, and we should only send them into harm’s way when we have a clearly defined mission with a clear exit strategy. It’s the Powell Doctrine. You know, the one that Vietnam supposedly taught us?
As I said before, for someone who’s advocating for the continued deaths of American troops, you certainly don’t seem to have thought through the issues.
It depends which Muslim extremists you are referring to. There are a lot of different Islamic groups here with radically different agendas. Are Al Quaeda as extremist as the Sadrists? Or the Al Hakims? Or the Badr brigade? Or is ‘extremist’ a flexible term to describe whoever is the current US antagonist-of-the-week?
Some extremists certainly are doing the things you say. But their cause is being fed by occupation. Take away the occupation and their ability to influence the situation should decline. More likely their agenda will be swamped by whatever internal power struggles between the major blocks determine the future direction of Iraq. Extremist Muslims don’t have a lot of control over the situation. Rather they are riding the tiger and spurring it on as best they can.
The problem we face is that there is no ‘temporary instability’ here. Temporary would have been if calm had been restored after the initial looting and terrorism. We now have four years of increasing violence. Calling it ‘temporary’ reduces us to the magical thinking of Tom Friedman, believing that ‘another six months’ will get us over the hump. Well, we’ve waitied and waited and there’s no sign that a corner is being turned.
If you are dealt a bad hand you fold. You don’t go mortgaging the house and kids on a losing proposition.
You have a responsibility for creating the mess, yes. You may have a part to pay in fixing it. (Reparations is a good start.) But when you have no solution for fixing a country that you broke maybe the best solution is to walk away and let the locals sort it out.
Speaking as a foreigner, I am not on your side.
If someone announces victory prematurely, if they establish a pattern of announcing that the situation is other than what it is, then that is evidence of poor judgement. When it comes to matters of war we cannot afford poor judgement from our rulers.
It is the job of an opposition to stamp all over the misjudgments of the executive. It’s called ‘accountability’. My only regret is that the Democrats have been too easy on the Bush administration. That they haven’t opposed when they should.
Yup. No argument there. So why are you also so gullible?
Sure, but they are a small cadre of criminals who can be dealt with. I think we should starve them of recruitment by taking away their biggest cause celebre.
It’s hardly ridiculous. It’s the truth. You appear to have fallen for the Big Lie, that vast legions of Muslims want you dead. It’s a modern variant on the hysterical ‘reds under the beds’ or ‘yellow horde’. The actual threat is smaller than you suppose.
You reveal your understanding to be more limited than you believe.
I’ve noticed a large amount of fear of Muslims amongst Americans,often leading to contempt and outright hatred. I don’t immediately ascribe that to ‘extremist Christian beliefs’ or ‘a culture in which they have become indoctrinated from early childhood up’. The fear of ordinary folks for Muslims comes from a variety of places, but terrorist events like 9-11 and propaganda have shaped it.
I’d suggest that the revulsion the Muslim world has for America is based on a similar melange of actual events (the Occupation, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, uncritical support for Israel) and propaganda. Both sides have stirred up the fear and loathing amongst their base. Both sides have concrete evidence of the others’ wrongdoing.
In American, the fear of the Muslim has fed support for the occupation. In the Muslim world, fear of America has fed the resistance. How do we break this cycle?
Err, yeah, what Percyprune said …
Plus, he knows how to use <blockquote>
I would like to thank both of you for continuing to engage in the discussion as adults, with intelligently articulated opinions, rather than as school yard bullies on the attack, bullies that have shown up from time to time right here at Sadly No.
I would like to devote more time to addressing your arguments, but I have a class to teach tonight. Yes, it also amazes me that a college campus other than Bob Jones University would allow me to set foot on campus, let alone teach. I love this country for that.
Percyprune and zsa, both of you have put forth intelligent arguments, but they are opinions, based on information that you have gathered from sources that are likely biased.
When you automatically dismiss as propaganda, anything that would call into question the notion that the US is an occupying force and not a liberating force in the region, and automatically accept, without question, any information that would seem to substantiate and support your opinion, then what comes out is, at best, a somewhat slanted point of view.
I’m not saying that you are biased, but I believe we all are, to some extent, and that we all filter out, and too easily dismiss, information that does not support our opinions.
What is most important is that those with disparate points of view are able to identify common ground, and that we move forward rather than getting bogged down in arguments that seem to go nowhere. The common ground, as I see it, is the shared wish that we want to avoid civilian casualties, that we want to see things settle down in the region and that we want the country to return to a reasonable level of stability. We only disagree on how that is best accomplished.
Now, if you all will excuse me, I have students to brainwash :>)
I’d rather trust General P. than Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore to let us know when we’re winning, when we’re ready to get out of Iraq, and at what rate the troops should return home.
He may not have any kind of a meaningful strategy, but he sure knows how to sling a false dichotomy when he thinks it’s appropriate.
What’s really sad is he’s one of the more lucid war lovers around.
I hate to bring up the V-word, but so often these discussions come back to Vietnam, if only because it is such a great illustration of so many things we see today. I remember the ’60s and ’70s when so many people were convinced that the Communists were after world domination, that the Reds really were under the beds, and that if Vietnam fell, so would the dominoes fall across the world.
There are many parallels with BLT’s rhetoric. Substitute Muslim for Commie and Clash of Civilizations for Domino Theory, and we’re back in the same old paranoid times, dealing with the same old paranoid B.S.
Having examined the evidence, I don’t see the vast Muslim conspiracy against the West, wanting to convert us all to sharia law. What I do see is a lot of smaller criminal conspiracies, many headed up by nutters, for whom causes such as Iraq give them temporary legitimacy with many disenfranchised, fearful muslims. I also see a lot of internal struggles between secular and religious forces across the muslim world, for whom the US occupation is a catalyst for reaction or for resistance.
It does not matter whether you see American forces as occupiers or not. It does not matter what high intent the American leadership has. It only matters what the Iraqis think. And the polls and the public statements of their politicians suggest that they identify the Americans as occupiers. So we call it an occupation.
If it walks like a duck and quacks, it’s a duck.
If a country occupies a nation for four years and encounters rising levels of resistance, it’s an occupation.
I find that rather disingenuous. I think that your statement about slanted points of view, biased sources and your subsequent claims about filtering and dismissing uncongenial opinions indicates that you DO believe we are biased. Now, you may not have actually said it, but that seems to be what you were thinking.
Let’s not break out the ideological champagne just yet. Rumors of my departure have been greatly exaggerated. I’m preparing for my brainwashing lecture, but also checking in from time to time for your comments.
Hoosier X, thanks for the backhanded compliment, and, even more, for the same respectable sort of restraint, and intellectual poise that the others have exercised here. But I must ask you this: Not to excuse my dichotomous talk, but haven’t the one-sided replies to my comments here encouraged and reinforced the very sort of dichotomy that you are referring to? Balance begets balance. Let’s all strive for that balanced perspective, and not automatically dismiss information that doesn’t support our own biases.
Percyprune and zsa, both of you have put forth intelligent arguments, but they are opinions, based on information that you have gathered from sources that are likely biased.
When you automatically dismiss as propaganda…
You automatically dismiss their information as biased (“likely” biased, too, in that you can’t even be bothered to check, you just assume it is because it disagrees with your opinions), and then have the nerve to lecture them about how they shouldn’t automatically dismiss information? And to claim they do so, as you do, is a de facto accusation of bias, so don’t try to then say you aren’t accusing them of bias. You claim to be in favor of debate, but you argue from analogy, anecdote, and assertion, rarely if ever supplying evidence, and resorting to ad hominem such as calling interlocutors “bullies” and accusing them of bias, providing no evidence for either.
Let’s all strive for that balanced perspective
No. I come here for my own amusement. Your mission is something else. You’ll have to live with it.
I think I’ve been pretty tolerant of your silliness but you have no reason to expect that anyone else should, particularly at a place that exists to make fun of your ilk.
“should be” I guess.
An alternative proposition is that our sources aren’t biased, but yours are, leading to your own distorted perspective.
Yes, polling data can lead one to all sorts of interesting conclusions. For example, take the results of a University of Maryland poll, which found that:
But do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers? Kenneth Ballen continues:
Ballen continues here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
The poll results can be found here. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/307.php?nid=&id=&pnt=307&lb=hmpg1
And yes, the results don’t entirely place the polled muslims in a flattering light. The way in which Iranian attitudes change when it comes to Israelis should not go unnoticed.
However, it seems to me that characterising the majority of muslims as dangerous extremists bent on destroying the west perpetuates an untrue stereotype. It’s the kind of myth that leads folks like BLT into error.
My view is that all of us, including myself, are biased, and that most information readily available to the average person is biased. Of couse some are more biased than others, but the extremely biased are usually so emotionally reactive that their comments consist of personal attacks rather than statements or arguments that are seasoned by reason. So arriving at a balanced perspective is a Herculean task at best.
tigrismus, Righteous bubba, there’s really no way to intelligently respond to your comments, and I don’t have a chill pill to give you. But I hope this helps:
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
Dr BLT copyright 2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/bongHITS4.mp3
My view is that all of us, including myself, are biased, and that most information readily available to the average person is biased.
This is nutty. Weather reports are biased? Traffic reports? I’m going to tell you I have three apples when I have four?
A reliable bullshit detector is an important thing, but living life as if everything is suspect but a world-view is a characteristic of ideologues.
I can’t write or preview properly today.
“A reliable bullshit detector is an important thing, but living life as if everything is suspect is a world-view characteristic of ideologues.”
If we are a liberating force, who precisely are we liberating, and from what?
If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck … it’s an army of liberation?
I’m not sure what your sources are, but mine are first-hand. Although I am very “Americanized”, I was born in Baghdad, albeit quite awhile ago. My extended family on my father’s side is part of the diaspora of middle-class Iraqis who (starting with the Iran-Iraq war, but increasingly with the current occupation) now live scattered across the globe, although some are still in Baghdad.
My relatives on that side are mainly Sunni … upper-middle professional class … doctors, dentists, etc. I have an uncle who is a Kurd. Another of my uncles is Shia. (Dad came from a big family). The one constant message I hear is the desire that the US get out. It’s like they expect I can just call Cheney on the phone and get that taken care of.
I’ve refrained from bringing this up before because a) it’s really not important, b) I’m not a major expert on the subject, and c) I have no wish to be the token erudite, half-breed sandnigger. I’m an American, but I do know lots of Iraqis and I know a fair amount of the country’s history, which is more than most commentators on the subject can say.
Iraq is a secular nation. It is a fairly heterogeneous nation, as well. There is significant intermixing and intermarriage between Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, and there is a definite Iraqi national consciousness.
Your remarks about Iraqi terrorists condemning us all as infidels is, frankly, ludicrous. There are some religious whackjobs in the mix, but proportionately no more than you would find in, say, California or New York and certainly less than you would find in, say, South Carolina. You can take that as first-hand, right from the camel’s mouth, baby.
The people who you seem to think are fanatic religious terrorists are, in actual fact, opposed to US military occupation of their country. It’s that simple. Some of these insurgents are rough characters, bandits really, but they are not religiously motivated and they want the foreign militaries (both US and the Saudi/Wahhabi al-Qaeda groups) out of their country.
It amazes me that our leadership and our punditocracy are, even now, phenomenally ignorant about the nation we have occupied for 4 years. it does not bode well for the future.
You can sit back here and play word games about whether we are “liberating” or “occupying”. But our military has been governing their country with the muzzle of a gun for 4 years, and they call it an “occupation”. They don’t want us there. We are not “liberating” anyone or anything.
You want a stable Iraq? Take the troops out.
Dammit, Percyprune beat me to the David Stockman “walks like a duck” schtick.
Lots of things walk like ducks but are not ducks. Nothing is as it seems to be. Which sentiment is stronger in Iraq— the sentiment that is concomitant to the view of US forces as liberating forces, or the sentiment that is concomitant to the view that the US presense as one of gratuitous occupation, depends on who you talk to.
Is it possible that we are an occupying force to some, and a liberating force to others, depending on the respective plights of individuals in the region?
Either way, I don’t wish to prematurely dismiss as biased, any of the comments of those here who claim to be unbiased, so I will put your comments on hold until I have had the opportunity to further examine the “facts” as they are revealed.
Hey, BLT, care to respond to zsa?
Way I see it, you got several options:
A. Ignore zsa entirely;
B. Call zsa a liar;
C. Backtrack in a most craven, despicabe embarrassing manner;
D. Fill the air with a lot of empty slogans, false dichotomies, faked concern, straw man arguments, lame rationalizations, made-up facts unencumbered with examples, strained sophistries and other assorted trolleries in such a manner that (you think) will make everyone forget what the original point was;
E. Admit that your current worldview may be a bit simplistic and vow to take some time to educate yourself about the world a little better.
From past experience, I’m guessing D.
Nothing is as it seems to be.
For god’s sake it’s supposed to be our side with lips glued to the bong.
What, I don’t get to be called an Islamofacist jihadi Muslinazi? Hey, that kind of rhymes.
Can I at least get to be called a Rastafacist, then?
I haven’t listened to any of the good doctor’s songs, but are they heavily influenced by “Strawberry Fields”?
I haven’t listened to any of the good doctor’s songs, but are they heavily influenced by “Strawberry Fields”?
Nope, they’re really plain. I listened to a couple for giggle purposes and received no giggles for my efforts. It’s dull strumming and singing, no verve whatsoever, kind of like porn-country cassettes you can find at truck-stops but without that transgressive thrill.
You know, if the police come to your house to arrest a burglar, they are, in a sense, liberating you from the bad guy.
If the police then move into the guest bedroom, bringing their luggage, “borrow” your stuff, drink heavily, puke on the floors, eat all the food, not clean up a damn thing … then they’re not liberators.
They’re in-laws.
“I haven’t listened to any of the good doctor’s songs, but are they heavily influenced by ‘Strawberry Fields’?”
“Nope, they’re really plain.”
It’s called minimalism. Liberals are supposed to like minimalism.
“I listened to a couple for giggle purposes and received no giggles for my efforts.”
Good. I wasn’t going for giggles. For that I’d recommend Fegie’s “Fergalicious.”
“It’s dull strumming and singing, no verve whatsoever, kind of like porn-country cassettes you can find at truck-stops but without that transgressive thrill.”
Good. That’s exactly the effect I was hoping it would have. The songs were designed as mirrors.
Hoosier X said,
“Hey, BLT, care to respond to zsa?”
Way I see it, you got several options:
A. Ignore zsa entirely;
B. Call zsa a liar;
C. Backtrack in a most craven, despicabe embarrassing manner;
D. Fill the air with a lot of empty slogans, false dichotomies, faked concern, straw man arguments, lame rationalizations, made-up facts unencumbered with examples, strained sophistries and other assorted trolleries in such a manner that (you think) will make everyone forget what the original point was;
E. Admit that your current worldview may be a bit simplistic and vow to take some time to educate yourself about the world a little better.
From past experience, I’m guessing D.
Nope it’s
F. Savor his analysis, and appreciate zsa for the misguided genius that he is, without trying to change him. The need to change another human being comes from a place of control, not love. I couldn’t say it better than the Beatles…”speaking words of wisdom, let it be…”
i thought we were making fun of that brainiac crittenden here – what’s all this stuff about trolls and myrmidons?
my favorite way movie is “A Bug’s Life.” (altho pekinpah’s “cross of iron” is truly spectacular.)
WAR movie. bleh.
Fluffy, thanks for rescuing me, just in the nick of time, by getting us back on track. So far, it’s been only good, if misguided geniuses that have cared to cross my bridge.
And I generally don’t have a predilection towards paranoia, but I sensed the bad guys were about to come around and make right-wing road kill out of me.
Also of paranoids.
How morally relativistic of you, BLT. A person may show bias, but facts do not. Yes, facts can be interpreted in all sorts of interesting ways. They say that statistics, in the hands of a clever advocate, can be made to lie. However, amongst all the punditry and commentary there is truth that cannot be gainsaid.
Truth is truth. The truth does not always lie in the middle ground. It is not something you can compromise on. The truth can favour one side over another.
That’s the trouble with truth. It tends to be biased in favour of evidence and facts. You assemble enough evidence and facts together then it tends to put the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.
Polling data showing that more muslims disapprove of attacks on civilians than Americans is a fact. It is data tends to undermine your view that most of the muslim world is out to get the West, as opposed to my view, which is that tiny cadres of radical islamic nutcases are out to get West and that their threat has been blown up out of all proportion by opportunist politicians and a compliant establishment media. This data indicates the truth is closer to my view than yours.
It puts the onus on you to provide alternative data to prove that Islam, en masse, IS out to get us. Also that this justifies the occupation of Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq was invaded for a reason other than Islamic radicalism (i.e. the threat of WMDs).
As a recap, it’s worth remembering that BLT was so taken aback by the notion that the radical muslim threat might be small, and not pan-Islamic, that he said:
He then went on:
Clearly, BLT was incredulous at the thought, but the University of Maryland poll contradicts this view quite pointedly. It suggests that hardcore anti-West/anti-Americanism (as opposed to a less hardline disapproval of American actions such as the Iraqi occupation) is a minority view.
There are certainly wobbles from this, such as harder attitudes against Israel, which at the very least is evidence for how that unresolved issue is exploited by muslim leaders and opinion makers for their own ends. But the picture from this poll is very different from the one that BLT appears to cling to, which is that the islamic world is overwhelmingly radical and dangerous and that to suggest otherwise is ‘too ridiculous to respond to’. Indeed, it’s a reasonable position to take that radical extremism is confined to a minority.
Whatever the truth is, it’s clearly a long way from BLT’s position. And yes, I’d be interested in a response from him.
Of course extremists have an interest in perpetuating civil war: without a cause to rally them, there’d be no new recruits. After 9/11, most of the world felt sorry for Americans, although in many cases that pity was tinged by a hope that perhaps the US would now modify its own behaviour and not inflict that kind of horror on others, or at least that people in the US would have a little more sympathy for the tragedies they’d inflicted on others.
Please tell me how you’d do that? Given that we all agree that the techniques used for the past few years, of a fairly brutal military occupation, have completely and utterly failed?
I ‘claim’ to be on the side of the Iraqis, actually. It is they whose country was bombed, invaded, occupied, and completely devastated. I have no president, because I live in Australia, and despite our Prime Monster being a brown-noser of major proportions we’re not yet officially part of the American empire.
Yes. So?
You persist in your opinion that the world is full of bogeymen intent on destroying civilisation. I’m sorry to disillusion you, but the world’s not like that: most people are merely people, who just want to live peacably and raise a family. True, there are a tiny number of extremists who want to kill lots of strangers, but they come from many diffeerent religions, and your assumption that “terrorist == Muslim” is (a) offensive in the extreme, and (b) just plain wrong.
If the Manson family move into your house and start torturing and killing everyone there, do you think you’d be justified in using any means to stop them? By your logic, that makes you, and everyone related to you, and everyone who follows your religion, a terrorist.
Oddly enough, that’s the conclusion drawn by most of the CIA, at least before the purges, and just about every other security agency the world over. If you think that I, and they, am/are wrong, then please provide some evidence.
Just for interest, how many Muslims have you met? I’ve only met a few dozen, in person at least. Probably 140 at most. You see, the university at which I used to teach had a lot of students from the largest Muslim nation on earth. I’ve also worked with a few (perhaps a dozen or so) postgrads from Iran and Iraq, none of whom attempted to annihilate me or cursed me as an infidel. Perhaps they were just the few non-extremists, eh?
Did you realise that Iraq once had one of the highest educational standings in the world? Did you realise that engineers from Iran and Iraq were very well-regarded professionally? No, because all you see is the one-dimensional caricature: the Muslim terrorist, just like the reds under the beds and the yellow peril mentioned earlier.
Define success. What attributes does it have? For your government, all it means is that Iraqis pass the oil law. What does it mean for you? For hundreds of thousands of innocent people, success is no longer possible. The infrastructure is shattered, the country is descending into civil war, and you say how pretty that pig looks with lipstick on.
And saying “At least he was dressed nicely” about the man who’s just killed and eaten your entire family seems extremely stupid to me.
I don’t know where you’ve heard it before, nor do I care. If you’re unable to define winning as anything other than not losing; if you’re not willing to use tactics other than those that have failed dismally for the last four years; if you don’t realise that those tactics are in fact winning more converts for all of your opponents even while they cause more suffering for the innocent; then you’re unable to win.
Do you base your opinions entirely on newspaper headlines and poll results? No wonder you’re so misled.
Read Blowback, and if you can’t read the entire book at least read this article. Read Killing Hope by William Blum. Read Boomerang by Mark Zepezauer (I think). Find out what your country has been doing and think again about why ‘they’ hate you.
Sorry for War And Peace, everyone. But hey, at least I didn’t complain about the snows!
In my country, until recently, the assumption was that “terrorist” == “Irish”. It’s funny how fashions change.
Amen. The sober professionals’ view of the threat was that the threat was significant enough not to be complacent about, but containable through conventional intelligence and policing work.
The notion of a clash of civilisations was a crock of bullshine dreamt up by Huntington (see Emmanuel Todd’s takedown of the clash of civilisations concept) and sold to the public by a coterie of neocons intent on whipping up support for intervention in the Middle East. It must be admitted that they were very effective. Witness BLT here, who appears to have bought it hook, line and sinker. But then, fear has traditionally been an easy sell.
I’ve lived with them, and I also wasn’t burned, butchered or threatened with Sharia law. How about that?
Defeatist or realistic? There are some things that the will to power cannot achieve, however much you wish it.
As a thought experiment, would you say that an English Victory was possible in the War of Independance after Yorktown, if only the British had stifled defeatism and kept on fighting? Was this really possible? I think not. Wars sometimes end, not with victory or defeat, but when one side exhausts itself. America, by the admission of its own generals, is now close to exhaustion because of Iraq.
We have already begun the end game. The debate is not about whether or not America has lost (it has) but about how it gets out of the quagmire without hurting itself further.
All who have commented here have my utmost respect. If the type of responses I’ve received under this blog thread is any indication, this site is beginning to attract less junior high school playground bullies, and more of the truely intellectual, articulate, mature cognoscente.
It appears we still have a lot of ground to cover before finding common ground, but at least we are engaging in discourse seasoned with
reason—discourse that does not include cheap shots, ad hominem attacks and churlish insults.
The question I’d like to ask each of you is this? What is your Weltanshauung? Have you ever cherry-picked “facts” to support your Weltanshauung? Please be intellectually honest. I know I have. It’s human nature. I submit to you that we all have. We would all like to be completely objective, but emotion sways us in one direction or the other and causes us to be biased.
Even the “fact-gatherers” that we borrow statistics from are biased in the subtle ways in which they word questions, in the subtle ways in which they manipulate data and rely upon statistical measures of dubious applicability to the phenomena they are attempting to assess.
Yes, I too believe that there is something called “truth” and that it is absolute. Heraclitus used the phrase Panta rhei to suggest that “all things are flowing.” But even in the midst of such flow there is a certain absolute truth.
The problem is arriving at that truth. It is an incredibly Herculean task at best. My appreciation of that has caused me to put my initial assertions here on hold, but some of you have continued to move forward with your assertions, without giving a second thought to the prospect that “truth” is far more illusive than we generally assume it to be.
The problem is arriving at that truth. It is an incredibly Herculean task at best.
The truth of what? Be specific.
And so BLT carefully avoids engagement but instead insinuates that the uncongenial data we present may be slanted, setting himself to be able to either reject it outright or at the minimum doubt its veracity. I suspect I’m not the only person who finds that weaselly, particularly from someone who declared himself open to inconvenient truths.
I’m not interested in empty maxims. In the words of Sergeant Joe Friday: ‘just give us the facts’. Truth begins with evidence. You have asserted quite forcefully–to the point of calling one of us ridiculous–that the entire muslim world is ranged against the West as a product of indoctrination from childhood. You imply that anti-Americanism and/or anti-Westernism is a feature of mainstream Islam. What is your evidence for this?
“You have asserted quite forcefully–to the point of calling one of us ridiculous–that the entire muslim world is ranged against the West as a product of indoctrination from childhood. You imply that anti-Americanism and/or anti-Westernism is a feature of mainstream Islam. What is your evidence for this?”
Then I was unsuccessful in communicating that the “indoctrination” is prevalent only in those homes and within those communities where extremist doctrine is held. It is certainly not the “entire muslim world,” but the doctrine is so dangerous and minatory that it cannot be ignored or minimized in any way.
Allow me to further clarify my points. I don’t believe that anti-Americanism and/or anti-Westernism is “a feature of mainstream Islam.”
It may be a side show and a freak show, but even if the extremists represented a small minority, as you suggest, they are, without a doubt, a minatory minority. Even a small number of terrorists have the potential to do tremendous damage. They not only have the potential, they have already done unspeakable damage and have destroyed far too many lives. Hold them responsible and express outrage over their hateful acts. Don’t hand them excuses or enable them by blaming everything they do on US policies.
Hold people within the Bush administration and the military responsible for policies and actions that you believe have contributed to the chaos in Iraq, but don’t do so at the expense of ignoring acts of terror and at the expense of ignoring the cries of mourning mothers, fathers and brothers and sisters of the victims of terrorist acts.
They not only have the potential, they have already done unspeakable damage and have destroyed far too many lives.
Let’s say there’s a unit of unspeakability that is equivalent to one human life. Is 400000 unspeakability units a good price to pay for 3000 unspeakability units?
If only it were a simple matter of mathematics, life would be so much easier. Are we rationing out our tears and our moral outrage now? If so, the figures don’t seem to add up, not matter how you crunch the numbers. I’m still getting zero tears and zero outrage from you as it concerns innocent victims of terrorist attacks.
Correction: “..no matter how you crunch the numbers.” Not “not.”
I see you chose D.
Over and over and over again.
What was D again?
I’m still getting zero tears and zero outrage from you as it concerns innocent victims of terrorist attacks.
Whether or not anyone dances for you is irrelevant to whatever it is you want to argue about. The desire to make sure someone is crying in your approved manner is pretty unhealthy, according to you:
The need to change another human being comes from a place of control, not love. I couldn’t say it better than the Beatles…”speaking words of wisdom, let it be…”
Make up your mind: filthy hippie or moral cancer?
That seems to me like a Hobson’s Choice. How about hippie after a shower?
Or how about moral scorpio?
Given that you referred to Qetesh’s claims that the “number of extremists intent on cleansing the world is miniscule” as “too ridicuous to respond to”, it is difficult to read your subsequent statements about indoctrination in any way other than suggesting that they are largely prevalent in the muslim world. However, it is good to see that you have moved on from this position.
It cannot be ignored, no. However, it can be placed in perspective and a proportional response formed. My major criticism of America’s ‘war on terror’ is that it does not cleave to any principles of proportionality. War and disproportionate military force have been the product, as opposed to more judicious use of the intelligence and security apparatus (and yes, the military).
Good, we are making progress.
Yes, extremists who turn terrorist are minatory by definition. No one is minimizing their threat. However, you should not overstate it, either.
The threat must be placed in perspective. The threat is manageable. I lived through two terrorist bombing campaigns in my home city of London through the ’70s and ’80s and it did not alter our lives much. My governments’ response was–at least compared to that of America post-911–proportionate, targeted and appropriate. We did not, for example, launch V-bombers across the Atlantic to blast selected sections of New York and Boston for financing the terrorists. Nor did Britain invade the Irish Republic.
911 was an extraordinary act of outrage. But it was also a one-off and with sensible security measures is unlikely to be repeated. The threat must be viewed through that lens. If you proceed on the basis that terrorists can create many more 911s (as opposed to the much smaller Madrid and London bombings) your response will be disproportionate to the threat.
It’s not handing excuses to anyone, and therein lies you error. It’s understanding the enemy. Knowing why an enemy fights is the key to defeating him. And in the case of terrorists and insurgents, removing the reason why they fight robs them of recruits and finance. It starves them of support.
Take the Irish situation again. The Republican cause grew in the ’60s and ’70s from the civil rights causes in Ulster. One of the keys to resolving the Irish conflict has involved addressing the civil rights causes (particularly with regards to the police) and offering to devolve meaningful power to both communities.
Address the root cause, you find a solution. And in the case of conflict in the middle east, identifying and addressing the root causes will de-escalate that conflict.
The root cause is not, as you seem to believe, anti-Westernism or non-Islamic lifestyles. Yes, a minority of religious nutters may be motivated by this, but it’s not the reason for 911. (That was explicitly stated as being the US presence in Saudi Arabia.) Nor is it the reason why the insurgency in Iraq has so much support.
Rather, it seems to be that Iraqi opinion has turned away from the US because America is viewed to have brought chaos to the country. It is in a state of sectarian strife and the Americans are making national and local alliances with the sectaries. So people are supporting whichever groups and strongmen provide them with security (and in the case of Sadr, food and jobs). The very presence of America is feeding the war.
The religious nutters benefit from this, just as they benefit from support from people who ‘protest vote’ over Israel, over Abu Ghraib and the many American atrocity stories made public. For the terrorist and insurgent America is the gift that keeps on giving. If America left Iraq one of the primary engines of conflict would be removed. The civil war would continue, but without America to provide the fuel it would flare and either die or descend to a much lower level of violence.
his site is beginning to attract less junior high school playground bullies, and more of the truely intellectual, articulate, mature cognoscente.
The reason most people arent’ commenting in a serious fashion is because this is a snark site.
The question I’d like to ask each of you is this? What is your Weltanshauung? Have you ever cherry-picked “facts” to support your Weltanshauung? Please be intellectually honest. I know I have. It’s human nature. I submit to you that we all have. We would all like to be completely objective, but emotion sways us in one direction or the other and causes us to be biased.
No, I’ve never cherry-picked facts. Sometimes during discussion I’ve become convinced that my point of view is wrong, and so I’ll concede the point and learn from it. I don’t pick some facts and ignore others.
Even the “fact-gatherers” that we borrow statistics from are biased in the subtle ways in which they word questions, in the subtle ways in which they manipulate data and rely upon statistical measures of dubious applicability to the phenomena they are attempting to assess.
Sometimes, yes. And sometimes no.
The problem is arriving at that truth. It is an incredibly Herculean task at best. My appreciation of that has caused me to put my initial assertions here on hold, but some of you have continued to move forward with your assertions, without giving a second thought to the prospect that “truth” is far more illusive than we generally assume it to be.
Arriving at the truth is not always a Herculean task. And there’s no need to make insinuations about us, nor is there a need for you to twist the direction of discussion.
The plain fact is that the evidence that Iraq is turning into a hellhole, that it would be better for the US to leave forthwith, and that the US government has little or no interest in making things better for most Iraqis, is overwhelming. Most Iraqis want the US gone. Most Iraqis hate al Qaeda in Iraq, and would soon turn on them if the US left. The US has completely botched the occupation and ‘reconstruction’: I make no claims about whether that was deliberate or through massive incompetence. The war was illegal and unjustified.
For a discussion of a few of these points, read this article. If you wish to dispute any of my assertions, please name them and dispute away.
The two of you have, without a doubt, provided the most articulate and intelligent replies I have received yet at this site. Yet, I believe that you are both a little too dismissive about some of the recent positive changes in Iraq involving marked shifts in allegiance among specific factions in Iraq. I would like to direct you, specifically to some of the information contained in this article in USA Today.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/peace-amid-the-.html
What do you make of Ralph Peters’ report that “the strategic landscape has shifted — largely to our advantage.”
What about the apparent radical shift in the sentiment of Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgents, insurgents that were once our enemies, but now seen to be united with the U.S., at least in their disdain for al-Qaeda? Do you acknowledge such a significant shift in sentiment, or do you dismiss this a policical propoganda?
In his editorial article, Peters aptly identifies two major changes that augur well for the war in Iraq in terms of actually what may eventuate into “winning.”
He talks about two paths. The first one being what he identifies as “…the attempt to enable Iraqis to build a government that reflects the people’s will and satisfies their needs.” The first path he identified can, arguably be legitimately questioned, because I think the US and its allies, have a long, long way to go to actually build such a government. But do you are do you not ackowledge the second path he refers to, namely the sismic shift in sentiment, that began in the city of Falluja.
As he aptly points out…”the second track is arguably more important — and largely missed by the media.” He goes on to elaborate in the following paragraphs that I would ask you to respond to:
“Whatever might have been the case in 2003, in 2007 we’re fighting for our national security. Even if al-Qaeda didn’t have a single operative in Iraq four and a half years ago — a proposition that remains in dispute — the terrorists subsequently declared it their main front.
The move was a grave error for al-Qaeda. After a honeymoon in which Sunni insurgents allied themselves with foreign extremists, Iraqis found the severity and blood thirst of al-Qaeda in Iraq a far more insidious threat than the U.S. presence.
Sunnis began to rally to the American side in an alliance of convenience. As a result, al-Qaeda is suffering not only a massive defeat but also a strategic humiliation. This violent rejection of al-Qaeda by fellow Sunni Muslims amounts to the greatest American public diplomacy triumph since the collapse of the Taliban regime in 2001.
Al-Qaeda will retain the ability to attack civilian targets for years to come. Even so, the terrorists are recognized as outlaws now, not as Arab champions. We might find that al-Qaeda’s international eclipse began in Anbar province, when Muslims took up arms against the organization.”
“But do you are do you not ackowledge the second path he refers to, namely the sismic shift in sentiment, that began in the city of Falluja.”
Obviously, I have not yet been handed my morning caffeine fix by my local smiling young Starbucks “drug pusher,” but I’m sure you get my drift.
What do you make of Ralph Peters’
Attention: Ralph Peters writes opinion columns. In order to understand the news one has to read news and not opinion.
One can benefit from reading both. What is your opinion about his opinion?
One can benefit from reading both. What is your opinion about his opinion?
It’s similar to my opinion of this.
But that’s dated May 9, 2005. What is your opinion in light of recent major shifts in sentiment in Iraq, as outlined in the op-ed piece I introduced?
But that’s dated May 9, 2005.
Ding ding ding!!!
Am I to assume that, by your avoidance, you don’t want to look at the Peters op-ed piece too closely for fear of what you may find?
Am I to assume that, by your avoidance, you don’t want to look at the Peters op-ed piece too closely for fear of what you may find?
???
There isn’t actually any information in it on which a smart person would hang an argument. If there is, I missed it. Feel free to point out anything you think makes a case.
Firstly, I’d like to draw your attention to this article: Only a US Withdrawal Will Stop al Qaeda in Iraq.
That’s an approximation of the turnabout in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. In 2004, U.S. firepower left swaths of the city in rubble. Three years later, local residents realized that, while the Americans couldn’t be defeated, we intended to leave eventually, and that a far harsher enemy, al-Qaeda in Iraq, meant to remain and rule through sharia law in its fiercest interpretation.
Do you really, really, believe that that Iraqis would totally forget, in a few short years, the massacre of Fallujah? Perhaps at the moment AQI is more of a problem, but there’s no way those Iraqis are going to throw flowers at US troops, for a very long time. Such brutality is not easily forgotten.
And as for “we intended to leave eventually”, I think Iraqis know more about US intentions than you do. They, at least, can see daily evidence of intent to stay for a long while.
The first continues the attempt to enable Iraqis to build a government that reflects the people’s will and satisfies their needs.
This is total bollocks: the population of Iraq considers the government a puppet of the US, and will continue to do so until the occupying forces leave. What would you do, if, say, China invaded and occupied the US? Would you trust any government that they supported? Consider Manchuria as an example.
And America’s stock has soared with the local residents.
We’re not the enemy anymore.
Oh, really? Then who’s occupying their country? Stop for a moment and think: the longer the occupation goes on, the worse things will get. Afghanistan, occupied by the Soviets, went to Helena Handbasket. Manchuria, the same. Palestine, for about 50 years or so. Any country occupied by a foreign army will hate the occupiers, especially when the devastation they’ve caused is so great, and the war crimes so marked. And that hate will continue for a long time, and won’t be assuaged by any simple means: it will take years or even decades of serious diplomatic efforts, as well as reparations and acknowledgements of wrong-doing. And somehow I don’t see your country would ever consider that.
Face it: the US sees the war in Iraq either as a cartoon “War on Terra”, in which The Forces Of Light are fighting The Legions Of Darkness, or as an effort to save face. “War on Terra” it ain’t, although it is a war of terror. And I think it’s no longer possible for the US to save face and pretend to themselves that they’ve won: it’s probably no longer even possible to lose gracefully.
You see, there’s another fundamental thing you’re missing here: it’s not possible to win a war of occupation. Doesn’t matter how powerful the US is; doesn’t matter that the US spends more on weapons than the rest of the world put together; doesn’t matter that the US has been the biggest bully on the block for decades. The only way to ‘win’ now is to leave.
Read the article by Raed and Joshua. It’s good. They’re always good. Read some of their past articles too: they’ve (including singly) always been right on the money, unlike every single mainstream writer.
“There isn’t actually any information in it on which a smart person would hang an argument. If there is, I missed it. Feel free to point out anything you think makes a case.”
You don’t have to have actually read the article to make a comment like that. It’s a clever diversion from the hypothesis that I raised however, I will give you that.
Qetesh the Abyssinian, on the other hand, appears to have at least interacted with the article, somewhat isolated and out of context though the items he’s picked seem to be.
I won’t hold that against Qetesh because he’s shown at least a modicum of willingness to leave the choir directors that have been preaching to his choir long enough to see what folks on the other side are singing about. You automatically dismiss it as a cacophony before listening long enough to even begin to recognize the song their singing. I applaud Qetesh. But you seem cool too, apparently just a little afraid to dig into material that isn’t a mirror showing your own reflection.
[…] the impressions of most human observers including potential sexual partners, solace is provided by the reliable Mr. Crittenden of the Boston Herald, who points out the suspicious prominence, in the MSM, of the story about Iran and the so-called […]